Is There Validity to 360° Reviews?

Photo by Ben Sweet on Unsplash

Research shows that leaders can use feedback from 360° review methods to understand and improve behavioral tendencies. Feedback is, after all, a powerful way to capture the scope of perspective about an individual (which may or may not be favorable). However, the opportunity lies in what people -- or better yet, the organization -- chooses to do with that feedback. 

There is a surprising set of data that shows underlying flaws with how these 360° reviews are being utilized and facilitated. Regrettably, most companies are missing the mark. Corporations that opt to forego regular performance discourse throughout the year, and instead rely solely on the annual review for an overarching picture of one person, can be misleading. The absence of consistent discussion about behavior and performance creates a black box; what will people say about me this year? Over time, employees and managers alike start to begrudge the process and disregard the results. What was meant to be used as an educational tool has instead turned into a villain.

Thus, it is not necessarily the tools corporations use for employee feedback and performance assessments, but rather the foundational expectations that are set. 

If you use a 360° tool, evaluate the internal perception of its worth. Are people afraid of it? Dread it? Think it’s the best thing since sliced bread? Regardless, you must consider the below in order for the process to be effective. 

It is imperative to: 

1) Have a plan in place for post-review feedback in order for said feedback to be acted upon and used. Without a plan (a coach, journal installments, 1:1 meetings, etc.) information is likely to only be received and never acted upon. Without effort, there will be no behavioral change.

2) Have a standard practice in place to ensure a) response confidentiality and b) standards of conduct. At times, feedback may not be authentically provided if staff believe their responses will come back to "haunt them" later on. Further, a review of another person is not the time to hash out personal conflict. All team members must understand this distinction or results will be skewed.

3) Make sure top leadership does not downplay its validity or importance. Without leadership backing the process, it's a waste of time. Not only is it time-consuming and costly, but it's also necessary to have a trained individual assessing the information, helping extract positive feedback (not just negative feedback that could possibly overwhelm and alienate the recipient). 

It’s also essential to be clear about the purpose of the 360-degree review while also coaching the staff on what to expect from the process. It's been found that the best 360 assessments focus on talents and capabilities first, prior to delving into areas that need improving. These are all components that assist in making the review process more beneficial and allow leaders to learn, as well as fine-tune their behaviors and attitudes. 

Unsure of where to begin with how to effectively get and give feedback? It may be time for a cultural climate temperature!

Your Options for Handling Conflict

You're now well-versed on the four major types of work conflict. Now let's discuss your options for handling them. 

1.) Do nothing.

What this isn't: It's not storming away or acting disgruntled. This isn't an excuse to act poorly. This is simply an option to keep the discontentment to yourself, rather than raising the issue.

At times, a colleague may have been very stern in their delivery of a statement -- the point was clear. It may be worth asking yourself if the topic is worth pushing, even if you disagree. Do you expect a different answer?

Red light: If these issues are recurring, you may begin to resent the other party. You don’t want to react or behave poorly. This is why actively choosing to do nothing is an option in handling conflict. When it goes beyond tolerable, a different approach may be
necessary. This is not a pass to be passive aggressive.

When should you use the "do nothing" philosophy? 

• You don’t have the energy or time to invest in having a conversation
• You suspect the other person is unwilling to have a constructive conversation

2.) Address indirectly.

This can be tricky. Addressing a conflict through superiors can be seen as passive. However, it can be just the thing to do in certain scenarios. An interesting cultural note here: in Western cultures, you may be perceived as weak or passive. Conversely, in many Asian cultures, a direct confrontation is unacceptable. Thus, you must understand your environment. Sometimes speaking in metaphors may educate a person about an issue, but you run the risk of this person missing the point.

When do you use this "indirectly" tactic?

• When it's unacceptable to engage in confrontation (i.e., cultural variance)
• You think the other party would not react negatively to receiving feedback from a third party

3.) Address directly.

A direct confrontation is when you speak to the other person (in the moment, or later in
time). Personally, I find I am best at addressing conflict later in time but indeed choose the "address directly" option. Knowing your tendency is incredibly useful when you're figuring out how to address conflict. Does your team deal with conflict similarly? Or, perhaps they are avoiders? This knowledge provides us insight into one another's preference, as well as providing insight into ourselves. If you are always an "address directly" type, do you have a reputation for being combative? The answer is likely yes, unless you're taking the appropriate steps to manage your behavior well.

In brief, to address directly, you explain your side of the conflict, listen to the other side, and then ideally reach a resolution. The key is to manage appropriately (we'll get to that). 

When to use address directly:

• When there's lingering resentment 
• You’ve tried doing nothing but the problem persists

The primary reason I prefer this method is because it can help relationships evolve into better ones. It also affords the opportunity to understand each party (including yourself), better.

4.) Exit the relationship. 

Is departing the relationship extreme? Perhaps. But at times, it's necessary.

The exiting option is often the last resort, but is relatively painless when the exit is in dealing with third-party vendors or unhelpful external groups. I’m reminded of a favorite saying: "don’t go away mad, just go away." This isn't about tearing down the person who you are exiting, it's about separating yourself for your own health. Only you can control your actions in this situation, and by doing so in a delicate but intentional manner, you are setting your boundary and being fair in the process.

On the other hand, this can be painful if you're contemplating leaving your place of employment due to continued conflict. You may need to consider leaving the job entirely or changing departments. If you've hit this point, ask yourself if you've attempted the three steps above. If you have, and there's no resolve or change, the clean break may be your best option. Note: You may be the one perceived as difficult. Sometimes that's an acceptable risk to take.

When do you use this option? 

• You’ve tried the other approaches (maybe even repeatedly)
• You can easily find a new job

While choosing how to handle a conflict may seem like a challenge, realize that others - your team, your colleagues, etc., may also be contemplating how they want to manage conflict – and you may be the recipient! (If you are on the receiving side, and they do NOT know how to handle this well, thus you have a screaming emotional human verbally attacking you, what do you do? Shoot me a note - I have some quick and calming tricks!)

Now, what are your options for managing a conflict? You have multiple and they are completely palatable (even if you never want to envision yourself facilitating this type of conversation). If you're interested in further education and coaching, you know how to reach me.