Technology

Although technology has had some negative applications (Rose, English, & Thomas, Reference Rose, English and Thomas2011), it is not debatable that technology has caused a remarkable growth in 360° Feedback utilization. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the introduction of personal computers allowed 360° Feedback data to be analyzed and presented with increased accuracy and at a much larger volume (Bracken, Summers, & Fleenor, Reference Bracken, Summers and Fleenor1998). In that era, feedback recipients typically distributed 20 or so paper surveys to a group of raters along with a postage-paid return envelope that would be sent to a “service bureau” where the surveys would be scanned and then compiled into an individual feedback report. This was a huge improvement in the technology employed for 360° Feedback, and it allowed for significant growth in usage due to the decrease in cost and the ability to scale the process to large numbers of leaders across entire organizations.

The remaining processing challenges that the PC could not quite fix were almost completely cured by the Internet in the early 2000s (Summers, Reference Summers, Bracken, Timmreck and Church2001). For instance, moving from PC to Internet-based processing increased typical survey response rates from 60% when paper surveys were the norm to the present day when it is common to set targets and often achieve response rates of 90% or higher.

The primary advantages of Internet-based tools relate to a remarkable improvement in connectivity and communication: Survey invitations are immediate, reminders can be sent to nonresponders on a regular basis, lost passwords can be easily recovered, and new raters can be easily added. Data quality has also improved considerably with Internet-based tools. Response rates can be monitored and deadlines extended if inadequate data are available to assure confidentiality, data entry errors are limited to the responders themselves, and open-ended comments are longer.

Technology has also created a method to enhance rater accountability, a problem cited by London, Smither, and Adsit (Reference London, Smither and Adsit1997) that has been short on solutions. Beyond immediate notification of rater errors (e.g., incomplete responses), online technologies can also be designed to provide the respondent with immediate feedback on the distribution of his/her ratings and/or notification of “invalid” rating patterns (e.g., extremely high or low rating average, responses all of one value), with the possible suggestion or even requirement to change the ratings. The technology can also “nudge” feedback providers to enter a comment. Costar and Bracken (Reference Costar and Bracken2016) report that rater feedback does cause some respondents to modify their ratings and may contribute to a reduction in leniency error across a population.

Feedback reports can be distributed rapidly and (relative to paper reports) more cheaply on a global scale. Responders can be sorted into rating categories definitively rather than relying on responders to choose the correct relationship to the feedback recipient (for example, it is very common with paper surveys that responders choose “peer” instead of “direct report” when identifying themselves). Last, technology has radically improved the options for analyzing and presenting results.

Follow-Up Support

While improved survey technologies significantly increased usage of 360° Feedback, this growth created the unfortunate byproduct euphemistically known as the “desk drop.” First used in the 1990s in the consulting industry, the “desk drop” approach to 360° Feedback involves collecting the data, compiling the report, and then essentially “dropping it” on a leader's desk with no additional follow-up support (Church & Waclawski, Reference Church and Waclawski2001b; Scott & London, Reference Scott, London, Edwards, Scott and Raju2003). In short, the leader receives no assistance with interpretation, development planning, resources, or follow-up accountability and tracking mechanisms. Although prevalent in the early days of 360° Feedback implementation when the methodology was still new and the focus was more on selling the concept and implementation methods than outcomes (Church & Waclawski, Reference Church and Waclawski1998a), the challenge still exists in practice today. We recently heard of a 360° Feedback process owner at a large corporation admit that 27% of the more than 4,000 managers participating in the program never even downloaded their reports. Although the latest 360° Feedback benchmark research (3D Group, 2013) has indicated that the “desk drop” approach still is used by 7% of organizations, there has been a positive trend report over the last 10 years such that one-on-one coaching support has increased to upward of 70% of companies (3D Group, 2003, 2004, 2009, 2013).

Further, we know from other types of benchmark research focused on senior executive and high-potential assessment efforts (e.g., Church & Rotolo, Reference Church and Rotolo2013; Church, Rotolo, Ginther, & Levine, Reference Church, Rotolo, Ginther and Levine2015; Silzer & Church, Reference Silzer, Church, Silzer and Dowell2010) that top development companies take full advantage of their 360° Feedback programs as well for both development and decision-making (e.g., identification and succession planning) purposes. Finally, as noted earlier, although not the focus of current research per se, the practice literature would suggest that 360° Feedback has become more integrated into ongoing HR, leadership development, and talent management processes and programs more broadly (e.g., Church, Reference Church2014; Church et al., Reference Church, Rotolo, Shull, Tuller, Schneider and Barbera2014b; Effron & Ort, Reference Effron and Ort2010; McCauley & McCall, Reference McCauley and McCall2014; Scott & Reynolds, Reference Scott and Reynolds2010; Silzer & Dowell, Reference Silzer and Dowell2010). Thus, while usage has increased considerably, many companies have recognized the importance of moving beyond the “desk drop,” and they continue to invest in making the review of feedback a thoughtful effort at gaining self-awareness.

Use for Development

As an early innovator and longtime advocate for the power and potential for 360° Feedback to develop leaders, the CCL has always held that feedback is owned only by the feedback recipient and should only be used to guide development (Bracken et al., Reference Bracken, Dalton, Jako, McCauley and Pollman1997; Tornow et al., Reference Tornow, London and Associates1998). The good news for CCL is that their message has been, and continues to be, received: Consistently over the last 10 years, 36% or more of companies report using 360° Feedback exclusively for development (3D Group, 2003, 2013). Although we would argue conceptually that development only is a misnomer (Bracken & Church, Reference Bracken and Church2013), we absolutely agree that 360° Feedback should always be first and foremost a developmental tool. This view lines up with the data that show that 70% to 79% of companies use 360° Feedback for development, though not exclusively for development (3D Group, 2004, 2013). It is, therefore, encouraging that many companies that are looking for a development tool and want to start off with something that feels “safe” may be more inclined to use 360° Feedback as a development only tool.

With the increase in usage for more than just development (3D Group, 2013), it appears that “only” part of the CCL position may be giving way to a “development plus” approach to using feedback results. There can be dangers associated with this assumption and approach as well, particularly if an organization decides to change course or intent in the use of its 360° Feedback program (and data) over time. The risks increase dramatically if rules are changed midstream (and even retroactively) versus applied newly going forward. A number of cases in the OD literature have been written about such challenges (e.g., Church et al., Reference Church, Waclawski, Burke, Bracken, Timmreck and Church2001), and there are ethical, cultural, and even potential legal implications to such decisions. This is why purpose is so important in a 360° Feedback process design. If there is an intent to change from development only to decision making (in a more formal, process driven manner) over time, the content, system, tools, and communications must be designed up front to accommodate this transition.

We firmly believe that there are many situations where 360° Feedback should not be used for decision making due to a lack of readiness, climate, or, frankly, lack of support. For instance, Hardison et al. (Reference Hardison, Zaydman, Oluwatola, Saavedra, Bush, Peterson and Straus2015) reported all branches of the U.S. military use some form of 360° Feedback, but none of them use it for evaluation purposes. They recommended that the military not adopt 360° Feedback for use in decision making moving forward but continue with their use for leadership development.

Sometimes feedback processes are introduced as “development only” and then evolve into systems that support decision making. PepsiCo introduced the upward feedback tool (MQPI, or Manager Quality Performance Index) in 2008, which was specifically divorced from 360° Feedback but aligned to the same process to enable direct input on manager behaviors as rated by direct reports in their performance management system (Bracken & Church, Reference Bracken and Church2013; Church, Rotolo, Shull, & Tuller, Reference Church, Rotolo, Shull, Tuller, Ferdman and Deane2014a). As part of the launch of this feedback process, the tools were clearly separated by purpose. One was linked to leadership development, and the other, directly to the people results component of performance. For the first year of the MQPI, in order to enhance its acceptance, the tool was rolled as a “pilot” where results were delivered to managers but not to their bosses above them or even HR. In other words, Year 1 represented a free feedback year and level setting exercise on the new behaviors. This promise was maintained, and the data were never released. In 2009, the following year, the results were used to inform performance ratings and have been used going forward. Today, the program remains highly successful, with significant pull across all parts of the organization (and an annual cycle of ~10,000 people managers). Many individuals point to that free pilot year and the level of transparency as key enabling factors.

Use for Decision Making

When properly implemented, 360° Feedback has significant value that can extend well beyond self-driven development. Increasingly, 360° Feedback has been used for a wider and wider range of decisions beyond development, including performance management, staffing, promotions, high-potential identification, succession planning, and talent management. For instance, whereas only 27% of companies reported using 360° Feedback for performance management in 2003 (3D Group, 2003), by 2013 the number of companies using it for performance management jumped to 48% (3D Group, 2013). As we will note in more depth below, we believe that the “debate” over proper use of 360° Feedback (Bracken et al., Reference Bracken, Dalton, Jako, McCauley and Pollman1997; London, Reference London, Bracken, Timmreck and Church2001) is over. In addition to the benchmark data noted above, 360° Feedback, as noted earlier, has also become one of the most used forms of assessments for both public and private organizations (Church & Rotolo, Reference Church and Rotolo2013; United States Office of Personnel Management, 2012). Therefore, our efforts should be directed toward finding ways to improve our methodologies and not discussing whether it “works” or not (Smither London, & Reilly, Reference Smither, London and Reilly2005).

Forms of 360° Feedback are being used increasingly for certification of occupations such as that of physician in countries including Great Britain and Canada (Lockyer, Reference Lockyer2013; Wood, Hassell, Whitehouse, Bullock, & Wall, Reference Wood, Hassell, Whitehouse, Bullock and Wall2006). Using studies from those countries, Donnon, Ansari, Alawi, and Violato (Reference Donnon, Al Ansari, Al Alawi and Violato2014) cite 43 studies with feedback from physician peers, coworkers, patients (and families), and self-assessments demonstrating acceptable psychometric properties for use in performance assessment. Ferguson, Wakeling, and Bowie (Reference Ferguson, Wakeling and Bowie2014) examined 16 studies of the effectiveness of 360° Feedback evaluations among physicians in the United Kingdom and concluded that the most critical success factors were the use of credible raters, inclusion of narrative comments, and facilitation of the feedback to influence how the physician responds to the feedback, leading to its acceptance and full use. It is also interesting to see a renewed discussion of threats to the validity of these work-based assessments as they affect physician careers, including opportunity to observe, rater training, assessment content (items), and even rating scales (Massie & Ali, Reference Massie and Ali2016).

Moving Beyond Individual-Level Data

Another way 360° Feedback has evolved is by pushing beyond individual-level data. Although I-O psychologists often look at 360° Feedback as individual-level assessments only, the tool is a highly valuable asset for shaping, driving, and evaluating organizational change (Bracken & Rose, Reference Bracken and Rose2011; Church et al., Reference Church, Rotolo, Shull, Tuller, Ferdman and Deane2014a, Reference Church, Rotolo, Shull, Tuller, Schneider and Barbera2014b; Church et al., Reference Church, Waclawski, Burke, Bracken, Timmreck and Church2001). For example, 360° Feedback content has been used to articulate aspirational, strategically aligned goals throughout the leadership team and then used to evaluate and develop leaders toward those strategically aligned goals (Rose, Reference Rose2011). Other examples include 360° Feedback's role in diversity and culture change efforts (e.g., Church et al., Reference Church, Rotolo, Shull, Tuller, Ferdman and Deane2014a), mergers and acquisitions (e.g., Burke & Jackson, Reference Burke and Jackson1991), and a host of other applications (e.g., Burke, Richley, & DeAngelis, Reference Burke, Richley and DeAngelis1985; Church, Javitch, & Burke, Reference Church, Javitch and Burke1995; Church et al., Reference Church, Walker, Brockner, Church and Waclawski2002; Nowack & Mashihi, Reference Nowack and Mashihi2012).

These are positive signs of the evolution of 360° Feedback as a process and its transition from fad to a well-respected and integrated tool for OD. Along with our efforts to promote best practices in the use of 360° Feedback in support of creating sustainable change (Bracken & Church, Reference Bracken and Church2013; Bracken & Rose, Reference Bracken and Rose2011; Bracken, Timmreck, & Church, Reference Bracken, Timmreck and Church2001), some other notable publications have contributed to the ongoing healthy evolution of 360° Feedback practices. Campion et al.’s (2015) rejoinder to Pulakos et al. (Reference Pulakos, Hanson, Arad and Moye2015) makes some wide-ranging points addressing many of the major talking points that continue to make 360° Feedback a valuable choice for individual and organizational change.

Making Design Decisions That Don't Align With Purpose

We strongly believe that design and implementation decisions in 360° Feedback should be derived from a purpose statement agreed on by all critical stakeholders (including the most senior leader sponsoring the effort). Of course, that will be difficult to perform if the purpose definition step is skipped or assumed to be understood.

In this article, we refer to many design and implementation factors that have been either proposed or proven to determine the ability of a 360° Feedback system to deliver on its stated objectives (purpose). Smither et al. (Reference Smither, London and Reilly2005) created a list of eight factors that can affect the efficacy of creating behavior change, but some of those are less within the individual's and organization's direct control than others (e.g., personality of ratee, feedback orientation, readiness for change). In our recommendations section, we will list other design factors that have been shown to affect the likelihood of achieving a system's purpose and should be included in research descriptions and lists of decisions to be made when designing and implementing a 360° Feedback process. Consider the choice of rating scale as one example of a design decision that is probably treated not as a true decision but more as a default carried over from employee surveys to use the agree/disagree format (Likert, Reference Likert1967). The 3D Group benchmark research confirms that the 5-point Likert format is by far the most commonly used response scale (87% of companies) in 360° Feedback processes (3D Group, 2013). Importantly, 360° Feedback data have been shown to be very sensitive to different rating scales (Bracken & Paul, Reference Bracken and Paul1993; English, Rose, & McLellan, Reference English, Rose and McLellan2009). This research illustrates that rating labels can quite significantly influence the distribution, variability, and mean scores of 360° Feedback results. Whereas, in nearly all cases where the rating format will be a 5-point Likert scale, it would be problematic to combine results from studies using different response formats (Edwards & Ewen, Reference Edwards and Ewen1996; Rogelberg & Waclawski, Reference Rogelberg, Waclawski, Bracken, Timmreck and Church2001; Van Velsor, Reference Van Velsor, Tornow and London1998).

An all too common situation is to let purpose and design features (such as response scale) float “free form” in the minds of raters and ratees through a lack of definition and training. Such is the case in the vast majority of 360° Feedback systems where rater training continues to be the exception, not the rule (3D Group, 2003, 2004, 2009, 2013). The Likert (agree/disagree) scale provides no frame of reference for the rater for guiding the rating decision (i.e., ipsative vs. normative vs. frequency vs. satisfaction vs. etc.). Assuming that there is little training or guidance provided, the rater is left to his/her own internal decision rules. Also, unfortunately, the ratee is similarly left with no framework for attempting to interpret the feedback. The good news there is that it should force the ratee to actually have to discuss the results with the raters; no matter how hard we try to design a sound feedback process, using anonymous surveys still creates an imperfect communication method that requires that the ratee actually discuss his/her results with the feedback providers to confirm understanding (Goldsmith & Morgan, Reference Goldsmith and Morgan2004).

In the context of discussing the importance of the alignment of design and implementation decisions and purpose, we should mention Nowack and Mashihi's (2012) engaging review of the current state that provides positions on 15 common questions that reflect a mix of issues that are raised by designers and implementers (e.g., rater selection, report design) and coaches (e.g., reactions, cross-cultural factors, and neuroscience) in the area. Although we appreciate the content discussed, in our opinion, their endorsement of leaving final decisions to the user reflects the ongoing challenges in the field that we are highlighting of having no one “right” answer to any question. In many ways, this “user friendly” approach is very common among practitioners who are faced every day with a new request to morph a typical 360° Feedback process into a new mold to address a new need. This trend, although helpful at some level, can also enable a drift among practitioners who find it increasingly difficult to identify and stay true to any set of best practice guidelines. We would prefer to draw some specific lines in the sand. With this article, we are attempting to do so.

Making Generalizations Regarding the Effectiveness of 360° Feedback

One of the more egregious affronts to good science in our field is when poorly designed articles that make broad generalizations about the effectiveness or (more often) the ineffectiveness of 360° Feedback processes are widely cited with little regard to the veracity of the conclusions given the research methodology (e.g., Pfau & Kay, Reference Pfau and Kay2002). Some studies have become widely cited outside the I-O community despite questionable relevance (e.g., Kluger & DeNisi, Reference Kluger and DeNisi1996). Even well-researched studies, such as the Smither et al. (Reference Smither, London and Reilly2005) meta-analysis, are easily quotable regarding results that we feel need to be challenged, given the difficult of meaningfully combining data from studies with so much variation in design. Even so, methodological decisions can affect conclusions, such as reporting criterion-based validity coefficients that combine perspective groups and not differentiating sources of performance measures (Bynum, Hoffman, Meade, & Gentry, Reference Bynum, Hoffman, Meade and Gentry2013).

Here is an example of what we know happens all too often. Pfau and Kay (Reference Pfau and Kay2002) cite Ghorpade (Reference Ghorpade2000) by saying,

The problem is that Ghorpade is actually citing Kluger and DeNisi (Reference Kluger and DeNisi1996), whose meta-analysis used search values of “feedback” and “KR” (knowledge of results) and did not specifically use studies that were actually examining multisource (360°) feedback (according to titles). Although Pfau and Kay's misattributed quote of Ghorpade did say only “feedback,” both their paper and Ghopade's are specifically about 360° Feedback, so the citation of Kluger and DeNisi (Reference Kluger and DeNisi1996) is misplaced but very quotable by unsuspecting/unquestioning readers (or worse, those who are simply looking for a headline to support their position). We would say the same of Nowack and Mashihi's (2012) citation of the same article in their review of 360° Feedback research in terms of being out of place in this context.

Misrepresentation of Research

In a recent, highly visible publication, Buckingham and Goodall (Reference Buckingham and Goodall2015) resurrect Scullen, Mount, and Goff (Reference Scullen, Mount and Goff2000) in the cover article regarding Deloitte's revamp of their performance management system. In the reference to Scullen et al. (Reference Scullen, Mount and Goff2000), they note, “Actual performance accounted for only 21% of the variance” (Buckingham & Goodall, Reference Buckingham and Goodall2015, p. 42). This 21% figure, as well as the 55% attributed to rater characteristics, continues to be repeated in various contexts in blogs and articles as evidence of the ineffectiveness of the 360° Feedback to account for “true” performance variance (e.g., Kaiser & Craig, Reference Kaiser and Craig2005). Ironically, if a selection instrument demonstrated this level of prediction (an uncorrected correlation of about .46), it would be considered a highly predictive assessment and would compare admirably with the best selection tools available.

Note that the measure of employee performance used by the Scullen et al. (Reference Scullen, Mount and Goff2000) was not an independent performance measure but was instead defined by the common rating variance from the 360° Feedback ratings. If we took the time to truly explain how this “works,” we might characterize this performance measure as “synthetic,” that is, not a true independent measure of a person's performance. If 360° Feedback is going to be studied as a predictor of leader performance, we would like to see independent, reliable measures of performance used as criteria. It is safe to say that the users of our research (i.e., organizations) would also define “performance” as being actual activity that is observable and measureable.

Scullen et al. (Reference Scullen, Mount and Goff2000) contains multiple design elements that limit its generalizability, but let's stop and revisit one design factor that is important in both the performance management and the 360° Feedback realms (Ghorpade, Reference Ghorpade2000) and one this study also mentions: rater training. In the performance management world, the training of managers on conducting performance reviews is a best practice (whether followed or not) and could be a factor in legal defensibility (American National Standards Institute/Society of Human Resource Management, 2012). In the 360° Feedback world, it is extremely rare (3D Group, 2013).

Interestingly, in explaining their findings, Scullen et al. (Reference Scullen, Mount and Goff2000) suggest that rater training can significantly impact the findings. In examining differences between rater groups, Scullen et al. found that supervisor ratings accounted for the most variance in performance ratings (38%) compared with all other rater groups. The authors attributed that finding to the likely fact that supervisors have more “training and experience in rating performance” than the other raters (p. 966). Their data and conclusions on this point indicate (a) that the background (e.g., experience) of the rater will probably affect the correlation with performance ratings and (b) that correlations between 360° Feedback scores and performance ratings are also enhanced by training as a rater, thereby acknowledging methodological effects that are not otherwise considered in reporting the overall results but are controllable.

The main point is that 360° Feedback as a performance measure has requirements in its design and implementation that are unique and complex, and each of these can profoundly influence outcomes in both research and practice (Bracken & Church, Reference Bracken and Church2013; Bracken & Rose, Reference Bracken and Rose2011; Bracken & Timmreck, Reference Bracken, Timmreck, Bracken, Timmreck and Church2001; Bracken, Timmreck, Fleenor, & Summers, Reference Bracken, Timmreck, Fleenor and Summers2001). One reason for that is that 360° Feedback is an assessment process where the data are generated from observation by others, as in assessment centers. Unlike most traditional assessments, they are not self-report measures; when self-ratings are collected, they are usually not included in the overall scoring. Therefore, reliability and validity considerations go far beyond just the instrument itself (though the instrument is also an important determinant, of course).

To criticize any given 360° Feedback process or set of practices as inadequate for use in decision making and then use 360° Feedback methodologies in the design and implementation of those processes that are themselves deficient (e.g., no rater training) is hypocritical. We actually agree that 360° Feedback should not be used for decision making when designed and implemented as described by Scullen et al. (Reference Scullen, Mount and Goff2000), and they were not explicitly used for that purpose. But the reported overlap with performance could easily have been improved using different implementation decisions. The Scullen et al. (Reference Scullen, Mount and Goff2000) study was published in the preeminent journal in our field. And we should also be vigilant as to how our studies are used for certain agendas, including claims that 360° Feedback data are not sufficiently reliable to contribute to personnel decisions. We categorically continue to believe that 360° Feedback data are superior to single source (supervisory) ratings when collected correctly (Edwards & Ewen, Reference Edwards and Ewen1996; Mount et al., Reference Mount, Judge, Scullen, Systma and Hezlett1998).

Ignoring Accountability

Those who lament the lack of perceived effectiveness in 360° Feedback processes must first define what success is. Bracken, Timmreck, Fleenor, and Summers (Reference Bracken, Timmreck, Fleenor and Summers2001) define it in terms of sustained behavior change. That is a measurable outcome, and we know that lack of accountability is one of its many barriers (Goldsmith & Morgan, Reference Goldsmith and Morgan2004). It is enlightening and discouraging to go back and read the seminal article on this topic, “Accountability: The Achilles’ Heel of Multisource Feedback” (London, Smither, & Adsit, Reference London, Smither and Adsit1997). This article could have been written yesterday because little has changed since it was first published.

London et al. (Reference London, Smither and Adsit1997) cite three main needs to establish accountability: (a) ratee accountability to use results, (b) rater accountability for accuracy and usefulness, and (c) organizational accountability for providing the resources that support behavior change. They also offer recommendations for improving accountability for all those stakeholder groups, most of which have been underachieved. Let's look at the evolution/devolution that we observe occurring in each area.

As for ratee accountability to use results, we do see an evolution in accountability being built in to 360° Feedback processes through integration into HR systems, particularly performance management processes (PMP). This makes sense in part given the documentation aspects required (interestingly enough it is also one of the arguments against the removal of ratings and reviews entirely). The 3D Group benchmark studies (3D Group, 2003, 2004, 2009, 2013) have shown a persistent positive trend in organizations reporting use of 360° Feedback for decision-making purposes. In addition, HR managers are much more likely than ever before to be given copies of 360° Feedback reports (3D Group, 2013). Church et al. (Reference Church, Rotolo, Ginther and Levine2015), for example, have reported that 89% of managers in their survey of top development companies share some level of assessment data (360° being the most commonly used tool) with managers, and even 71% of the senior leadership of these organizations also have access to some type of detail or summary.

There is implicit accountability when managers (“bosses”) receive copies of the feedback report, which is also on the rise. We believe that involving bosses in the entire 360° Feedback process is a best practice that should ideally include selecting raters, discussing results, planning discussions with other raters, and prioritizing development. Many practitioners see the boss as the most important figure in an employee's development, and preventing them from being involved in the process certainly impedes their ability to support and create development activities. One additional benefit of requiring boss participation in all phases lies in standardization that, in turn, removes claims of real and perceived unfairness toward ratees. From an OD (e.g., Church & Waclawski, Reference Church and Waclawski2001b) and even talent management (Effron & Ort, Reference Effron and Ort2010) perspective, other authors would agree with these recommendations as well. Of course, sharing results with a boss (or senior executive even if just a summary) reinforces our argument about 360° Feedback not being for “development only.”

On the other side, clearly, we see a form of devolution (or at least stagnation) when 360° Feedback processes are designed with the requirement or strong recommendation that ratees not share their results with others (e.g., Dalton, Reference Dalton, Bracken, Dalton, Jako, McCauley and Pollman1997). A powerful source of accountability comes from sharing and discussing results with raters, especially subordinates and managers. Similar to telling friends/family of New Year's resolutions, making commitments to actions that are made public create an opportunity for supporters to help with achieving the goal(s). In addition, in organizations where 360° Feedback serves as a major or the sole component of evaluating behavior change following a leadership assessment and/or developmental intervention, the sharing of results along with resulting action plans becomes critical.

Although sharing data can have significant benefits, we acknowledge that sharing the full feedback report can be anxiety provoking in organizational cultures with low levels of trust or in organizations experiencing high levels of change or stress (e.g., layoffs, high-level leadership changes, mergers and acquisitions, industry-wide disruption; Ghorpade, Reference Ghorpade2000). As with organizational survey results, the context of the organizational system is key, along with prior history with feedback tools in general, including whether they have been misused in the past (Church & Waclawski, Reference Church and Waclawski2001a). Even in these environments, however, and in cases where sharing results is not mandatory, feedback recipients should be made aware of how they could benefit from sharing results in a healthy and productive manner. Further, program managers and organizational leadership at all levels would be well served by recognizing that the best case is to move their organization to a point where 360° Feedback results are shared and performance-related behavior can be discussed openly and honestly.

Perhaps the single most powerful evidence for the value in following up with raters is provided by Goldsmith and Morgan (Reference Goldsmith and Morgan2004). Having accumulated tens of thousands of data points from companies in all geographies and industries, the findings are compellingly clear that follow-up with raters is highly related to perceived behavior change (or lack thereof) from the feedback providers. Lack of follow-up often leads to negative behavior trends. Ignoring or discounting this apparently powerful process factor is another example of devolution. This same finding has been well-documented in survey action planning research as well (Church & Oliver, Reference Church, Oliver and Kraut2006; Church et al., Reference Church, Golay, Rotolo, Tuller, Shull, Desrosiers, Shani, Pasmore and Woodman2012). The impact is in sharing and doing something with the results from the feedback process. Not sharing results back from the process or even sharing but having respondents feel that nothing has been done to take action will lead to negative attitudes over time.

Rater accountability, however, can be a difficult requirement when anonymity to the focal participant (or technically confidentiality to the process if the feedback surveys are collected via some externally identified process) is a core feature of almost all 360° Feedback processes. Ratings from direct reports, peers, and often customers/clients are almost always protected by requiring an aggregate score based on ratings from three or more raters. Although this in theory allows for greater honesty, it can also provide an excuse to over- or underrate for various political or self-motivated reasons. These are in fact some of the most commonly cited reasons by laypeople (and sometimes HR professionals) in organizations for why 360° Feedback is inherently flawed and can be manipulated (as if performance management or high-potential talent ratings do not suffer from the same political and psychometric forces). Either way, the outcomes of a 360° Feedback process, whether positive or negative, come back to affect the raters in multiple ways. In this context, we believe that raters will feel more accountable if they see that their input is valuable to both the individual and the organization. At a basic level, it probably will also determine whether they respond at all and, if they do, their propensity to be honest, depending on whether honesty was rewarded or punished in prior administrations. As noted earlier, technology also provides us with means to integrate rater feedback into the survey taking process to create another form of direct or indirect accountability (Costar & Bracken, Reference Costar and Bracken2016).

One example of a subtle message to raters of a lack of accountability is the old proverb that “feedback is a gift.” The message seems to be that once the rater hits the “submit” button on the computer, his/her responsibility is over. Instead of a gift, we would prefer people begin to say, “feedback is an investment,” an investment whose quality will affect the rater because he/she will continue to work with the ratee, and the development of the ratee will benefit the rater, the team, and the organization. In that way, the investor can expect a return on his/her investment. It has both short- and long-term implications, and people in organizations need to see that. This is where positioning (and purpose) can help once again.

As for organizational accountability, we have already mentioned one way that the organization answers the call for accountability at that level—that is, providing “coaching” resources to ratees, even if only in the form of one-time feedback facilitators. Another major form of support comes from its investment (or lack thereof) in the 360° Feedback system itself, including the technology, associated training, communications, staffing, and help functions, along with communicating clear expectations for each stakeholder (leadership, raters, ratees, managers; Effron, Reference Effron2013). In some cases, this can involve the additional integration of 360° Feedback into broader leadership development and talent management efforts as well (e.g., Oliver, Church, Lewis, & Desrosiers, Reference Oliver, Church, Lewis, Desrosiers and Osland2009).

In addition, managers, as representatives of the organization, need to be held accountable for helping the feedback recipients use their results constructively and provide the guidance and resources required for useful follow-through on development plans. The fact is that managers are often neither prepared nor rewarded for performing the role of “coach” in the context of 360° Feedback processes, let alone day-to-day performance management and employee development (Buckingham & Goodall, Reference Buckingham and Goodall2015; Pulakos et al., Reference Pulakos, Hanson, Arad and Moye2015).

For Researchers

For Practitioners

For Researchers, Practitioners, and End Users