The Science of 360s

The Science of 360s

by Marc Effron | Talent Management

As talent professionals, we faithfully believe that 360 feedback will help managers change their behaviors or at least increase their motivation to change. Unfortunately, those expectations are completely unrealistic. To actually get great results from 360s, we need to focus on what science says works and forget most of what we believe is true, including:

Feedback does not lead to change. Many HR professionals believe that simply receiving feedback causes sustained behavior change, but there is no science that supports it. Research says feedback often creates negative emotional reactions that inhibit change and, in one-third of cases, actually worsens performance.

Gaps between self-perceptions and others' perceptions do not motivate change. Many of us believe that when confronted with a gap between how we see ourselves and how others see us, we will try to close that gap. While this is an intuitive model of human behavior, it's not supported by science.

Research says that when confronted with that perception gap, we will diligently try to excuse it or explain its cause. We aren't resisting feedback; we're experiencing what's called cognitive dissonance. Our mind works hard to preserve our carefully developed self-image. When feedback conflicts with that image or could cast us in a negative light, the natural reaction is to reject it.

Most of us chronically overrate our capabilities, which means cognitive dissonance only increases when we see our self-ratings compared to others'.

Comparison to norms isn't helpful. Data comparing you to other 360 participants don't provide guidance or motivation for change. If you score below others, cognitive dissonance inhibits action. When our ratings compare favorably to norms, we don't experience any positive emotions; we simply don't experience any negative ones. The science is clear: We respond best when given information about only our behaviors, not when those behaviors are compared to others.

More information is not more helpful. Typical 360 reports have more than 50 pages filled with charts, graphs, norms, bars, icons and comments. It's nearly impossible for someone to tell what they should do and how they should do it.

Research says that how we experience feedback predicts how much we'll change. A 360 that challenges us with negative feedback or overwhelms us with information creates a barrier to change.

To make 360s work, we need to find the simplest science-based way to help managers change their behaviors. And because processes alone don't ensure successful outcomes, we need to establish clear accountability for results and make the process transparent.

1. Focus on the vital few:

Help managers quickly understand their two or three priorities for change by clearly stating these in the report's first few pages.

2. Don't rate them; tell them how to change:

Telling a manager they scored 3.5 out of 5 on strategic thinking leaves them clueless about how to improve. Instead, include direct statements of exactly how to change that behavior.

3. Don't include normative data or self-ratings:

It sounds like heresy, but the science described above is clear. Don't let your curiosity about how you compare to others get in the way of actually changing your behaviors.

4. Use transparency to drive accountability:

A misguided orthodoxy in some HR circles says that we shouldn't consider 360 behavioral data when making personnel decisions, including promotions and assignments. But using that data is actually the most powerful way to drive accountability for change. While managers may ignore HR's requests to behave differently, knowing that their next promotion depends on it creates an entirely different level of commitment.

In those situations, the organizations have known how those managers have behaved for many years. They've been talked about behind closed doors, around the water cooler and have likely already affected organization decisions, but now that they've been recorded on a few sheets of paper, they'll be part of a more fact-based discussion.

Realizing the true potential of 360 feedback requires doing less, not more. If we focus on the core science and make the process easy for managers to use, we'll finally get the return on investment that we know is possible.

[About the Author: Marc Effron is president of The Talent Strategy Group and author of One Page Talent Management.]