What We Can Learn About 360-evals from the U.S. Army
Atten.... shun!
Behaviors perpetrated by officers seeking to undermine the dignity of their soldiers will not be tolerated. All those deemed as unsatisfactory in their behaviors will be afforded coaching. And those who do not cease and desist such negative behaviors including bullying will be summarily dismissed.
The U.S. Army is now instituting a mandatory 360-degree evaluation program for all its officers. And while the above bulletin is fictional, it is rooted in reality. According to a survey that was reported in the Army Times, one in five soldiers (including Army civilians) views "his superior as 'toxic and unethical.'"
The extensive evaluation program that Army implemented on Oct. 1 is necessary to, according to General Martin Dempsey, now chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "change the culture of the Army to embrace the 360s."
The 360 evaluation process has been around for decades and over the years has become standard tool for evaluating managers.
And as enthusiastic as I am about the 360 process and use it regularly in my coaching work, it is important to keep a few things in mind.
One, a 360 is an intervention. That is, it is a disruption with consequences. Unless those consequences are managed they can destroy -- and I mean that literally -- careers. There must always be a follow up process, preferably with a coach or someone trained, in giving feedback based on the 360 process.
Two, a 360 must be presented as a tool for development. A 360 is one series of data points; it is to supplement the process not replace it. When used as form of evaluation it can be used to get rid of people who need assistance rather than a termination. While all of us would like to see bullies summarily removed, even they deserve coaching as a means of attempting to improve.
Three, a 360 should never be used as the sole basis of compensation. Very often I have seen good managers dinged because their scores were not high enough. Why? Because they were managing people who were inexperienced. Raters were inclined to rate them severely on things like delegation or supervision.
Four, ensure the anonymity of raters. This is essential to open and honest feedback. For this reason it is important -- with the exception of the boss who may provide feedback -- to get more than three raters from every category such as direct reports, peers, and other interested parties. Human nature is such that when we receive something less than positive we want to know "who it was and why they said that about me."
Five, follow up with coaching. None of us is perfect; most of us have blind spots. The 360 is terrific at identifying such weaknesses but it is not good at providing remedies. That is why a coach is essential to the process.
The Army is wisely providing a cadre of coaches for its officer corps -- retired commissioned and non-commissioned officers (NCOs). The idea of having "subordinates" (albeit retired) coach "superiors" is brilliant. Officers need to hear the kind of straight talk from the ranks that such dedicated professionals can deliver. And good things are happening: 27% of soldiers surveyed view their superiors as "allowing the frank and free flow of ideas."
One officer quoted in Army Times hit the nail on the head, however, when he spoke of how some officers would review their 360 results. "That was mildly interesting and I disagree with what everyone said." That attitude is not atypical in the corporate world either.
But in my experience when a 360 is conducted properly, and encouraged by the culture (as the Army is doing), the odds of helping a leader come to a better understanding of his or her performance increases.
Flickr photo courtesy of The U.S. Army, CC 2.0
Read more: