Introduction
The effective work of any organization comes down to the need to monitor and evaluate employees’ actions. In this regard, performance management (PM) systems are an integral feature of personnel policy (Smither & London, 2009). However, in each case, this policy must be adjusted to the requirements of a particular structure, and therefore there are widely different varieties of PM systems. One of these types, which I am most interested in, is the 360-degree performance appraisal system, which appeared in the 1980s as an alternative to existing approaches (GörĂĽn et al., 2018). Accordingly, this paper aims to examine the components of this system and compare them to an ideal PM process to identify the positives and negatives.
The 360-Degree Appraisal System
Traditional approaches to evaluation and management primarily consist of surveys. These measures are usually carried out irregularly and non-systematic, making practical evaluation challenging (TechFunnel, 2021). In addition, surveys of random employees do not provide a complete picture of what is happening. Following this, the 360-degree system polls specific people and their environment at different levels (White, 2019). In the context of workers’ productivity, this allows gaining a perspective from their peers’ perspectives. This approach allows the method to obtain data from various sources and dramatically contributes to the professional development. The main factor in favor of this is the highlighting of performance deficiencies by colleagues, which contributes to increased motivation at work (GörĂĽn et al., 2018). The desire to make amends for noticed mistakes is a strong motivator to start growing professionally.
In addition, the 360-degree appraisal system allows for improving other characteristics of workers. They include leadership qualities, work planning, and goal setting (White, 2019). Often shortcomings in work are associated with the lack of a clear plan or an insufficiently effective procedure. These details are much easier to notice from the outside than in introspection, so using a 360-degree system in this context is incredibly effective. Therefore, when implementing a PM-like system, the human resource (HR) department expects to increase self-awareness and promote individual development (Church et al., 2018). By gathering information from different levels, the HR department can draw the correct conclusions about the actual performance and put forward requirements following this information.
Thus, the main task of this system is the massive collection of data that complement each other and reflect the actual performance from several perspectives. In other words, this tool allows for assessing the organization’s condition through objective feedback (GörĂĽn et al., 2018). The HR department can manage critical skills by evaluating the information received and relaying it to the employee. In addition, the activities carried out within this PM model are directly related to strategic planning. First of all, assessing the state of the entire organization using a large number of sources allows for making the most relevant strategic decisions (GörĂĽn et al., 2018). Secondly, identifying workers’ strengths makes it possible to use them as new opportunities, and identifying weaknesses allows timely reform of the strategy (Church et al., 2018). Finally, the introduction of such a PM system provides ample opportunities for quality control, which is extremely important in the context of the overall strategy of the organization.
The specific implementation of the 360-degree feedback system may differ depending on the applied technological methods, but the general framework remains the same. This methodology begins with designing and developing an intervention, which is then implemented in an organization to collect data (Church et al., 2018). The information collection process includes interviewing people around the employee at different levels, from managers to customers (GörĂĽn et al., 2018). The gathered details are then analyzed and returned as feedback to workers. Based on this information, a plan of further action is formed and implemented by various methods, depending on the identified advantages and disadvantages. The characteristic features of this process are its continuity, which distinguishes it from standard research (White, 2019). This allows employees to be constantly aware of their position in the organization’s context and to carry out a process of continuous improvement.
Thus, the 360-degree appraisal system has many positive aspects that distinguish it favorably from the traditional approaches. However, a careful evaluation of this framework is needed, which, despite its popularity, cannot be called the ideal PM method. An ideal system has several theoretical qualities to achieve the best result. First of all, such a framework should be continuous, effectively tracking performance changes (Smither & London, 2009). Secondly, the PM system must correspond to all the organization’s strategic goals. In addition, it must maintain a balance between the practicality of application, the fullness of meaning, reliability, and honesty.
It should be noted that the 360-degree system intersects with the ideal theoretical process in many ways, and it is these intersections that make this process more efficient. For example, this method involves a continuous process of evaluating and monitoring performance and a high level of validity and inclusiveness through many sources (Smither & London, 2009). The presence of employee surveys at all levels allows for obtaining complete information and conducting the most objective assessment of current performance. In addition, the 360-degree system corresponds to a theoretical process, starting with preparation and ending with performance upgrades and changes in implementation (Smither & London, 2009). Thus, the popularity of this system is deserved by the presence of many key points that contribute to its effectiveness.
However, several significant drawbacks prevent calling the 360-degree approach ideal. There is a high risk of unethical data being collected since there are no guarantees that respondents will not relay their subjective opinion (Smither & London, 2009). In other words, workers are, in some sense, pitted against each other, which creates an unhealthy environment (Hearn, 2018). In addition, even from a theoretical perspective, this system cannot be called highly efficient and fast. To analyze the organization’s performance, it is necessary to interview 7-12 times more employees than the total number of workers. Such an operation is complicated and takes a tremendous amount of time. Thus, the system’s efficiency can be significantly reduced, especially in conditions of poor technical implementation.
To correct the identified shortcomings and bring the 360-degree system closer to an ideal format, it is first necessary to provide a more high-tech implementation of its principles. One can use modern big data technologies that allow efficient and quick processing of arrays of information. In addition, the process of collecting feedback should also be automated to reduce polling time. Moreover, every employee needs to know the basics of issuing the proper comments for feedback to be beneficial. They should include both praise and criticism of shortcomings in an ethically correct manner. (Smither & London, 2009). Only by ensuring transparency, fair data processes, and a positive atmosphere can the most significant progress be made in assessing and monitoring performance.
Conclusion
Thus, the 360-degree appraisal system is an effective PM method that has earned its popularity due to its proximity to the ideal model. It has many intersections with theory in its principles and compliance with the primary key elements. However, it must be understood that this system also has many disadvantages. Therefore, combining this system with new technologies and a socially responsible approach is necessary to achieve maximum success. An efficient, flexible, and strategically relevant performance assessment and management is possible in this case.
References
Church, A. H., Dawson, L. M., Barden, K. L., Fleck, C. R., Rotolo, C. T., & Tuller, M. (2018). Enhancing 360-degree feedback for individual assessment and organization development: Methods and lessons from the field. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 26, 47–97. Web.
Görün, M., Kayar, İ., & Varol, B. (2018). 360-degree performance appraisal and feedback system: A study with heads of departments in Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 17(4), 1425-1437. Web.
Hearn, S. (2018). 8 reasons 360-degree feedback fails. Clear Review. Web.
Smither, J. W., & London, M. (Eds.) (2009). Performance management: Putting research into action. Jossey-Bass.
TechFunnel. (2021). Performance management system – A complete guide. Web.
White, D. (2019). What is a 360-Degree performance appraisal in HRM? TechFunnel. Web.