|
HR Program Evaluation Templateby Dr John Sullivan - Professor and Head of HR Mgmt at SF State Univ.360� Feedback Business Problem to be solved: The Theory: Department Where Program is Usually Based: Possible Disadvantages / Concerns of the Program: It sounds good but there is no proof it works other than a lot of companies have tried it. It serves as a poor substitute for unassisted 1 on 1 communication and can short circuit natural feedback channels. The need to use it shows how poorly normal communications channels are working. 360 use discourages efforts to "fix" these essential systems. It, like all traditional Perf. App. systems, focus on historical events while businesses must focus on future events. In a rapidly changing world the past may not be the best model to learn from. There is no evidence of a correlation between high 360 scores and high performance. It is time consuming (when done periodically) and managers and EE's learn to hate the time commitment. Little evidence that managers actually listen to EE's opinions. This can actually decrease productivity due to frustration when the EE's realize they have been deceived into thinking their opinions matter. It's subjective not objective. It is based on opinions not behaviors. Popularity is not performance. Opinions are not business results. Opinions serve as a poor substitute for real performance data. Most EE's don't see the big picture so their feedback is based on minutia and gives no real insight into strategic issues. Anonymous processes short circuit the need to develop 1 on 1 communication skills and the ability to provide negative feedback. It is a slow and time consuming process. Respondents are slow to fill out the forms and a skewed response occurs when only the unhappy respond. Anonymity does not allow for encouraging individual non-respondents to participate, resulting in a low response rate. Questions often relate to attitudes and soft skills which are not easily assessed or observed by the average EE. Managers / EE's despise doing additional Perf. App. of any kind. The ROI can be a negative number. Outsourcing the analyzing of the results (because it increases EE confidence in 360 anonymity) often slows the reporting of the results and makes it expensive (some aver. $200 per manager). It allows sensitive company date to be seen by consultants who may compromise it. The process is not "owned' by the managers and they thus learn to treat it as another HR program of the month. It's just another fad. It will not work without top management support and participation. Evaluators do not have copies of the managers job description or performance goals against which to assess their performance. Managers rewards are often not tied to getting excellent 360 assessments. Subjective opinions of managers are influenced by outside factors (general satisfaction, pay increases etc.) which cause results to vary, even though management behavior hasn't. Opinions are not tied to the performance of the individual giving the assessment. This may result in an "averaging" of the opinions of high performers (or large customers) with those of low performers and thus skew the results. Anonymity allows for get even "pot shots' and worker "secret collaboration" on assessments to "get' a tough manager. It discourages managers who are a change agents and "punishes them" for their aggressiveness with feedback resulting from resistance to change. Also anonymity does not automatically result in unbiased opinions. Unions resist it and often claim it is a tool to fool / distract the workers from their unhappiness It makes top management "lazy" because they often stop "managing by walking around." Managers are often not trained on how to interpret and use the 360 feedback. Managers are not trained in how to change and not all managers can change whether they get feedback of not. Many 360 systems survey everyone rather than relying on statistical sampling techniques. Managers feel they are often evaluated by people who have never seen them in action (or seen them at all) or do not understand the nature of management work. If forces managers into making popular decisions rather then tough ones. Perf. App never works whether there is data or not. Managers are promoted on results and / or politics. Workers opinions and 360 will not change that. It's base on an unproven theory that increased feedback results in increased performance. It wastes managers time by requiring them to go to 360 feedback training which they dislike. It asks for problems but it doesn't ask for solutions or show how to solve the problems. No proof that managers with good Perf. App. are more productive then those with bad Perf. App. Often misused as a RIF, promotion or disciplinary tool. Customers can be frustrated when they must waste their time filling out forms, especially when actual performance rarely changes. Nothing actually happens after 360. There are no forced rankings and no one is ever fired or demoted as a result. Eventually this results in the program being dropped. 360 questions are not usually customized to departmental or company needs. EE's are suspicious that 360's are really anonymous and thus are not really honest in their assessments. EE's assume managers will "see them" in the comments and retaliate against them. There is no reward (punishment) for EE participation and spending the time to give honest feedback. EE's are not trained in how to give honest and accurate feedback. Once a year feedback is not sufficient in a rapidly changing world. A form is a poor substitute for a face to face meeting where trust can be built Employees in a rush can "Christmas tree" the form and skew the results. Results are skewed by recent events and are not reflective of performance over the entire period. Most 360 programs are dropped as budgets get tight or as managers tire of the time it takes. It doesn't let the manager "self monitor" their own performance so they can continually improve. Not all managers have enough EE's to make the feedback statistically significant and reasonably anonymous. Picking who to survey is subjective and is difficult in a team environment when teams don't stay intact for long. In an international environment, meeting for feedback sessions is too expensive. Cross cultural / language interpretations are difficult to put into a questionnaire. Questions seldom correlate directly with the required core competencies and thus can confuse managers by sending mixed signals. 360 scores often conflict with other assessment and reward systems. It only makes a difference in "sick" organizations. Well managed companies get better feedback, faster and cheaper using other tools. It's run by psychologists.
Examples of firms that are considering/have tried it: Program Costs/ Development Time Estimates: Development time is long (expect at least 6 months) unless off the shelf vendors are used. Measures of Program Success: Higher EE and customer retention rates. Increased promotion and reward rates for managers with "high" 360 scores and vice versa. High ROI on 360 program (Benefits less costs). Manager / EE / Customer satisfaction with the 360 process. Miscellaneous Notes: -------------------- |
|
