Peer-to-Peer 360 Performance Reviews

Saturday, October 09, 2010

A number of organizations have adopted the practice of some form of peer to peer 360 performance reviews in an effort to obtain a better balance to employee performance assessments. Unhappy with rater bias, underperforming employees and managers, organization perceive that if the employee is reviewed by their peers, their contacts, and others; underperforming employees and managers will be rooted out.

The concept is rather simple, co-workers, as well as upstream and downstream reports, and general organizational contacts (and sometimes even external client contacts) are provided with some opportunity to evaluate and give feedback to the employee. This can take the form of an automated system, which maps the employee relative to their on-level peers and those above and below the individual. It also can be no more complicated than the traditional 8 ½ by 11 inch rating form with a fixed 3, 5, 7 or 10-point scale.

Supporters of peer-to-peer 360 performance reviews point out that a review based on the one-sided input of a single manager has the ability to both over and understate the talents of the employee being reviewed. Since managers are subject to the same human prejudices that all of us are, a single rater can allow their biases to overcome their better judgment. Other issues may enter the review such as the Recency Effect where an employee’s manager focuses on the most recent actions good or bad of the employee and ignores the rest of the evaluation period. Often in managing professional, technical or scientific staffs, managers may not see the full scope of their subordinates’ knowledge, skills, and abilities. Furthmore, managers may not have the same level of technical knowledge or the sufficient details of the assignment in order to evaluate the employee’s performance.

On the counter point, organizations who have taken care to develop and promote well-trained managers build their training programs to eliminate the negative issues of a single rater. A single rater is less likely to fall prey to Group Think, although a rater may be influenced by the opinions of another. One reason for the manager’s roles is to “manage” the performance of their subordinates. Managers are generally the closest role to employees and are in the best position to observe to performance of their employees. Certainly even in the absence of a formal peer-to-peer 360 performance review system, managers are provided with feedback on the performance of their employees.

Whether a specific organization has or does not have a peer-to-peer 360-performance review system or a single rater is a function of the needs, real or perceived of that organization at that point in time. As with humans, organizations are apt to “try” something new for no other reason that they can.