Has anyone heard of 360 peer reviews?

AP007

I have never heard of it and I'd like to only be judged by people who actually knew what I did and how to do it also.

DKLS

andygb wrote: »

Cheers, exactly what I imagined it could be like, I'll tell him to start taking them down the pub more often:D

Tell him to bring in a box of doughnuts every so often, they are a great business and management tool.

Missme

ohreally wrote: »

Common is some sectors.

This is where management can confirm which individualas aren't team players and don't fit well with others.

Interesting. The organisations I've worked in use them to allow the team to feedback on managers as there's, really, no other mechanism in which to do so.

'Peer' doesn't necessarily mean those on the same level but may refer to those in the same field. The '360' part means that it's looking at the subject from all aspects - above, sideways and below

Depending how large the team is, the manager could select 1 or 2 people to give feedback and 1 or 2 would be selected at random. Plus another random manager selected from the work sphere would provide comment.

A manager who truly wants to know how they are doing would pick the team member(s) they thought would be honest and fair. Others would pick the suck-up or the person who wouldn't want to rock the boat.

Don't believe I was told who the 'randoms' were but then I was an exemplary team leader (cough).

rds60h

Sounds like the typical higher management idea brought back from a management training course and initiated by the "Just thought I would touch base with and give you the helicopter view of the core competencies and advancement scheme to all stakeholders" type manager.
From what I can glean from it's description it can either be used as an exercise in mutual back patting or as a weapon to assassinate the character of a "management target" by the use of selective opinion.
Either way in my opinion it appears to be a dangerous activity disguised as a management tool.

Cottage_Economy

A job I'm going for at the moment has I think this system, in that every year the manager goes out and selects 4/5 people in your network at random and asks them about you.

You have to get an average of 8.5/10 or above to qualify for the bonus that year, and any critical comments they make are considered during your review and a personal training programme set up if necessary.

flashnazia

andygb wrote: »

I suppose if they are entirely honest, that would be right, but the other night in the pub, we were discussing the possible pitfalls.
As he mentors people, and has to show them the ropes, as well as outlining what is totally wrong, some of his younger workers just lately have been questioning him too much, to the extent where he has had to tell them to just listen. He is now worried that they will be included in this process and will mark him down. He also worries that other people who he thought of as buddies, will see this as an opportunity to reply negatively. The worst case scenario would be him being disciplined if everyone decided to stick the knife in.
I now wish that we hadn't gone down the pub and discussed it (trying to reassure him), because he seems really worried about it.

Does that mean no questions are allowed? That doesn't sound good. Is he one of those 'you must respect my authority, don't question it/me' type? If so he needs to be aware that concept is dying in many modern workplaces.

Back to the question, 360 appraisals are not new. It does have it's benefits. The person managing it should ensure the people commenting use SMART comments i.e. comments should be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timescaled (as far as possible).
If someone says something like 'I don't like him, he's a ______ ' (insert as appropriate), your colleague should say that comment is not SMART therefore needs more details (e.g. not specific - i.e. when, what, where?) therefore how can he use it to improve?

flashnazia

rds60h wrote: »

Sounds like the typical higher management idea brought back from a management training course and initiated by the "Just thought I would touch base with and give you the helicopter view of the core competencies and advancement scheme to all stakeholders" type manager.
From what I can glean from it's description it can either be used as an exercise in mutual back patting or as a weapon to assassinate the character of a "management target" by the use of selective opinion.
Either way in my opinion it appears to be a dangerous activity disguised as a management tool.

On the other hand it's a beneficial tool for managers who don't work closely with the person being appraised; it's a good way to get an insight into how that person works on the ground.
But it won't work in a back-stabbing type office. On the plus side, you can usually tell from the writing style who wrote what. Then you can always get them back when it's their turn if you are so inclined!

p00hsticks

AP007 wrote: »

I have never heard of it and I'd like to only be judged by people who actually knew what I did and how to do it also.

We use this technique in the company I work for - by default the review invites go to your immediate line manager and anyone who reports directly to you, and you are also invited to nominate anyone else in the company who you feel you would like to contribute.

browneyedbazzi

360 reviews are used where I work - I think they can be really useful and certainly are an opportunity for senior managers to get a different perspective. To me it makes sense for the views/experiences of team members, partners and customers to be taken into account when rating a person's performance....otherwise senior management may have a very narrow view of what is going on and only have what the individual tells them to go on (which is often self-serving - we've probably all known managers who take credit for everything good that happens on their team, but point fingers and place blame on others when things don't go well or who are all sweetness and light when management are in the room but evil the rest of the time).

The format for them may be different in other workplaces, but when we fill out a 360 form we have to put positives and negatives so it isn't an opportunity to just stick a knife in.

AP007

p00hsticks wrote: »

We use this technique in the company I work for - by default the review invites go to your immediate line manager and anyone who reports directly to you, and you are also invited to nominate anyone else in the company who you feel you would like to contribute.

my appraisals were done by my manager anyway. If you have no one that reports to you a bit of a pointless exercise.