Why 360 Surveys Should be Used Solely for Development

There has been a lot of discussion in the HR field about whether 360 surveys should be used for making talent decisions beyond individual development. Various organizations have attempted to broaden usage and tie the results to performance evaluations (and indirectly then to pay and rewards) or use them as part of decisions regarding promotions or successions. These attempts do not usually fare well for a variety of reasons.

I think it is a mistake to tie 360 results to pay and rewards either directly or indirectly but competency performance can certainly be one component of looking at performance. However, I particularly feel that they are clearly the wrong tool for succession and promotion.

A better tool would be assessment centers or business simulations. I offer four reasons here:

Untrained observers

Unlike assessment centers where assessors are carefully trained on how to recognize and evaluate behaviors, 360 surveys typically ask individuals who have received no training to make behavioral evaluations. They may even fully understand the meaning of the behavioral statements in the survey. Each individual comes to their own interpretation of the behavioral meaning of each item and then applies their own standards in evaluating the frequency or quality of the behavior.

Behaviorally anchored rating scales or performance standards for each behavioral statement certainly helps introduce a consistent framework for evaluating behaviors and training or at least discussion of the competency and behavioral model reflected in the survey also helps to improve evaluation quality.

No control over opportunity to observe

Assessment centers use standardized simulations to provide a consistent and adequate opportunity to see the target behaviors being performed. However, 360 surveys rely on chance observations as the basis for evaluations. The daily activities and demands of the job may not provide adequate opportunities to observe all behaviors and there is no guarantee that if the behavior is being exhibited the other raters are present to witness it. The result is an uneven amount of experience and observations across raters which can contribute to potential inaccuracy.

Observations are limited to current job

In a promotion or succession situation, the relevant behaviors to consider are not the behaviors driving success in the current job, they are the behaviors driving success in the future job. While there may be some overlap in requirements, there are also significant differences in the demands and skills required in higher level positions. This reality is why business simulations that reflect the demands of higher level positions are used in assessment centers for promotion and succession decisions.

Susceptible to manipulation

There is always the possibility that ratings may be affected by personal feelings toward the individual. Friends may be tempted to provide a more positive view of the individual if the compensation or other rewards are being tied to 360 performance or if a promotion in on the line. Likewise individuals who may dislike the individual might be tempted to provide lower ratings to prevent the individual from receiving additional compensation or other rewards and promotions.

With assessment centers or business simulations, assessors must defend and discuss their judgments by describing actual examples of actions, decisions, and behaviors exhibited in situations relevant for future performance. The assessor team provides a check and balance against individual biases or distortion.

Although the jury is still out on the overall effectiveness of traditional 360 surveys, it is certainly wise to apply them only for individual development and focus on the conditions that are necessary to increase self-awareness and motivation to improve.