My last post was an introduction to a series I’m calling “Working Assumptions”. I want to tackle some working assumptions that we may be working by that aren’t serving us very well. Today’s topic: the 360 review.
Do you know what a 360 review is?
It’s when your boss wants to get feedback on you for the purpose of your growth and development, so they submit an anonymous survey to 5—15 folks, give or take depending on your position, in positions all around yours on the org chart, some above, some below, some peer to you. These folks will then answer a few questions about you and submit it through HR’s (Human Resources) platform of choice. The manager will likely summarize all that data, create a report, let you know what the outcome was, and then make the report available to HR as part of your employee record. More or less.
What’s the problem with that?
I’ve seen a 360 referred to as a “Talent Development Tool”. Notice what’s important about that phrasing. It’s subtle, but it infers that the user and ownership of the tool is by a manager/boss person. And, yes, that’s great if a manager wants to grow their team. This is what we want—growth-enabling managers. But this, in my humble opinion, is where the industry gets it slightly wrong. When the ownership of the 360 is obfuscated, then is the employee really benefiting? That begs the question still, if the employee doesn’t benefit, then can the owner of the 360 even benefit? (It depends on their real goals.) Therein lies my first problem with 360s. How can something designed with the manager/boss person in mind benefit the actual subject of the 360?
The real goal of a 360
I’m definitely not arguing that no 360 has ever benefited the employee (i.e. the talent). I’m just arguing that the employee’s growth is not the first goal of the 360. The first goal is that the company understands this employee’s standing in the company. The secondary goal is (maybe) to “develop” this employee based on the feedback. However, if the first goal is to understand the employee’s standing, then we have to assume that the employee’s development may not be the next goal. For example, movement of the employee out of the company may be the next goal.
Therefore, for development to be a true goal, this would have to assume many things, such as:
- The feedback was not for rationalization for a layoff or firing.
- The company knows how best to take actionable measures toward the growth of this individual based on this feedback.
- The company intends to take those actionable measures.
- The feedback is accurate.
And unfortunately, there is no way to guarantee any of these things.
What is really necessary to grow and develop employees?
I believe that true growth in any area of life, including professional, cannot happen unless two very important things are present: honesty and vulnerability. Brené Brown, the expert on vulnerability, describes it as "uncertainty, risk, and emotional exposure." This, in my estimation, is incompatible with anything that will ever be exposed to anyone in HR. This is no offense at all to the good folks at HR. They are doing their jobs, but it’s just that HR is not the place for vulnerability. It’s a place for compliance and risk management. It’s a place for the company to understand its employees, not for employees to understand themselves. It’s a place for the company to grow, not for the individual to grow.
And we intuitively know this, right? This is why we can assume that the 360 feedback is not going to be 100% accurate or helpful because we probably aren’t going to be 100% accurate or helpful when we provide reviews for others. Most of the time, we’re probably just nice, especially if we’re reviewing our work-friend. Many of us don’t feel like we can be completely honest, because we know that whatever is in that report can be used as a reason to include them in the next layoff, whether it’s warranted or not. We avoid the risk of any of our words being twisted against our work-friend. We know that there can always be another layoff right around the corner, especially now.
And maybe you totally disagree with that assessment. If so, you may be at the leadership level. 360s tend to be more helpful with directors and higher where the playing field is more competitive and people tend to be more honest in their assessments of others. I have a feeling that HR is probably equally frustrated about the aggressively-competitive nature of this scenario, too.
What can we do instead?
How can we have 360 feedback that we can trust is really honest and vulnerable that will lead to growth? Feedback that you can request from others on your own, when you feel like you need it? Feedback that is anonymous where you really can’t tell by the wording who wrote it?
And what if you then decide how you want to take action on your own, regardless of company involvement. Do you think you’d be able to expand what the possibilities for growth look like if it isn't tied to your HR report?
Do you think that such an autonomous and liberated approach to career development is allowed in the workplace? Well, I believe that it should be. Everyone’s stated goal is for the employee’s growth, right? Here at Hedge-Ops we want to enable real growth, not just check boxes. We want to be honest about what it takes. If you’re curious about what we’re building, stay tuned!
And if you are really curious, click the banner below to sign up to be the first to hear about our Beta program!
