Ratings versus narrative in 360 degree appraisals

When most people think of 360 degree feedback, they think of rating people against a set of statements. Often these scores are then averaged (but see my previous blog on the problems of averaging in 360 feedback) and presented back as a wholesome view of the individual.

When completing my MBA, I wrote a thesis on the narrative element of 360 degree feedback. If any school friends are reading this then, yes, I do still enjoy sport, a beer, and other normal activities! In writing that document I came in with some bias that from my experience the narrative parts of a 360 often contained richer information than the rating scales. The thesis only confirmed this, with the following key learning points.

• The narrative is often used to place the ratings in context, e.g. "Although I answered 'poor', this relates to a specific incident where Jenny...."
• The narrative can be helpful in drawing out the way each role or person is scoring (see What the boss says in 360 degree feedback)
• Without the narrative it is very difficult to give feedback to the individual....you know how people feel about the person but you do not know why nor the impact of the identified behaviour.

Although the narrative element suffers again from role bias (bosses use directional language such as "must", "needs to" whereas direct reports soften any blows "sometimes", "Jenny is brilliant but could perhaps...") it is much easier to interpret when giving feedback.

We recommend that you increase the narrative elements of your 360, preferably having one narrative question per competency. That question should be written in a way that asks for additional commentary, some examples and the impact of the behaviour.

Brendan

Find out more about 360 appraisal systems with Bowland Solutions