At the start of this year, my office spent a lot of time considering personnel evaluations. We had become particularly concerned about reviews that led to promotions. We were disturbed that many people who had been promoted to senior positions by their manager did not have the respect or the support of others in the office. Teammates, subordinates, and other managers often were nonplussed by someone who got promoted.
First, we wanted to understand how and why this was happening, and second, we wanted to come up with something to help combat it.
As we began to probe, we asked each other why someone would promote someone whom many thought was not yet qualified. The reasons, we found, were varied, but they included having a different perception from others of the person’s capabilities, finding it easier to promote someone who has worked hard than to provide critical feedback that might be received badly, and wanting to reward those who have “put in the time.”
When we moved to potential solutions, we found one review method that has gained considerable press over the past couple of years: 360-degree (or “multi-source”) feedback.
The idea is that instead of a single evaluation from the boss, a person receives feedback from many workplace sources. The manager still gives input, but peers and direct reports (people who report to the participant) also get involved in the evaluation process. The person participating in a 360° gets to rate his or her performance, too. By applying their individual observations and experiences, everyone involved brings different perspectives to the assessment.
We found that multi-source feedback gave us some ‘safety in numbers’ and a more objective, balanced view of an individual. It relieved the pressure on the managers, since they were able to see many people’s opinions and combine them with their own. In short, it worked.
With the success of this review process in mind, I began to think about how this could be applied to squash. There are a number of potentially applicable positions, but three sprung immediately to mind: tournament organizers, coaches, and referees.
Perhaps the last of these three is the most directly applicable, since there already is a review process for referees that leads directly to “promotions” – or increases in certification levels.
The United States has done a terrific job of increasing the profile of refereeing by making certification mandatory for juniors, by putting a formal certification process in place and by making sure that the opportunities for review and promotion exist. That said, there is still a concern among many that some referees who are enthusiastic and who work hard are being promoted despite obvious weaknesses.
If a multi-source feedback scheme were put into place, there could be a number of quick benefits. Imagine, for example, if reviews were sought from players, spectators, other referees and tournament officials as well as from the reviewer and the referee him or herself. The results might be very different from each constituency (and needless to say, there would have to be some leeway given for reviews from the winning and losing player, who likely would be overly favorable and unfavorable, respectively).
There also would be an opportunity for referees to be graded on things that might not appear on a test or on a supervisor’s radar screen – things like whether the score was audible for spectators, whether spectators understood what was being called and appealed, whether the players thought the calls were consistent with each other and with current standards, whether the players and spectators felt the referee was in control or in over his/her head, and how well the referee appeared to know the rules (very different from whether or not they actually know the rules). The perspectives on these, as well as on the accuracy of the actual calls, might be illuminating. It might even make it less likely that those who work hard but don’t have the ‘right stuff’ keep advancing. And it might allow referees to better work on their weaknesses.
Our company found each of these benefits to be true, but we also found an unintended advantage: by receiving feedback from the sources most closely related to an employee’s daily work, the greater workforce started to gain confidence in the promotions and evaluations that were being given. By giving the naysayers a voice in the process, the collective confidence that the evaluations were being done accurately and well increased dramatically. Imagine if the same were true for the evaluation of referees.
That might be the best benefit of all.
