Typical 360-Degree Feedback System

360 – Degree Feedback This usually means an individual being rated by peers, supervisors and sometimes clients, as well as doing self-assessment. All indications are that 360-degree appraisal in one form or another is probable to be used more extensively – it is not some provisional fad. An example of a Traditional Feedback versus a 360 – Degree Feedback, you can see below. Basically you can see at the Traditional Feedback, there is only one direction Feedback, from Supervisor to Employee. On the other hand, there are a variety of canals of Feedback to employees. Typical 360-Degree feedback System The 360-Degree feedback system works with the following two ways: †¢The Questionnaire: This basically shows a series of statements about the â€Å"target† manager’s performance and efficiency, and frequently is linked to the key competencies described in an organisation. For example, if there are eight competencies thought to be pertinent to the organization, there might be somewhat like five to eight questions asked in relation to each of them. More or less there would be sixty questions. Some organizations mix all questions together; some group them under related capability direction. †¢The Raters: The focal manager (meaning the person on whom the feedback is being given), completes a self-rating while being rated by others. Many companies allow the individuals to decide who contributes to the rating procedure, according to who is in the best place to remark on their performance. Most often the number of raters scope between: three to twenty, depending on conditions. The Feedback process There are three major elements to this process: †¢First is the individual who collects the feedback †¢Second is the feedback report and how the data are represented within in it †¢Third is the supervisor in which this information is conveyed the focal manager The whole rating forms usually go either to a designed basis in HR or to an external expert; less often, they go to a senior manager. Whoever collects the data has the task to gather them in a form that will help the receiver. He/She has to combine the ratings and present an average â€Å"score†, on each competency, broken down by rating group (peers,etc), perhaps place the self-rating together with it. Provided that the numbers in each group are adequate, this preserves secrecy for the respondents.