Introduction
The goal of surveying the employees is to ascertain how well they perform at their job. This task presupposes meeting several conditions, which are necessary for the objective and comprehensive assessment. The survey structure should be multivariate with different angles of looking at the employees’ performance. Not only should their work productivity be analyzed, but their communicative skills should also be taken into account.
To assess the organization, the Typeform survey was used. Typeform is an online group that provides services including evaluations of firms, employees, and management. The survey itself is a product of a group’s collaboration, which is directed at analyzing organizations, people, supervisors, their performance, and communication. Due to Typeform’s online availability, the survey can be conducted at any point by any user.
Typeform survey was chosen over other options for three reasons. First, it is a free tool, which provides a sample without the necessity to register or limitations on the number of uses (Free 360 Degree Feedback Form Template, n.d.). Second, it meets the criteria for choosing the instruments for conducting evaluations by being easily accessible, highly personalized, and quick in producing results (Fleenor et al., 2008). Third, its choice of departments for the survey subjects suits the organization. Altogether, Typeform is an adequate and free tool for organizing a 360-degree survey.
Self-Evaluation
Typeform survey used an extensive range of options for evaluating a person who uses it. It starts with the type of work the surveyor is doing. There are eight departments that Typeform has registered – Administration, Finance, Human Resources, IT, Marketing, Production, Research and Development, and Sales. Then it requests to input the number of people in the team and the position the surveyor is occupying. There are nine hierarchy levels available – Intern, Trainee, Assistant, Junior, Senior, Lead, Manager, Director, and Executive.
Self-evaluation itself entails several statements, to which a surveyor has to give answers based on how much he agrees or disagrees. There are five answers, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. The first statement is about how thoroughly the surveyor follows established processes and procedures. The second one covers expertise in the job field. The third statement entails meeting deadlines and task achievement. Then, the level of communication is measured, specifically how often the surveyor asks for feedback.
The fifth statement evaluates creativity and openness to new ideas. Afterward, the surveyor has to state how committed they are to the organization. The next statement is about the consistency of exceeding the team’s expectations and accomplishing one’s own goals. Finally, the surveyor is asked to rate their overall job performance on the count of one to five. The survey concludes by asking the user to write their strongest and weakest points in the job.
The survey was useful for self-assessment and reflection on one’s blind spots. In particular, I have found that I am not passionate about the organization. This revelation was eye-opening because it explained why my leadership had not been effective. I realized that I should pay more attention to the firm’s mission and how well the team understands it. The second area of improvement is setting the appropriate example. I have found that by missing the deadlines myself, I encourage complacency among the team members. For the subordinates to be motivated, they have to see their superiors be no less committed.
Evaluation of Supervisors
Typeform has a separate section dedicated to assessing a supervisor. However, its content is largely the same as for the surveyor. The major difference is that the user now has to agree or disagree with statements about the supervisor. Some question differences are also present, which manifest in the organizational side. Whereas in the surveyor’s case, their ability to work was evaluated, in the case of a supervisor, the focus is shifted to their ability to manage their subordinates.
The results showed the supervisor to be a person passionate about the organization’s success, yet not punctual. The survey praised their communication skills, indicating that they are willing to share and receive feedback from the team. This is a mostly accurate assessment because the supervisor is indeed a sociable person with enthusiasm for the firm’s activities. However, the conclusion that they do not respect the deadlines is not correct as the supervisor constantly changes rather than fails to meet them.
Overall, according to the survey result, there are two areas of improvement for the supervisor. First, they ought to pay more attention to the time limit and organize the teamwork accordingly. Second, the supervisor should stop the practice of treating the deadlines as easily amendable because it discredits the organization’s ability to work efficiently. Improving these areas would help the supervisor strengthen discipline and increase efficiency.
Survey Improvements
Typeform survey has two major drawbacks, the first of which is the exclusive nature of efficiency and communication. The authors seem to believe that constant interactions with coworkers harm work productivity. This is not a correct dichotomy, as survey stakeholders should recognize the importance of honest communication in colleagues’ cooperation (Fleenor et al., 2008). It would be better for the survey to have a different question, which would assess how effective the workers’ communication is to the overall performance.
The second problem with the survey is the apparent fusion of the team’s expectations and personal goals. One of the queries has a subject evaluate how well they fulfill their ambitions and perform according to what their coworkers expect at the same time. Combining these distinct attributes blurs the results of the survey by framing personal and collective goals as the same. A more accurate approach would be to make different statements evaluating how much personal ambition corresponds with team expectations.
Applying 360-degree Surveys to the Organization
The most prominent issue with surveying the organization is the biased attitude of the surveyor. Whether they realize it or not, they have certain predispositions towards their colleagues and superiors. Moreover, evaluating how well a worker performs at their job is a highly subjective matter. Personal beliefs will invariably cloud the judgment of the surveyor (Fleenor et al., 2008). Subsequently, the credibility of the survey results may be severely compromised.
To minimize the impact of personal bias, it is necessary to introduce an impartial observer. Such a person would not be involved in the activities of the organization in any way (Cousar et al., 2020). Moreover, they would have to be prohibited from fraternizing with survey subjects. After having accumulated enough information, they will conduct the evaluation. As a result, the survey results will be free of any subjective input, making them more believable.
References
Cousar, M., Huang, J., Sebro, R., Levin, D., & Prabhakar, H. (2020). Too scared to teach? The unintended impact of 360-degree feedback on resident education. Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology, 49(4), 239-242. Web.
Fleenor, J. W., Taylor, S., & Chappelow, C. (2008). Leveraging the impact of 360-degree feedback. Wiley.
Free 360 Degree Feedback Form Template. (n.d.) Typeform. Web.