A recent survey showed that three-quarters of organizations that use 360-degree feedback plan to maintain or increase its use in years to come. And most intend to maintain or expand their 360 budget.
Those are conclusions reached in a report called Current Practices in 360 Feedback, produced for 3D Group by Dale Rose and Jesse Biringer. Because they also collected usage statistics in 2002, 2004, 2009, 2013, and 2016, the current results (collected in 2019) can help indicate trends.
These survey results may inspire you to think about how to fine-tune your own use of 360.
Strategy
Crucially, the research shows that while in the past 360-degree feedback was often a localized, stand-alone initiative, these days it is increasingly employed to support the organization’s strategic purposes. Organizations have embraced the use of both individual and group reports to provide data they need for big-picture decision-making.
Most now describe 360 as an essential element of their talent management, career development, coaching, or succession programs.
By far the most common focus is to help employees develop their skills. Less and less is 360-degree feedback used to make decisions about pay and promotion. Organizations have discovered that such economic motivations often lead to inaccurate results.
There has been a dramatic increase in the number of junior managers and individual contributors who are being assessed by 360. In the past, they were often ignored in favor of executives and the senior management group.
The most common frequency is to assess individuals every two years.
Setup
Four out of 5 organizations involve an external vendor or consultant in their 360 projects. That allows them access to specialized knowledge they lack in-house. Crucially, it also helps reduce people’s anxiety about their data being seen by other personnel, for instance in the Human Resources department.
Ninety percent of questionnaires today are web-based. The use of paper questionnaires appears to be limited to workers such as truckers, fast food employees, and others who don’t have access to a company email account or computers.
Responders
Most commonly, Responders are selected not by HR or the Subjects’ managers, but by the Subjects themselves. Generally, however, they are required to consult with their managers, to be certain they don’t select only those who would provide positively biased results.
One surprise in the survey was that although pre-survey education of Subjects and Responders are increasingly adopted (currently by 89% of the organizations), it tends to be presented not in person but via text. That means, for instance, that there is very little interactive training for Responders on how to phrase their comments so that they don’t alienate the Subject.
