Recently, the expert group of Beisen Talent Management Research Institute went to the 2019 Academic Conference on Social Psychology and Management Psychology in China, and delivered the report titled "The Evaluator's Loose and Tight Hand makes the Rating Result Untrustworthy -- A Study on the Evaluation Style and 360-degree Evaluation Effectiveness Based on Large Sample". The content of this article is selected from the live speech report.
▲ Chinese Social Psychology Management Psychology 2019 Academic Seminar site
The application of 360-degree evaluation can be traced back to the Second World War. By the 1990s, as an assessment tool for capability development, 360-degree evaluation had been widely used in enterprises, especially as an effective tool for measuring potential performance.
As a kind of evaluation method, the most concerned question of enterprise managers and human resource practitioners is whether the 360-degree evaluation results are credible.
However, as it is difficult to unify the subjective standards and evaluation styles of the evaluators involved in the evaluation process, there may be some doubts in the application. For example, the evaluators with "loose hands" may give too high scores to the evaluators, and the evaluators with "tight hands" may give low scores. This inconsistency of internal evaluation also troubles enterprises in practice.
This study aims to provide empirical evidence with good ecological validity for the evaluation style and the effectiveness of evaluation results through the study of the real environment of enterprise practice, and provide more references for the application practice of 360-degree evaluation by enterprises.
Research sample:
The sample group of the study included 3480 evaluators from seven enterprises in different industries and 10271 evaluators corresponding to this group. The roles included superiors, subordinates, colleagues and other stakeholders. Among them, each evaluator shall evaluate at least 15 or more interviewees.
According to the actual situation of the research sample, we first distinguish two evaluation styles, namely, those with high score tendency and those with low score tendency. Then explore the relationship between different evaluation styles and evaluation results.
Finding 1: Although there is a difference of "loose hand" in style, different evaluators have the same evaluation on the ability trend of the evaluators.
For each person being evaluated, there will be differences in their performance in different abilities.
In the study, we marked the three with the highest score as strength, and the three with the lowest score as weakness. Then, the identification of the advantages and disadvantages of the same evaluator by those with low score tendency, those with high score tendency and all evaluators were counted respectively.
The results showed that the consensus rate of the evaluators with different styles reached 76.4% and the consensus rate of the evaluators' ability advantage reached 94.5%.
▲ Different styles of evaluators on the rating of the hit rate
This indicates that, compared with the "loose hand" raters with high score tendency, the "tight hand" raters with low score tendency are more objective in their evaluation results and have less difference from the overall results.
Management is a strange phenomenon. Above all, it is an exercise of common sense. In Mintzberg's 360-degree multi-source feedback scene, each evaluator has his or her own opinion, standard and tendency style. Although the participants can reach a consensus to some extent through early publicity, there will inevitably still be differences.
Perhaps the results of a single evaluator may not be 100% accurate, but on the basis of multiple evaluators, or through long-term and continuous evaluation, 360's evaluation results of individuals must be objective and accurate, and differences in evaluation styles will not significantly affect the effectiveness of 360's results.
On November 8-9, 2019, the 2019 Academic Seminar of China Social Psychology Management Psychology Professional Committee with the theme of "Innovation in Management Psychology under the New Development Concept" was successfully held in Tianjin Normal University.
The conference was co-sponsored by the Chinese Social Psychology Professional Committee and the Department of Psychology of Tianjin Normal University. Nearly 300 experts, scholars and representatives from more than 110 units across the country gathered together to discuss the development and future of social psychology in China in the new era, and discuss the responsibilities and responsibilities of social psychologists in China.
Chinese Society for Social Psychology
Chinese Association of Social Psychology (CASP) is one of the three national psychological societies in China. Casp is a collection of scholars engaged in social and personality psychology at home and abroad. It is a high-end platform to attract researchers in sociology, anthropology, psychology, culturology, neuroscience and other fields to communicate.
Members of the society focus on exploring the psychological processes and mechanisms of the interaction between individuals and social environments, group psychological phenomena and their patterns and laws, and the effects of geography, climate, culture, economy and politics on individual and group psychology through society.
