Using 360° Feedback in Performance Appraisal

Abstract

In the traditional performance appraisal process at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), supervisors and subordinates develop a work plan at the beginning of the performance cycle, the subordinate carries out the work plan, the supervisor provides a midcycle review, and, at the end of the cycle, the supervisor provides feedback indicating how well the subordinate has fulfilled his or her work plan. However, with an increased emphasis on Total Quality Management (TQM), teamwork, and customer service, the supervisor may not have all of the information needed to provide complete and accurate feedback to the subordinate. If the individual is a manager who supervises others, these subordinates may be the best source of information on delegation, communication, and leadership skills. Peers may be in the best position to provide feedback on skills such as working with others, decision-making and technical capability. Finally, customers may be the best source of input on quality of work and service orientation. For these reasons, many organizations in the private and public sectors are incorporating information collected from multiple sources (supervisors, subordinates, peers, and customers) into the performance appraisal process. This fact was recognized by a group of Career Entry Group (CEG) executives within OPM who asked the Office of Personnel Research and Development (PRD) to draft a proposal for incorporating subordinate, peer, and customer feedback into CEG's performance appraisal process. This paper presents the recommendations that were made for incorporating other sources of feedback into the performance appraisal process. The goal of the project was to improve the quality of information CEG employees receive about their job performance and, ultimately, to enhance the quality culture and level of employee involvement within CEG. The next section outlines, in more detail, the research process used to develop the recommendations, and is followed by a brief description of the current performance appraisal process used in CEG. Recommendations are presented in the final section of the paper. The paper also contains two appendices that provide more detail on the information collected from the research literature and from interviews with individuals in other public and private sector organizations. Method Data were collected from multiple sources, allowing for a number of different perspectives to be taken into consideration in the development of the recommendations. The data sources examined included: * a review of the appropriate research literature. This included examining studies where subordinate, peer, or customer ratings had been used either in a research or organizational setting. Both technical articles and how-to articles were included in the review; * telephone interviews with members of private and public sector organizations that have used subordinate, peer, or customer feedback in the performance appraisal process. Personnel Research and Development (PRD) psychologists identified a list of organizations conducting programs of this sort and contacted them first. Additional contacts were identified in these initial interviews. The telephone interviews were conducted by a Personnel Research Psychologist and two managers in PRD. The interviews focused on the nature of the process in the organizations; who is providing feedback data; what areas of performance are being assessed; how data are collected, analyzed, and reported to employees; and how the feedback data are used; * an examination of the regulations and practices related to performance appraisal in the federal government; * focus groups and interviews with CEG management and employees. During the focus groups, participants were asked about the strengths and weaknesses of the current performance appraisal process, reactions to incorporating subordinate, peer, and customer feedback into the appraisal process, and, if implemented, how such a process could work best. …