Page 168 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

360-degree feedback 151
problems will be outlined shortly at this point: 360-degree feedback systems are faced
with a dilemma for which a solution is yet to be found: the evaluation dimensions of a
performance appraisal system should always be situation specific and behaviour-focused.
If the system fails at that, the appraiser will be forced to give a general evaluation of
the person to be appraised, without any relation to specific behaviours. In contrast, the
evaluation of specific behaviour is definitely more valid because it is certainly less liable
to suffer from cognitive distortion. What does someone have to do in specific situations
to enable colleagues, customers, and coworkers to say: That was “a good thing to do”?
Still, 360-degree feedback systems deal with differing configurations: situations that
deal with the superior, the customer, the coworker, and the colleague as respective coun-
terparts. One can observe quite different ways of behaving within each of these configu-
ration. In order to meet the various demands, it is recommended that each configuration
should have its own unique appraisal system.
That way, however, it is no longer possible to compare the different perspectives,
which leads to the point of deciding between two alternatives: either one decides for a
behaviour-related scale of evaluation, although aware of the disadvantage that the two
perspectives can hardly be compared; or one decides for evaluation dimensions of a
relatively abstract nature—and herein lies the advantage of comparability as far as the
perspectives are concerned.
In reality, the favour often falls to the latter alternative. The results are dimensions
which are too global (e.g., “he/she communicated in an open-minded fashion, he/she
supported the common input for good achievement”) and as a consequence it becomes
ratherdifficulttoarriveataconclusionabouttheappraisedperson’sdevelopmentalneeds.
Another aspect carries major significance: the linkage of the potential components
of 360-degree appraisal with obtaining and sustaining a firm’s competitive advantage
requires further research. The call for studies in which a systematic, all-encompassing
control of a 360-degree feedback system was employed has become apparent. Many
attemptsata360-degreefeedbacksystemarenotreportedinanorganizationalorstrategic
context. The inclusion of external and internal customers can provide insight into the
management behaviour–work unit relationship that may help to identify the leadership
energy, roles, and behaviors essential for organizational survival.
These remarks should not lead to a harsh criticism of the 360-degree feedback system.
The main issue is rather to evaluate the innovative structures of this system systematically
and thereby add to its continuous improvement.

SUCCESS FACTORS OF 360-DEGREE FEEDBACK SYSTEMS

The introduction of a 360-degree feedback system calls for thorough planning and con-
sideration of possible resistance beforehand. Because changes often lead to fears and
might cause resistance, resistance against personnel management innovations, such as
the 360-degree feedback system, are usual side-effects. This resistance should certainly
be taken seriously by means of a thorough, careful planning of the process. Runde,
Kirschbaum, and W¨ubbelmann (2000) have detected specific success factors for the in-
troduction and sustained implementation of 360-degree feedback, which will be outlined
in this section. For the detection of success factors, 15 heads of project from internation-
ally active companies participated in a study. The study focused on dimensions relevant
for the design of a 360-degree feedback system. In addition, the heads of project were
to judge the success of the 360-degree project according to the following criteria: