In 2018, total expenditures for external training products and services exceeded $10 billion dollars and the trend looks to continue to increase in the out years. As companies seek to outsource a lot of the traditional human resources functions, the desire is turning toward automated products and services that allow companies to speed up existing processes while still maintaining the same level of quality as done in the past.
An area that has seen a lot of innovation and investment has been in the 360-degree assessment. The 360 has been around for over 60 years but its use in recent years is increasing more and more as companies seek to maximize their profits without short changing the quality of their training programs. If you are not familiar with the 360 process, it typically involves the feedback on an individual’s behavior or skills from a variety of points of view (supervisor, peers, and subordinates). Some 360s have expanded to include feedback from customers.
How the results of a 360 should be used is an ongoing debate. Its use as a developmental tool has been widely accepted. However, its use during the appraisal process is another story. I personally do not like using the 360 in the final appraisal score because there are just too many unknown variables most of which are political. From my own experience, the 360 is a great way to establish a starting point for development.
When you receive the results from a 360, the target area of development shrinks because the feedback you receive allows you to vector your focus from every area valued by the company to areas of strengths or areas of for improvement for the individual allowing you to be deliberate about their development and address targets of opportunity. When aggregated, 360 results allow companies to focus on areas that can maximize their return on investment. Not only can the aggregated totals identify which developmental opportunities to bring in. It can also tell companies who should attend those opportunities.
But is a complete 360 required? What happens if an individual doesn’t have any employees to evaluate them? The research has shown that while a complete 360 provides a greater level of insight. It’s the feedback from the supervisor that has the highest predictability of future success of the main three sources (supervisor, peers, subordinates). This makes sense because it is the supervisor who is familiar with all of the work assigned, completed and supported by the individual which may not be as recognizable from the perspectives of the peer and employees.
With any comparative assessment, it is the side by side comparison of the self-assessment results and the results of the assigned assessments that brings about actionable feedback. The key then is to first get the personal insights of self and the level of perceived proficiency from the individual. From there, evaluators have many options from which to choose. As stated earlier, it is recommended that at a minimum the feedback from a supervisor is captured for a comparative analysis. If further perspectives are possible, by all means should they be captured. I always recommend that at least six months of interaction must be present to have feedback that is usable. The validity of the feedback increases as the frequency of interaction and the overall amount of time spent with the individual increases.
So, as you can see, there are many reasons why getting a 360 or some form of it completed to start the developmental discussion. Instead of shooting in the dark, the 360 assessment allows you to focus your efforts which saves you time and money.
Is it possible to find a flexible 360 assessment tool that allows you to easily adjust from a supervisor feedback assessment to an assessment with an unlimited number of evaluators? If so, of the remaining 360 assessment tools out there, is it possible to personalize the definitions and criteria for the assessment tool? If you can still think of a few assessment tools out there, of the remaining tools left, is it possible to get away from the traditional multiple-choice survey approach and instead gamify the survey process? If the answer is yes, you must be using the Talent Generator® Competency Assessment Tool. If you haven’t used this tool, it is great for individuals just wanting feedback from their peers to organizations seeking to personalize their approach to development while saving both time and money. It’s easy to use and the price to value return makes it impossible to pass up.
I want to invite you to check out the Talent Generator® Competency Assessment Tool on the Talent Generator® website: www.talent-generator.com and get started on personalizing your professional development in a fun and engaging way.
