“I hate to see things done by halves. If it be right, do it boldly, -if it be wrong, leave it undone.” Â Bernard Gilpin
Selection of raters is important to ensure “buy in†and acceptance of the feedback results by participants because current research suggests that rater source factors explain much more variance in 360-degree feedback ratings whereas general performance explains much less variance than was previously believed (Hoffman, Lance, Bynum, & Gentry (2010) ((Hoffman, B., Lance, C.E., Bynum, B. & Gentry, W. (2010). Rater source effects are alive and well after all. Personnel Journal, 63, 119-151.)).
Typically, program participants or management can select raters, or it can be a collaborative process between the participant and management. In a recent study reviewing 360-degree feedback use in over 50 North American companies by the 3D Group (2009 Benchmark Study), 61 percent had participants select their own raters with manager approval, 31 percent allowed participants to select their own independently, 4 percent had human resources select raters, 2 percent had managers select raters and 2 percent reported some other process.
When used for developmental purposes, research suggests that allowing participants to select their own raters may enhance feedback acceptance without reducing rater accuracy (Nieman-Gonder, 2006) ((Nieman-Gonder, J. (2006). The effect of rater selection on rating accuracy. Poster presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, May 2006, Dallas, TX)). Of course, for some purposes, such as performance appraisal or talent and succession planning, having human resources or managers select raters might be prudent and even recommended.
Coach’s Critique:
Often times, the question about who gets to select raters is a point of confusion for all implementers of 360-degree feedback systems. On one hand, managers choose to implement the program on their direct reports with the intention of learning about the perceptions of specific people that they believe would be useful raters. In addition, human resources might have certain people in mind as far as rating. On the other hand, participants, particularly the ones being coached like to choose their “supportersâ€, and the ones they trust for feedback.
The good news is that a conflict of interest between the manager and participants over who gets to choose raters can be minimized by following certain 360-degree feedback best practices. For one thing, 360-feedback systems are intended to get a view of the people above, below, and side-by side. Secondly, it is best to choose more raters in order to increase validity of responses. Third, it is a best practice to select raters that work closely enough with the participant to be able to provide specific feedback on behaviors actually observed.
Applying these best practices would increase the chances that all parties involved would choose some of the same raters. Therefore, whoever chooses would need to follow these standards which would most likely meet the interests of all parties involved (manager, HR, and the participant). In other words, by applying the best practices, it wouldn’t make too much of a difference who chooses the raters.
In my coaching practice, I prefer to have the participant and manager collaboratively choose who to select in order to increase their buy-in of both of them in the process. I communicate to them the parameters and best practices for selection in order to ensure that who they choose is based on some standard which would minimize disagreement.
What has your experience been as far as who gets to choose the raters? Do you believe the participant should choose? Human resources? Or, management?
Sandra Mashihi
Dr. Sandra Mashihi is a senior consultant with Envisia Learning, Inc. She has extensive experience in sales training, behavioral assessments and executive coaching. Prior to working at Envisia Learning, Inc., She was an internal Organizational Development Consultant at Marcus & Millichap where she was responsible for initiatives within training & development and recruiting.. Sandra received her Bachelor’s of Science in Psychology from University of California, Los Angeles and received her Master of Science and Doctorate in Organizational Psychology from the California School of Professional Psychology.
