360s are Popular, But are they Effective?

In the HBR article, The Feedback Fallacy, the authors challenge the belief that a culture of fearless feedback about a colleague’s performance (including their weaknesses) leads to learning and excellence. They point to research indicating that humans are poor judges of another’s abstract qualities. This is due to the idiosyncratic rater effect - more than half of your rating reflects your own characteristics, not the person you are rating. So, when 8 colleagues rate you on business acumen, the resulting score is mostly noise and cannot be trusted.

 They also explain why our strengths (not our weaknesses) are our greatest development areas. Neural pathway growth (the mechanism of learning), is more likely in areas of the brain with already strong pathways (ie: our strengths).

 An effective alternative to 360s is self-assessment. We use a self-assessment tool that measures enjoyment levels for specific traits (eg: “Diplomatic”) to indicate strengths. Performance conversations then take the form of “which of your strengths can you combine to bring about this outcome?” instead of “you’ve got these faults that need fixing”.