“Large-scale change occurs when a lot of people change just a little.”

This unattributed quote opens The Handbook of MultiSource Feedback (Bracken, Timmreck and Church, 2001). I still believe this is not only true, but it has been proven many times. I have also grown to better appreciate the systems view of change (e.g. Nadler and Tushman, 1989) that prescribes synchronized change in all facets of an organization, such as the work, formal and informal processes, and culture. I have come to believe that too few change models formally acknowledge the importance of leadership despite the fact that leaders ultimately influence every aspect of organizational effectiveness. So let’s modify our quote to read, “Large-scale change occurs when a lot of leaders change just a little.”

When implemented correctly, there isn’t a more powerful tool for creating largescale organizational change than 360 feedback.

Consider the following as the basis for such a brazen assertion:

1. 360 feedback touches every person in the organization in a very short period.
2. 360 feedback maximizes the value of the current workforce; unlike selection systems, it doesn’t have to wait for new blood to enter the system.
3. Customized 360 feedback not only captures the unique competitive advantage of the organization, but it anticipates future requirements in terms of leadership capabilities needed to realize its strategy.
4. Properly designed and implemented (Bracken and Timmreck, 2001; Bracken, Timmreck, Fleenor and Summers, 2001), 360 feedback processes are reliable, valid and fair (real and perceived) assessment methods that are superior to single-source evaluations such as traditional performance appraisals.

One reason 360 feedback is successful is that it often focuses on behavioral change, which differs from skill change or development. Many skills are difficult to acquire or develop and are typically better assessed using other means (e.g., tests, certifications, simulations). Certain skills may not be appropriate for evaluation by untrained observers. However, we do know two things a) leaders can change their behavior (Smither, London and Reilly, 2005; Walker and Smither, 1999), and b) behavior can be reliably evaluated by coworkers (Greguras and Robie, 1999; also see assessment center research).

Another unique characteristic of 360 feedback is its ability to describe the future requirements of an organization. For example, if a new strategy, business model or market indicates that the company needs leaders who are more independent (i.e., proactive, risk tolerant, tolerant of ambiguity) due to decentralization, the 360 instrument can immediately be changed to reflect those behaviors.

However, is that valid? Is it fair (and legal) to assess leaders on these future requirements that cannot be validated statistically? Many industrial/organizational psychologists believe that it is fair and defensible for an organization to define the characteristics of the leaders it needs without establishing statistical (criterion-related) validity. For example, no organization would have to prove that ethical leaders are more successful than unethical leaders, but ethics questions (and related topics such as integrity and honesty) are commonly found on multirater instruments. An organization has a right to define required behaviors/competencies, a form of content validity. That doesn’t absolve the organization from demonstrating that a behavior can be reliably measured since reliability is the sine qua non of validity. 360 feedback is more reliable than single-source ratings (Mount, Judge, Scullen, Sytsma and Hezlett, 1998) and has been repeatedly shown to be fairer to protected classes than singlesource assessments (Edwards and Ewen, 1996).

Let me directly address the question of validity as it relates to 360 feedback. It’s quite unfortunate that the term validity conjures up fears of legal liability. Many laws relating to human resource practices have been enacted to prevent abuses that were allowed to persist for far too long. Organizations need to constantly be reminded that valid assessment systems can substantially improve organizational effectiveness, and that the cost of not implementing valid assessments is substantial. What is the cost of not developing managerial talent, or not accurately identifying high potentials, particularly early in the person’s career? What is the cost of misguided succession plans that have not only the wrong personnel but also ineffective development plans? Since 360 feedback is usually more valid and fair than traditional single-source evaluations, some legal authorities believe that organizations are more at risk by not using multirater methods.

How do we design 360 systems to create systemic change?
A 360 feedback process creates one of the primary requirements for individual change: awareness. The feedback helps a person see him/herself from the perspective of coworkers who are the consumers of his/her behavior. This is often a new experience, and sometimes not a pleasant one. But human nature says we are not apt to change without something or someone bringing it to our attention. For some people this is sufficient, especially if they trust the source of the feedback. Most others require some additional motivation. In organizations, we create motivation through accountability and reward systems (appraisals, pay, promotions, recognition). Thus, 360 feedback needs to be linked to other HR systems.

Many words have been invested in the argument for using 360 feedback for development versus decision making (Bracken, Dalton, Jako, McCauley and Pollman, 1997; London, 2001). Development-only systems have a purpose, but they are not well positioned to create system wide changes. (This is not to imply that developmental processes do not create individual change. Nor should decision making processes exclude development.) (Smither et al, 2005).

Typically, development-only systems touch a part of the organization, often on an ad-hoc basis; organizational change requires full participation. But, most importantly, they are deemed developmentonly tools if the data belong to the participant, not the organization, which prohibits sharing feedback with the participant’s manager. Once the manager has access to the feedback, the organization has access to data that can influence (directly or indirectly) decisions about the participant, regardless of any disclaimers or denials. In the end, development-only systems often benefit those who need it least—those who are self motivated to improve and need no external source of motivation or accountability.

Perhaps the most reliable and significant research finding over the last few years is that the sharing of feedback results with others is the single best predictor of whether change in behavior occurs over time and across settings (Goldsmith and Underhill, 2001; Walker and Smither, 1999). This effect is so powerful that many 360 processes require that results be shared with others (usually direct reports but sometimes other raters as well) beyond the manager. The dynamics behind these findings are complex, but they establish accountability that is lacking in most development-only processes.

Integrating 360 feedback into other HR systems has a myriad of benefits. First, it communicates that the process is “business as usual,” not a nicety or novelty. It also presents opportunities to further communicate and reinforce the behavioral requirements of leaders that are (hopefully) consistent with those used in other systems.

When I speak of HR systems, I am not limiting them to performance appraisals. Data on leadership effectiveness can be critically important to processes such as succession planning and high potential identification. It should also feed staffing decisions, particularly when lateral moves are being made for developmental purposes.

We know that, if sufficiently informed and motivated, people can change their behavior. We also know that co-workers can be excellent observers of performance and provide reliable feedback. So why don’t all organizations maximize the opportunity to “change a lot of leaders just a little?” It’s not easy to do right, and some 360 processes die an untimely death when not implemented well. But many organizations find it to be a powerful impetus for change and improved organizational effectiveness.

References

• Bracken, D.W., Dalton, M.A., Jako, R.A., McCauley, C.D. and Pollman, V.A. (1997). Should 360-Degree Feedback Be Used Only for Developmental Purposes? Greensboro: Center for Creative Leadership.
• Bracken, D.W. and Timmreck, C.W. (2001) Guidelines for multisource feedback when used for decision making. In Bracken, D.W., Timmreck, C.W., and Church, A.H. (eds.) The Handbook of Multisource Feedback. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Bracken, D.W., Timmreck, C.W., Fleenor, J.W., and Summers, L. (2001). 360 feedback from another angle. Human Resource Management, 40(1), 3-20.
• Bracken, D.W., Timmreck, C.W., and Church, A.H. (eds.) (2001). The Handbook of Multisource Feedback. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Edwards, M.R. and Ewen, A.J. (1996). 360-Degree Feedback: The Powerful New Model for Employee Assessment and Performance Management. New York: AMA-COM.
• Goldsmith, M. and Underhill, B.O. (2001). Multisource feedback for executive development. In Bracken, Timmreck, and Church (eds.), The Handbook of Multisource Feedback. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Greguras, G.J., and Robie, C. (1999). A new look at within-source interrater reliability of 360-degree feedback ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 960-968.
• London, M. (2001). The great debate: Should multisource feedback be used for administration or development only? In Bracken, Timmreck, and Church (eds.), The Handbook of Multisource Feedback. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Mount, M.K., Judge, T.A., Scullen, S.E., Systma, M.R. and Hezlett, S.A., (1998). Trait, rater, and level effects in 360-degree performance ratings. Personnel Psychology, 51, 557-569.
• Nadler, D.A. and Tushman, M.L. (1989). Organizational framebending. Academy of Management Executive, 3, 194-202.
• Smither, J.W., London, M., and Reilly, R.R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 58, 33-66.
• Walker, A.G., and Smither, J.W. (1999). A five-year study of upward feedback: What managers do with their results matters. Personnel Psychology, 52, 393-423.