PS496 Unit 5 360 Feedback Paper Example

Twelve Supervisors, Four Rater Groups: A PS496 Unit 5 360 Feedback Paper

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

PS496: Bachelor's Capstone in Industrial Organizational Psychology

Unit 5 360 Feedback Paper

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The writer, the cannery, the supervisors and every figure are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.

Why a 360 at a Cannery

Shift supervisors at our cannery near Stockton each oversee two or three production areas and the line leads who run them. Until this year, the only feedback they received came from the operations manager, who works days and sees the night shift mainly through reports. The line lead job analysis in Unit 1 found that leads' most stressful moments, staffing gaps and disputes with quality assurance, were also the moments when they most needed a supervisor. Nobody had ever asked them how supervisors handled those moments.

Designing the Process

Bracken et al. (2016) review how 360 feedback has developed over more than twenty-five years, distinguishing changes that strengthened the practice from ones that weakened it, and they offer guidance for researchers, practitioners and the organizations that use it. Atwater et al. (2007) draw lessons from research and from a three-year study of implementation in two organizations, emphasizing preparation before the survey and support after the feedback arrives.

Their guidance shaped five design decisions.

Purpose. The survey was used for development only. Results went to each supervisor and a coach, not into pay or promotion decisions. Supervisors were told this in writing before the survey.

Items. The fourteen items came from the supervisor competencies, written as observable behaviors: "Responds within fifteen minutes when a line is short of workers," "Explains the reason for production decisions to leads," "Backs a quality hold when it is justified."

Raters. Each supervisor was rated by the operations manager, by two or three other supervisors and by all the line leads who report to them, plus a self-rating. Line lead ratings were reported only as a group, and only if at least three leads responded, to protect anonymity.

Timing. The survey ran in week six of the pack, late enough for leads to have observed a full range of situations but early enough to act before the season ended.

Follow-up. Each supervisor met with an outside coach for an hour to review results and choose one or two development goals, and met again four weeks later.

Ray's Report

Ray supervises the night shift's filling and warehouse areas. His manager rated him above four on almost every item. His five line leads rated him much lower on three: explaining decisions (2.2), responding quickly to staffing gaps (2.6) and backing justified quality holds (2.4). Ray's self-ratings matched his manager's.

Ray's manager saw a supervisor who hit targets; his leads saw one who hit them by leaving them alone at three in the morning.

Atwater and colleagues note that recipients often react to unfavorable feedback with disappointment or defensiveness, especially when others rate them lower than they rate themselves, and that how the feedback is introduced and supported affects whether it is used. Ray's first reaction was to say that his leads were complaining because he pushed them on production.

From Feedback to Change

Smither et al. (2005) combined studies in which people were rated, received multisource feedback and were rated again. Average improvement was small, but some recipients improved considerably. The leaders who changed most were those whose reports showed a real gap, who took the report well, who thought change was both possible and worth it, and who followed through with goals and concrete steps, for instance by going over the results with the people who had rated them.

In his coaching session, Ray looked at the comments section. Three leads described nights when they had radioed for help with a no-show and heard nothing for over half an hour; one wrote that Ray had overruled a quality hold in front of the crew. Those specifics shifted his reaction. He chose two goals: answer staffing calls within fifteen minutes, and when he disagrees with a quality hold, discuss it with the technician and the lead away from the line.

With the coach's help, Ray also met with his leads as a group, thanked them for the feedback and told them which two goals he had chosen. Smither and colleagues found such conversations with raters were among the actions associated with improvement.

Results Across the Twelve Supervisors

Eleven of twelve supervisors completed both coaching sessions. Nine chose at least one goal related to the staffing or quality hold items, which were the lowest-rated items plantwide. In a short pulse survey of line leads in week twelve, ratings on those items rose for eight of the nine supervisors. Ray's ratings from his leads rose to 3.4 on staffing response and 3.1 on backing quality holds. His explaining decisions score barely moved, and he said that one would take longer.

What Line Leads Said About Being Asked

For several line leads, the request for their view counted for nearly as much as whatever changed because of it. One lead with eleven seasons at the plant said no form in all those years had ever invited her to judge a supervisor. Another said he had answered honestly only because the survey promised group reporting, and that he would watch whether that promise held. Those comments suggest the process itself sent a message about whose view counts, and that trust in the next round depends on how this one was handled.

Problems With the Process

Some things did not work well. Two supervisors had only three line leads each, so a single unhappy lead could swing the group average. Several leads said they worried about being identified even with group reporting. The comments section was the most useful part of many reports but also the most likely to identify a rater by writing style or detail. Supervisors who received mostly favorable ratings got less out of coaching, and one supervisor declined the second session.

What I Would Change Next Season

I would run the survey earlier, in week four, to allow two rounds within one season. I would add a short training for raters on writing specific, behavioral comments without identifying details. And I would keep the process developmental for at least two more seasons before discussing any use in decisions, so supervisors trust it.

Connections to the Capstone

The low ratings on backing quality holds connect to the conflict between production and quality assurance that the Unit 8 paper takes up, and the staffing response items connect to the stress that line leads described during the busiest weeks, examined in Unit 9.

Conclusion

The first 360 survey gave night shift supervisors feedback their manager could not provide. Bracken and colleagues and Atwater and colleagues shaped the design: a clear developmental purpose, behavioral items, protected anonymity and follow-up. Smither and colleagues explain why the supervisors who discussed results with their raters and set specific goals were most likely to improve, as Ray did on two of his three low items.

References

Atwater, L. E., Brett, J. F., & Charles, A. C. (2007). Multisource feedback: Lessons learned and implications for practice. Human Resource Management, 46(2), 285-307. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20161

Bracken, D. W., Rose, D. S., & Church, A. H. (2016). The evolution and devolution of 360° feedback. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(4), 761-794. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2016.93

Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 33-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.514_1.x