The way that you use it: full circle feedback can build better organizations with the right approach. (Human Resources).

Performance reviews take on many different guises. One of the more popular manifestations is the 360-degree evaluation. Organizations across Canada have adopted it as a way to better the performance of key employees. No one approach to its use is a panacea, but each approach can open up new forms of communication among employees.

Karim Mamdani, for instance, was surprised when he received the results of his first 360-degree performance evaluation as corporate controller for Toronto-based University Health Network (UHN).

"When I started here I was concerned about some of the financial controls in place throughout the organization and I came in intending to strengthen them," Mamdani explains. "I thought we were all on the same page until the 360 revealed that one department head found my approach overly bureaucratic."

Mamdani used this feedback as an opportunity to further discuss the new controls with the department head. "We basically got on well, and since he had agreed to have his views identified (in most 360s the respondents remain anonymous), it gave me an opportunity to go back to him and explain why we were making changes. Our conversation helped to resolve the tensions and he has since become one of the stronger advocates of internal controls."

In a 360-degree review, the subject's performance is evaluated by peers and subordinates, as well as managers. Internal and external clients are also asked to respond, where appropriate. A self-assessment completes the circle. Feedback is graphed, allowing easy visual comparison of the input from various groups and between those groups and the self-assessment. 360-degree reviews have been part of the performance evaluation system at UHN for the past two years. There, respondents are asked whether they want their feedback to be anonymous or attributed.

While inmost workplaces anonymity is a cornerstone of 360, UHN believes that there is added benefit when 360 subjects can approach respondents for clarification--Mamdani's situation being a good case in point. And although 360 is an intrinsic part of their performance management system, it's not linked to compensation.

"We do 360 in the sprit of development because it could be seen as pumtive if it was tied to remuneration," says Emma Pavlov, UHN vice-president of human resources and organizational development.

Toronto-based 360 expert Timothy Bentley agrees. "In my experience, most organizations use 360 as a development tool but whatever the goal it is essential that they are clear about their objectives and communicate them to employees," he says. "I have heard of situations where the organization changed boats in mid-stream, going from a development rationale to a more formal evaluation that was much more risky for participants. It's impossible for employees to feel safe in these kinds of situations."

Perceived risks

A former executive coach and business consultant, Bentley and his partner Esther Kohn-Bentley, designed the first online 360-degree application in 1998. PanoramicFeedback.com is one of the world's leading 360 service providers with clients such as Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Time Warner Cable, Wells Fargo and governments in Canada and the United States.

Bentley says that the organizational culture must embrace learning to reap the benefits of 360. "Organizational readiness is imperative because you can't impose honesty," he says. "It is crucial that the organization be prepared for 360 and the single most important group that has to be onside is the leadership."

Rogers Communications Inc. began 360 performance reviews with the leadership team in its cable division in 1999. In the first year participation was voluntary, after which it became mandatory. "Our entire cable leadership team--vice-presidents, directors and managers--go through the 360 process once a year and it is tied to their performance rating," says Sofia Theodorou, director of organizational development.

"The biggest perceived risk with 360 is confidentiality," says Theodorou. Like Rogers, many companies outsource the 360 process to help participants feel comfortable that the information they share and receive is completely anonymous. "We decided it was best to have a third party handle this process and that was a huge win because it raised the confidence level. After all, this is very sensitive information that, if put in the wrong hands, could be career making or breaking."

Ninety per cent of the gain from 360 comes from how it is positioned, says Theodorou. "With us, although it was positioned for developmental purposes only, you can bet we received a lot of calls asking to see reports. We responded that we would never break confidentiality because we could never re-earn the trust of our employees. That element is absolutely crucial."

Theodorou sees the Rogers cable division as a leader in performance evaluation among the Rogers group of companies. "While other divisions access the tool on a request basis, cable is the only company that uses 360 as part of the performance evaluation process.

One Rogers employee who has been through the 360 process is CMA Carol Ring, vice-president and general manager for Rogers Cable in eastern Ontario.

"The feedback I received showed that I needed to explore my relationship with my peers," says Ring. "They were rating me lower overall than my manager or subordinates. When I reflected on this I realized that they see me in a meeting environment as opposed to working one-on-one or in small groups. So I changed my behaviour in meetings to demonstrate my skills in a more assertive manner and determined to work with them more closely as individuals."

Opening up

Ring says that acting as a respondent for the 360 reviews of colleagues has given her a greater appreciation of their strengths. "You don't usually think about the performance of other people unless it directly affects you but when you sit down and think about it you get a better sense of the level they are working at."

Mamdani finds that 360 fosters better relationships across the organization. "People become much more responsive to clients outside of their functional departments because everyone they deal with will have an opportunity to give feedback. And so it helps you realize that you belong to the organization as a whole."

Is there a risk that respondents may be purposely negative when providing feedback? Scott Borland is a Vancouver-based consultant with Cygnus Management Consultants who has provided online 360 applications to several clients. "In most cases people intend to provide honest feedback but I have seen occasions where the comments were highly negative or sarcastic," he notes. "It's important when debriefing to look at where these come from."

Borland adds that pre-360 training can help set the stage for a successful process. "My philosophy is that 360 is a structured way of starting the conversation. In the best of all possible worlds you won't need 360 forever because people will be more comfortable with fuce-to-fuce dialogue. These skill sets can be developed through training and with experience."

According to Emma Pavlov, UHN employees have not used 360 in a negative or unkind manner. "That's not to say, though, that some people don't have difficulty digesting the truth when they receive their report," she says. "But we try to do it in a way that is respectful of everyone involved."

As part of developing the culture of respect for learning, it is advisable that 360 subjects thank those who give them feedback. Leaders can set an excellent example by making all employees aware of the feedback they receive and how they will respond to it.

Charles Pascal has been doing exactly that for over 30 years. As a former college president and a deputy minister in the Ontario government, Pascal regularly requested feedback from a representative sample of employees. "After I received the results I would always thank participants (although I never knew exactly who had given feedback) and say, 'here's what I learned and this is what I will do about it.' Closing the loop in this way is very useful."

It can also be valuable for employees to get a sense of what the organization as a whole has learned from the 360 process, says Timothy Bentley. "An aggregate report that doesn't identify individuals but does indicate where the organization needs to develop its staff supports the experience of continuous learning that is key to 360."

Starting out

An excellent starting point for organizations considering 360 is with a review of the competencies for each position. The 360 questionnaire should always be customized to an organization's specific needs and must ensure that the competencies measured arc relevant to the job in question. "If the behaviours and attributes being measured don't correlate to the actual demands of the subject's job the feedback won't be useful," says Scott Borland. "There's no point in measuring the person's ability to work as part of a team, for example, if the job is solitary in nature. I often see companies using popular catchwords that have no particular application to their own environment or business goals."

An easy-to-use 360 system will also contribute positively to the process. Sofia Theodorou says that Rogers learned to simplify its questionnaires and reports after its first experience with 360. While some organizations still use hard copy systems, online applications such as PanoramicFeedback.com can make the task easier by integrating with the organization's human resources software, prompting respondents via e-mail, allowing online submission of feedback and generating reports the minute the last respondent has submitted. This way, documents can also be processed in an off-site secure environment. This third party relationship may contribute to employee confidence in 360. Alternately, Charles Pascal suggests selecting an employee who is widely respected as the recipient and distributor of all feedback

Bentley recommends that no organization undertake 360 without first carefully thinking about its commitment to lifelong learning for the organization and its employees. "The best feedback tool in the world cannot substitute for a process that is carefully planned and carried through with sensitivity and wisdom."

Paddy Kamen is an Ottawa-based freelance writer.