Three Reasons Why 360s Are Wrong for Performance Reviews

In the corporate world, 360-degree feedback has been a popular tool for performance reviews. However, this method is not without its flaws. Here, we dissect three critical reasons why 360s are not the ideal choice for performance evaluations, especially when compared to organizational network analysis.

1. Significant time burden

First, let's talk numbers. Imagine a company with 1,000 employees. Each individual is required to write four peer reviews, dedicating 20 minutes to each. This translates to approximately 1,333 hours spent on reviews alone. At a fully burdened cost of $150 per hour per employee, the financial implication is a staggering $200,000.

Moreover, top performers find themselves burdened even more, as they are often solicited for numerous reviews, amplifying the loss of productivity. This time could be better utilized in fostering innovation and driving the company forward.

2. Incentive to cherry-pick positive feedback

360 reviews, while capable of generating feedback, falter significantly in performance measurement. In a performance context, individuals are naturally incentivized to cherry-pick positive feedback, creating a skewed perception of their actual performance. This not only undermines the credibility of the reviews but also fails to foster a culture of genuine improvement and growth.

3. Inferior to organizational network analysis

Finally, organizational network analysis (ONA) stands as a superior alternative. ONA demands much less time per employee and swiftly identifies both top and bottom performers within the organization. By analyzing the patterns and quality of interactions among employees, it provides a more accurate picture of an individual's influence and performance within the company. This method is not only more efficient but also fosters a culture of transparency and meritocracy.

It's time to move on from 360s

In conclusion, it's time companies rethink the use of 360s for performance reviews. The significant time burden, the tendency to collect only positive feedback, and its inferiority to organizational network analysis make it a less than ideal choice. As we steer towards a more efficient and truthful evaluation system, it's imperative to adopt methods that not only save time but also provide an accurate representation of an employee's performance.

‍