Use and Misuse of 360 Degree Feedback

Use and Misuse of 360 Degree Feedback
The first program using 360 Degree Feedback methodology was initiated at IIMA in 1986as soon as I returned from XLRI after setting up the HRD Centre at XLRI and started the NHRDN I wanted to start a program to help Indian managers to get an insight into their styles. Dr. Udai Pareek and my studies at the National Institute of Health Administration has sponsored by the Indian council of Medical Research in late sixties and early seventies established that most teachers are not aware of their classroom behaviour styles (Directive or Non-directive). A few of them who thought that they are directive turned out be non-directive and in a few cases the reverse. The studies also showed that non–directive teachers encouraged initiative and produced children who were more adjusted to the school and directive teachers produced children who were high in studied (a theme touched very well in the film 3 idiots). My work with David McClelland (Harvard Psychologist) and Abigail Stewart (now at the University of Michigan) indicated that Indian managers exhibited three styles: Benevolent or paternalistic, critical or theory X type and Developmental or what I called as HRD style. As I started participating in ISABS programs and facilitated its work using T-Group methodology I started questioning why we feel shy of collecting known person and attach such high credibility to feedback from strangers in the T-Groups. In addition both at IIMA and at XLRI whenever we conducted programs using instruments like FIRO-B or leadership styles questionnaires mangers sued to comment how wonderful it would be if they also get assessed by others who know them. It is these four types of experiences that have influenced me to start an innovative program on “leadership styles and Organizational effectiveness” When I submitted this proposal to OB area in IIMA, my colleagues encouraged me to launch this program. In fact Prof. Pradip Khandwalla whose Management Styles questionnaire extensively sued in Canada was getting popular in India also showed his interest in working with me as team member and J. P. Singh also volunteered tos rudy decision making styles. A couple of years latter Prof. Rmnarayan joined. The program was announced three months in advance. Participants were expected to register several weeks in advance and also give us a list of 15 to 20 people who worked with them and whose feedback they value. These are to be drawn from juniors, seniors, colleagues etc. We limited the participation to top level managers. In the first program we had people like K. L. Chug, Mahendra Agarwal, Anil Sachdeva, H. N. Arora etc. It was big success. We had about sixty participants but as we had to collect and process lot of data we took only a third of them and kept the remaining for the subsequent programs. That is how the first Leadership development program using 360 Degree Feedback methodology began.
In early nineties we came to know that what we have been doing at IIMA was christened as 360 Degree feedback. Since then we have been using this term. Seeing the results we got I have started promoting this methodology intensely since the time started TVRLS. My colleagues at IIMA also continued to sue this. Now it is very popular.
I think that 360 DF should not be used as an appraisal tool. It should not be sued as an administrative tool t all. I have continuously professed and even refused to take up assignments where the top management desired to have access to individual data from us. We have maintained that the primary and even the sole owner of the 360 feedback should be the candidate himself and not the HR department.
However I find that some HR managers are violating this rule. Some consultants also violate this rule. I strongly believe that designing and providing 360 feedback should be done by Behavioural scientists. It needs a lot of psychological insights. You need to prepare both the assessor and the assessee. The assessor needs to be assured of anonymity the assessee needs to know that it a feedback of the chemistry. We in fact caution every candidate that goes through 360 as follows:
 All assessments of people by other people are subjective. Hence, 360-degree feedback can be as subjective as any other assessment. However, it is the aggregate feedback and consistency in feedback that tends to make it more objective.
 360 DF should be used as indicative and reflected upon.
 360 DF could also be provocative. The candidate should use this for review, reflection and action.
 The action plans worked out as an outcome of the feedback, should primarily be directed at empowering self and changing oneself where necessary.
 Even if one has to change others, it requires change in oneself: ones approach, attitude, communication etc.
 360 DF should be used to empower the self and used the enhanced awareness to become a more effective leader.
(As given in the manual for Leadership development through 360 Degree Feedback by TVRLS)
The misuse of 360 tools to reward people and to place people etc. is likely to lead in Indians settings to devaluation of this tool. This in my view is likely damage the image and credibility of the HR Managers and department. It is because the moment it is used for promotions and high rewards the users get tempted to use it for personal furtherance. In one of the gulf countries when I went to lecture I was confronted with by a group of senior managers who said that certain consultants in that country conducted 360 Degree Feedback and passed on the data to the top management. The top management sued the same to terminate the services of some of their employees. I think it is the inexperienced, commercially driven and immature consultants and HR Managers who are likely to resort to such misuse and do damage to the profession.
Blog by Prof. T. V. Rao