360-Degree Feedback--Better for Organizational Performance Reviews / Follower Alienation- Effects and Remedies

Hello everyone and welcome back to the next installment of my blog! Today’s blog features two sections; 360-Degree Feedback and Follower Alienation. These two topics are critical for leadership success so let us dive right in to the discussion!

360-Degree Feedback—Better for Organizational Performance Reviews?

Let me begin this section with some personal background information. I have been in a leadership role for over 24 years. My experience spans across for-profit, non-profit, military organizations, sales organizations, and even parent volunteer organizations. This blog will feature my opinion on whether the 360-degree multi-rater feedback is really better than a boss-based assessment. In addition, I will provide my opinion, based on my experience, on whether I would elect to use 360-degree multi-rater feedback.

Before discussing the specifics on 360-degree feedback verse boss-based assessment, I believe it is important to disclose this simple fact—no system will ever be perfect! There will always be those that agree and those that disagree with any performance feedback system put in place. This is just human nature. The key is to do your based, based on knowledge and experience, to perform your leadership responsibilities taking into account what is best for the organization.

“360-degree feedback is a performance appraisal approach that uses input from an employee's supervisors, colleagues, subordinates-and, sometimes, even suppliers and customers” (Pfau, 2002).The basic premise of 360-degree feedback is that “the people who work most closely with an employee see that person’s behavior in settings and circumstances that a supervisor may not” (Pfau, 2002). Now, as a supervisor, it is the primary responsibility to conduct performance reviews. 360-degree feedback is not a tool to simply delegate and side-step leadership responsibilities. This tool is used to enhance and provide additional resources to give an accurate representation of the employee. “Rather than relying on the perceptions or feedback of single individual, the multi-rated feedback derives multiple perceptions from different angles which bring a broader overview of an employee’s performance” (Hosain, 2016). Given in the right format, and under the proper tonality, 360-degree feedback would be beneficial. Let me elaborate.

“The most important aspect to consider when preparing for a feedback session is to routinely observe the performance of the rate” (Air Force Occupational Measurement Squadron, 2007 pg. 266). If the supervisor has the ability to perform routine observations, than this performance perception should be given the highest weight in determining ratings. However, not every supervisor in an organization can observe all their employees, all the time. If this is the case, the supervisor should make every effort to garner the opinion of others around the employee. Of course, before an organization implements such a program, training should be introduced to discuss how to properly provide feedback, whether feedback is positive or negative. In addition, supervisor have to give “weight” to the feedback and take into account other people biases.

I would recommend the implementation of 360-degree performance feedback if situation warrants. If implemented correctly, and with the right intent, 360-degree feedback can be a powerful tool in the supervisor toolbox. “360-degree feedback can be a powerful organizational intervention to increase awareness of the importance of aligning behavior, work unit performance and customer expectations; as well as increasing participation in leadership development and work effectiveness” (Hosain, 2016).

Follower Alienation- Effects and Remedies

Vertical Dyadic Linkage Theory examines how leaders form one-on-one relationships with followers, and how these often create in-groups and out-groups within the leader’s work unit (Lussier & Achua, 2013).  The in-group includes followers with strong social ties to their leader in a supportive relationship characterized by high mutual trust, respect, loyalty, and influence (Lussier & Achua, 2013). Out-group influences followers with few or no social ties to their leader, in a strictly task-centered relationship characterized by low exchange and top-down influence (Lussier & Achua, 2013). So how does this affect unit morale?

Let us analyze this picture above. It shows a sports team with an obvious split. On the one side you have your in-group. On the other, an alienated person in the out-group.  What emotions does this picture conjure up? Does this look like a positive situation for the team? Some characteristics of out-groups include receiving little inspiration, encouragement, or recognition. When a person is treated in such a manner, they will not participate 100% to the team. Alienated followers are; low on involvement yet are high on critical thinking; feel cheated or unappreciated; are capable but unwilling to participate in developing solutions to problems(Lussier & Achua, 2013). Does any of these indications sound positive to an organization? Having members on the team who do not contribute creates negative productivity and lost opportunities. Let us analyze a situation of alienated followers.

The local charter school where I volunteer has only been in operation for a couple of years. During the first year, a Parent Advisory Council (PAC) was created to organize parent volunteers. The PAC organized functions, events, and fundraising activities. Originally, being a new school, the PAC was comprised of only 13 members. As the year continued on, the number decreased to eight. At the start of the second year, my daughter started her enrollment and I volunteered to be a PAC member. What became evident is that the PAC was separated into groups; those that were in the in-group and were personal friends of the PAC president and those that were in the out-group.

The in-group scheduled meetings at their homes and organized functions just within the group. The out-group was never encouraged to attend or participate. What I soon came to realize is that the in-group PAC members treated the organization like a social club and did not have the best intentions in mind. In alienating new parents, a vast resource was lost. Imagine the skills, enthusiasm, and volunteer hours lost by not recruiting additional parents. Imagine the amount of activities and events that could have been achieved had we worked as one unit, not a separated one. So how should the PAC leader treated this situation differently?

An organization is usually created to achieve a mission. Whether it is to sell goods, provide services, or other reasons, an organization is formed for a reason. It is up to leadership to guide the organization to achieve this mission as effectively and efficiently as possible. The leader must act with the organizational best interest in mind. As for the PAC, embracing this concept of leadership effectiveness, the president should have recruited and solicited volunteers to help serve. This solicitation should have been sincere and with the right intentions. The potential new members should have been welcomed, embraced for their volunteerism. In doing so, the PAC president could have recruited and developed effective followers.

Effective followers (Lussier & Achua, 2013):

-          Are high on critical thinking and involvement

-          Are not risk-adverse nor do they shy from conflict

-          Have the courage to initiate change

-          Serve the best interest of the organization

-          Tend to function very well in self-managed teams

-          Complement the leader’s efforts and can be relied upon the relive the leader of many tasks

The irony is that, after the PAC drove away any potential volunteers to help, at the end of year they complained of burn out and lack of activities. In essence, they were their own worst enemy.

Damien

References

Air Force Occupational Measurement Squadron. (2007). Professional development guide- AF pamphlet 36-2241. Randolph AFB TX: US Air Force.

Hosain, S. (2016). 360 degree feedback as a technique of performance appraisal: Does it really work? Asian Business Review, 6(13), 21-25.

Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2013). Leadership: Theory, application, & skill development (5th ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage/Thomson South-Western.

Pfau, B. (2002). Does 360-degree feedback negatively affect company performance? HR MAgazine, 47(6), 54-60.