The Foreign Service Journal, September 2015

20 SEPTEMBER 2015 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL Use of 360-degree reviews for purposes other than development remains controversial among human resource experts. Hiring Decisions: The Concern Use of the 360-degree review for hiring decisions that can make or break a career is of concern for the following reasons: ■ The reviews are seldom transpar- ent. In current practice, the assessed employee usually has no idea what feed- back the deciding official has received, and an employee receiving any negative feedback is rarely, if ever, contacted to discuss the issues raised. This creates the potential for unsubstantiated criticism that can unfairly undermine an employ- ee’s chance for advancement. One does not have to assume deliberate career sabotage here: as a manager, one some- times has to make unpopular decisions that years later still rankle former subordi- nates who, because of inexperience, may not have had the full picture. The Bureau of Consular Affair’s recent development of the Consular Bidder Assessment Tool addresses the issue of transparency by allowing the assessed employee to see the anonymous feedback statements. But the employee is denied the opportunity for a timely discussion of the results (bidders are instructed not to attempt to discuss results until after bid- ding season is over). This is a surprising approach from the bureau that brought us the innovative CLI. The DCM/principal officer 360-degree reviews are neither transparent, nor do they provide any opportunity for assessed employees to obtain feedback. ■ The reviews have little value because the assessed employee chooses the assessor. On the whole, most peers and subordinates resist being frank and can- did in their reviews. Having the assessed employee pick his or her own assessors emphasizes this tendency, skewing the results. It also replicates the EER problem: when everyone walks on water, the deci- sion-makers try to read between the lines, looking for any chinks in an individual’s armor. Paradoxically, this feeds into the concerns discussed above, since any negative review raises bells and whistles and is given extra weight. ■ Use of 360-degree reviews for pur- poses other than development remains controversial among human resource experts. Using them to determine assign- ments is akin to using them as perfor- mance appraisals, which some human resource experts see as detrimental to an organization because of its negative effect on personal growth. When the results are not shared in a transparent way, trust is undermined. In its book Maximizing the Value of 360-Degree Feedback , the Center for Cr e- ative Leadership explained: “Conditions for personal growth frequently can be at odds in an organizational environment where there are concerns over issues of trust, candor and openness of com- munication. In such a situation, it is not surprising that when 360-degree feedback is used as part of performance appraisal, the organization risks losing the value of individual and organizational develop- ment because the conditions necessary for change are taken away.” ■ The State Department’s use of 360s in determining assignments was not adequately studied prior to implementa- tion. This practice appears to have been implemented on an ad hoc basis several years ago, with a few bureaus using email as a platform to receive input. The use of 360s has now proliferated, with all bureaus involved in the assignment pro- cess utilizing them to make decisions. Yet there seems to have been no prior centralized review of the ramifications of broad use of the tool on the Foreign Ser- vice workforce. The use of SharePoint and other technologies to gather the results also raises confidentiality questions (some 360s have been posted—I assume accidentally—on the State Department’s intranet site). ■ Some recipients of the results may lack the training and expertise to inter- pret them effectively. There is a reason there are books and articles written by human resource academics and special- ists on how to effectively implement and utilize the 360-degree review process. Has the State Department trained offi- cials using the results in human resource management or the 360-degree review process? Do these officials have goals beyond filling the position in question (e.g., the further career development of an employee)? Moreover, what role has the Bureau of Human Resources—the one bureau theoretically best placed to manage this process—played in implementing the 360 review requirements? Are career devel- opment officers discussing the results of 360s with clients to improve the employ- ee’s chances of strengthening skills? ■ The annual deluge of 360s creates significant time and resource issues. Let’s face it, the 360 process has become a major time suck for everyone involved, with email inboxes inundated each sum-