360 DEGREE APPRAISAL IN ABC CORPORATION

OBJECTIVE

360 Degree Feedback is a system or process in which employees receive confidential,

anonymous feedback from the people who work around them. This typically includes the

employee's manager, peers, and direct reports. A mixture of about eight to twelve people fill

out an anonymous online feedback form that asks questions covering a broad range of

workplace competencies. The feedback forms include questions that are measured on a rating

scale and also ask raters to provide written comments. The person receiving feedback also

fills out a self-rating survey that includes the same survey questions that others receive in

their forms.

Managers and leaders within organizations use 360 feedback surveys to get a better

understanding of their strengths and weaknesses. The 360 feedback system automatically

tabulates the results and presents them in a format that helps the feedback recipient create a

development plan. Individual responses are always combined with responses from other

people in the same rater category (e.g. peer, direct report) in order to preserve anonymity and

to give the employee a clear picture of his/her greatest overall strengths and weaknesses.

360 Feedback can also be a useful development tool for people who are not in a management

role. Strictly speaking, a "non-manager" 360 assessment is not measuring feedback from 360

degrees since there are no direct reports, but the same principles still apply. 360 Feedback for

non-managers is useful to help people be more effective in their current roles, and also to

help them understand what areas they should focus on if they want to move into a

management role.

NEED FOR THE TOPIC

Performance appraisals are essential for the effective management and evaluation of staff. Appraisals help develop individuals, improve organizational performance, and feed into business planning. Formal performance appraisals are generally conducted annually for all staff in the organization. Each staff member is appraised by their line manager. Directors are appraised by the CEO, who is appraised by the chairman or company owners, depending on the size and structure of the organization.

Annual performance appraisals enable management and monitoring of standards, agreeing expectations and objectives, and delegation of responsibilities and tasks. Staff performance appraisals also establish individual training needs and enable organizational training needs analysis and planning.

Performance appraisals also typically feed into organizational annual pay and grading reviews, which commonly also coincides with the business planning for the next trading year.

Performance appraisals generally review each individual's performance against objectives and standards for the trading year, agreed at the previous appraisal meeting.

Performance appraisals are also essential for career and succession planning - for individuals, crucial jobs, and for the organization as a whole.

Performance appraisals are important for staff motivation, attitude and behaviour development, communicating and aligning individual and organizational aims, and fostering positive relationships between management and staff.

Performance appraisals provide a formal, recorded, regular review of an individual's performance, and a plan for future development.

Job performance appraisals - in whatever form they take - are therefore vital for managing the performance of people and organizations.

Managers and appraisees commonly dislike appraisals and try to avoid them. To these people the appraisal is daunting and time-consuming. The process is seen as a difficult administrative chore and emotionally challenging. The annual appraisal is maybe the only time since last year that the two people have sat down together for a meaningful one-to-one discussion. No wonder then that appraisals are stressful - which then defeats the whole purpose.

Q

Q 1 Must an agency use all of the sources of rating information to be considered using a 360-degree or “full circle” program?

Ans No. These terms (360-degree, full circle, etc.) mean using the variety of sources that provide the best picture of performance. Therefore, for example, an agency may use supervisor, self, and customer input to supplement the rating official’s appraisal in one division’s program. Another division of the same agency with “self-directed teams” may use peer, self, and subordinate ratings to obtain the most useful input.

Q 2 Can an agency guarantee confidentiality and protect privacy? How should an agency respond to a Freedom of Information Act demand for a specific peer or subordinate rating in a program that assures anonymity?

Ans If the tool used to collect appraisal input from multiple sources contains the names of theappraisers with their comments, and that information is filed into the Employee Performance File (EPF), the employee is entitled to see that information, even if the program assures anonymity. If, however, the tool used does not retain the names of appraisers with data and only the final, aggregate results are filed into the EPF (e.g., a computerized program is used that averages appraiser input and provides the results only), anonymity can be guaranteed because there is no data retained that is identifiable per appraiser.

Q 3 Can employees file a grievance against a peer or subordinate appraiser?Ans Employees can grieve many aspects of the appraisal process, including the process

used to determine the final rating of record and the appraisal of individual elements. If the tool used to gather the multiple-source input retains appraiser names with their rating or comments, the employee can file a grievance against a peer or subordinate. If, however, the data is anonymous and an average rating is derived from the aggregate rating of all appraisers, the employee cannot file a grievance against only one of them.