Posted on August 14, 2018
The state Department of Health (DOH) recently posted to the Health Commerce System (HCS) a Dear Administrator Letter (DAL) for hospices regarding an amendment to the state Public Health Law (PHL) that requires hospice workers who provide direct care or supervision of patients to undergo a criminal history record check (CHRC) as a condition of employment with the hospice.
The DAL can be downloaded here.
The law became effective April 1, 2018 for all hospices licensed and certified under Article 40 of the PHL. Title 10 New York Codes of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 402 is being amended to reflect that hospices request a CHRC for any prospective unlicensed individual employed by, or utilized by, the organization who provides direct care or supervision to a patient or resident or who has access to the patient or resident, their living quarters, or their property.
Volunteers, students and professionals licensed by the State Education Department are not subject to the CHRC requirement, according to the DAL.
While noting the April 1 statutory date, the DAL proceeds to indicate that “the regulatory amendment is expected to be finalized in August 2018.”
The DAL follows actions by the Public Health and Health Planning Council on August 2 to approve DOH’s proposed rule that would implement the inclusion of hospice in the CHRC and in the Home Care Worker Registry (HCWR) process. (That proposed rule also included Advanced Home Health Aide provisions.
According to the DAL, hospice providers should develop policies and procedures which ensure compliance with the CHRC requirements.
DOH has developed various training materials to assist hospices in implementing their CHRC program. Training presentations can be accessed on the HCS by logging on, selecting “Documents by Group,” then “Long Term Care,” then “Training” and finally “Home Care.” The trainings include:
- CHRC application process: A presentation that describes the process for obtaining CHRC checks for potential employees.
- Introduction to CHRC.
- Introduction to the Home Care Worker Registry (HCWR).
Hospice providers should verify and update, if necessary, the administrator role in your agency’s HCS account. The administrator is responsible for assigning the “CHRC Authorized Person” (AP); this is the person authorized to request background checks for prospective employees and review the legal determinations letters.
Posted on June 2, 2018
Leaving technology and software/hardware industry for a healthcare 8 years ago really opened my eyes to how healthcare works and the industry overall. There have been great initiatives over the years where healthcare focus is more on prevention and management Vs over-prescribing and over-medication ,as well as understanding what drives the ever increasing cost of the healthcare. This is great initiative showing promise to improve health as well as access to health care to those who were unable to do so int he past.
Create social and physical environments that promote good health for all.
Health starts in our homes, schools, workplaces, neighborhoods, and communities. We know that taking care of ourselves by eating well and staying active, not smoking, getting the recommended immunizations and screening tests, and seeing a doctor when we are sick all influence our health. Our health is also determined in part by access to social and economic opportunities; the resources and supports available in our homes, neighborhoods, and communities; the quality of our schooling; the safety of our workplaces; the cleanliness of our water, food, and air; and the nature of our social interactions and relationships. The conditions in which we live explain in part why some Americans are healthier than others and why Americans more generally are not as healthy as they could be.
Healthy People 2020 highlights the importance of addressing the social determinants of health by including “Create social and physical environments that promote good health for all” as one of the four overarching goals for the decade. This emphasis is shared by the World Health Organization, whose Commission on Social Determinants of Health in 2008 published the report, Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health. The emphasis is also shared by other U.S. health initiatives such as the National Partnership for Action to End Health Disparities and the National Prevention and Health Promotion Strategy.
The Social Determinants of Health topic area within Healthy People 2020 is designed to identify ways to create social and physical environments that promote good health for all. All Americans deserve an equal opportunity to make the choices that lead to good health. But to ensure that all Americans have that opportunity, advances are needed not only in health care but also in fields such as education, childcare, housing, business, law, media, community planning, transportation, and agriculture. Making these advances involves working together to:
- Explore how programs, practices, and policies in these areas affect the health of individuals, families, and communities.
- Establish common goals, complementary roles, and ongoing constructive relationships between the health sector and these areas.
- Maximize opportunities for collaboration among Federal-, state-, and local-level partners related to social determinants of health.
Understanding Social Determinants of Health
Social determinants of health are conditions in the environments in which people are born, live, learn, work, play, worship, and age that affect a wide range of health, functioning, and quality-of-life outcomes and risks. Conditions (e.g., social, economic, and physical) in these various environments and settings (e.g., school, church, workplace, and neighborhood) have been referred to as “place.” In addition to the more material attributes of “place,” the patterns of social engagement and sense of security and well-being are also affected by where people live. Resources that enhance quality of life can have a significant influence on population health outcomes. Examples of these resources include safe and affordable housing, access to education, public safety, availability of healthy foods, local emergency/health services, and environments free of life-threatening toxins.
Examples of social determinants include:
- Availability of resources to meet daily needs (e.g., safe housing and local food markets)
- Access to educational, economic, and job opportunities
- Access to health care services
- Quality of education and job training
- Availability of community-based resources in support of community living and opportunities for recreational and leisure-time activities
- Transportation options
- Public safety
- Social support
- Social norms and attitudes (e.g., discrimination, racism, and distrust of government)
- Exposure to crime, violence, and social disorder (e.g., presence of trash and lack of cooperation in a community)
- Socioeconomic conditions (e.g., concentrated poverty and the stressful conditions that accompany it)
- Residential segregation
- Access to mass media and emerging technologies (e.g., cell phones, the Internet, and social media)
Examples of physical determinants include:
- Natural environment, such as green space (e.g., trees and grass) or weather (e.g., climate change)
- Built environment, such as buildings, sidewalks, bike lanes, and roads
- Worksites, schools, and recreational settings
- Housing and community design
- Exposure to toxic substances and other physical hazards
- Physical barriers, especially for people with disabilities
- Aesthetic elements (e.g., good lighting, trees, and benches)
By working to establish policies that positively influence social and economic conditions and those that support changes in individual behavior, we can improve health for large numbers of people in ways that can be sustained over time. Improving the conditions in which we live, learn, work, and play and the quality of our relationships will create a healthier population, society, and workforce.
Healthy People 2020 Approach to Social Determinants of Health
A “place-based” organizing framework, reflecting five (5) key areas of social determinants of health (SDOH), was developed by Healthy People 2020.
These five key areas (determinants) include:
- Economic Stability
- Social and Community Context
- Health and Health Care
- Neighborhood and Built Environment
Each of these five determinant areas reflects a number of key issues that make up the underlying factors in the arena of SDOH.
- Economic Stability
- Food Insecurity
- Housing Instability
- Early Childhood Education and Development
- Enrollment in Higher Education
- High School Graduation
- Language and Literacy
- Social and Community Context
- Civic Participation
- Social Cohesion
- Health and Health Care
- Access to Health Care
- Access to Primary Care
- Health Literacy
- Neighborhood and Built Environment
- Access to Foods that Support Healthy Eating Patterns
- Crime and Violence
- Environmental Conditions
- Quality of Housing
This organizing framework has been used to establish an initial set of objectives for the topic area as well as to identify existing Healthy People objectives (i.e., in other topic areas) that are complementary and highly relevant to social determinants. It is anticipated that additional objectives will continue to be developed throughout the decade.
Thanks For Reading
Marijan Pavisic MS SPHR
As the labor market tightens in our expanding economy, companies will need workers. And people returning to society from prison need jobs. Keeping potential employers and employees apart is fear, lack of understanding, and about 20,000 statutes and regulations across the country that restrict the hiring of ex-offenders.
Businesses and governments want to change that. Yesterday, the White House hosted a roundtable comprising executives from such companies as Uber, Home Depot, and Johns Hopkins Health System, as well as officials like governors John Hickenlooper of Colorado and Matt Bevin of Kentucky, to discuss the challenges and benefits of hiring the group of people now referred to as formerly incarcerated.
Crime has been in decades-long decline, but roughly 70 million adults in this country have criminal records; and more than 10 million return to their communities from incarceration each year. For this group, more jobs equals lower recidivism equals better lives. Yet fresh starts are curtailed by cultural bias, skills deficits, and myriad regulatory barriers. Among the most common: state rules that deny professional licenses to people with criminal histories.
Roundtable participants said they would like to see such rules eased or eliminated. They also want more collaboration between governments and businesses to create pathways from incarceration to employment (primarily for nonviolent offenders). The idea of creating more job-training programs inside prisons was discussed. So was raising the profile of the Department of Labor’s 52-year-old federal bonding program, which guarantees for six months the honesty of hard-to-place job candidates, including people with criminal records.
The smallest business at the table was also the most experienced. For more than 30 years, Greyston Bakery, based in Yonkers, New York, has practiced “open hiring”–filling available positions with anyone who wants them, no questions asked. The $20 million company has employed thousands of ex-offenders. Around 65 percent of the current workforce has been incarcerated.
During the roundtable, Greyston CEO Mike Brady dispelled some of the myths around hiring ex-offenders, whom he called “fully functional and productive members of our team.” Insurance and workers’ comp costs at Greyston are no higher than at comparable businesses, and turnover is actually lower. “Our history is a demonstration that people coming out of the criminal justice system make for an amazing workforce,” said Brady, in a follow-up interview.
Brady urges businesses to be much more inclusive about hiring. Growing competition for talent, he says, “is a great opportunity to look at your human capital plans and make them more welcoming.” The challenge for small companies differs from large ones, however. “We don’t have a large staff of human resources people and lawyers who would raise obstacles to these programs,” he says. “But those resources would also make it easier for us to address risks.”
Policymakers have been making some strides. For example, more than 150 cities and counties have adopted ban-the-box rules preventing employers from asking about criminal history on job applications. But there’s a distinction between making it harder for companies to not hire the formerly incarcerated and persuading them to actively seek out ex-offenders and help them become valued employees. “The governor of Kentucky said we have to keep biting the apple. There is just so much low-hanging fruit,” says Brady. “Progressive businesses have an opportunity to take the lead in giving people a chance. It has got a positive ROI if you do it right.”
Everyone deserves a 2nd chance.
National Nurses Week History
National Nurses Week begins each year on May 6th and ends on May 12th, Florence Nightingale’s birthday. These permanent dates enhance planning and position National Nurses Week as an established recognition event. As of 1998, May 8 was designated as National Student Nurses Day, to be celebrated annually. And as of 2003, National School Nurse Day is celebrated on the Wednesday within National Nurses Week (May 6-12) each year.
The nursing profession has been supported and promoted by the American Nurses Association (ANA) since 1896. Each of ANA’s state and territorial nurses associations promotes the nursing profession at the state and regional levels. Each conducts celebrations on these dates to recognize the contributions that nurses and nursing make to the community.
The ANA supports and encourages National Nurses Week recognition programs through the state and district nurses associations, other specialty nursing organizations, educational facilities, and independent health care companies and institutions.
A Brief History of National Nurses Week
1953 Dorothy Sutherland of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare sent a proposal to President Eisenhower to proclaim a “Nurse Day” in October of the following year. The proclamation was never made.
1954 National Nurse Week was observed from October 11 – 16. The year of the observance marked the 100th anniversary of Florence Nightingale’s mission to Crimea. Representative Frances P. Bolton sponsored the bill for a nurse week. Apparently, a bill for a National Nurse Week was introduced in the 1955 Congress, but no action was taken. Congress discontinued its practice of joint resolutions for national weeks of various kinds.
1972 Again a resolution was presented by the House of Representatives for the President to proclaim “National Registered Nurse Day.” It did not occur.
1974 In January of that year, the International Council of Nurses (ICN) proclaimed that May 12 would be “International Nurse Day.” (May 12 is the birthday of Florence Nightingale.) Since 1965, the ICN has celebrated “International Nurse Day.”
1974 In February of that year, a week was designated by the White House as National Nurse Week, and President Nixon issued a proclamation.
1978 New Jersey Governor Brendon Byrne declared May 6 as “Nurses Day.” Edward Scanlan, of Red Bank, N.J., took up the cause to perpetuate the recognition of nurses in his state. Mr. Scanlan had this date listed in Chase’s Calendar of Annual Events. He promoted the celebration on his own.
1981 ANA, along with various nursing organizations, rallied to support a resolution initiated by nurses in New Mexico, through their Congressman, Manuel Lujan, to have May 6, 1982, established as “National Recognition Day for Nurses.”
1982 In February, the ANA Board of Directors formally acknowledged May 6, 1982 as “National Nurses Day.” The action affirmed a joint resolution of the United States Congress designating May 6 as “National Recognition Day for Nurses.”
1982 President Ronald Reagan signed a proclamation on March 25, proclaiming “National Recognition Day for Nurses” to be May 6, 1982.
1990 The ANA Board of Directors expanded the recognition of nurses to a week-long celebration, declaring May 6 – 12, 1991, as National Nurses Week.
1993 The ANA Board of Directors designated May 6 – 12 as permanent dates to observe National Nurses Week in 1994 and in all subsequent years.
1996 The ANA initiated “National RN Recognition Day” on May 6, 1996, to honor the nation’s indispensable registered nurses for their tireless commitment 365 days a year. The ANA encourages its state and territorial nurses associations and other organizations to acknowledge May 6, 1996 as “National RN Recognition Day.”
1997 The ANA Board of Directors, at the request of the National Student Nurses Association, designated May 8 as National Student Nurses Day.
Mayor Bill de Blasio on Wednesday signed 11 bills that aim to bolster protections against sexual harassment — both for municipal and private employees.
The measures triple the statute of limitations for filing a complaint with city government from one to three years and mandate that city agencies publicly report each complaint received.
Additionally, private firms with 15 or more employees must now provide anti-sexual-harassment training annually, de Blasio said.
“The offhand offensive remark or innuendo, the joke masking as micro-aggression, and the unwanted contact . . . today we are saying that we as a city will no longer let it slide, we will no longer let it stand,” said City Council Speaker Corey Johnson, who sponsored one of the bills.
“This is about setting a positive example for everyone.”
City Hall recently revealed that municipal workers filed 1,425 complaints of sexual harassment between July 2013 and December 2017, of which 221 were substantiated.
In response to questions from reporters, the Mayor’s Office has promised it would reveal how workers were disciplined in the substantiated cases — but it has yet to do so.
De Blasio came under fire last month for questioning whether the reports were legitimate, blaming the 471 at the Department of Education on a “hyper-complaint dynamic” at the agency.
Over the course of many years, the notion of “Workplace Diversity” was a concept, a fad, one of many organizational ‘flavor of the month’ programs; and to some, another name for Affirmative Action. Workplace Diversity was viewed as code words referring to race, ethnicity and gender. There were expectations and even pressure imposed to consider diversity attributes as a major factor in staffing decisions. The term ‘quota’ comes to mind in these cases.
It is refreshing to say that we have come a long way since those days. Oh yes, major corporations and large organizations tend to demonstrate their commitment through the appointment of executives to lead their diversity programs. They create large scale programs, including training, hold corporate sponsored events, and contribute financial and manpower support to the programs of special interest groups.
The world of small business is totally different when it comes to workplace diversity. It’s not a program. It’s a reality; a key factor in survival and the challenges to achieving success. Small businesses, by virtue of size, the demographics of their customer base, the products and services they offer, realize that true diversity is reflected in the characteristics and attributes of the customers they serve. More importantly, they understand the value of the diversity of their employees and consider their differences an asset to the business and essential in serving its customers.
Small businesses have long understood that diversity encompasses race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, age, personality, education, and much more. These factors are generally second nature in the staffing process. The focus is on hiring the most qualified candidate for the job. By doing so, they manage to create a diverse staff on the basis of the skills they need to provide quality service to their customers.
Commitment to diversity in the workplace is important. It creates an environment where differences are respected and taken seriously, and where there is openness and the sharing of ideas. The diversity of experience, thoughts, and various perspectives set the stage for a workforce of dedicated employees whose overall mission is to do the best job they can to satisfy their customers.
By Marijan Pavisic MS SPHR
It’s not surprising that a recent survey found 69% of full-time employees get distracted at work. The more interesting finding is that 70% of workers think their managers could help them focus better through training.
Udemy conducted a survey of 1,000 full-time office workers in the U.S. to find what was causing the distractions, how employees cope with them and what employers can do to help workers regain their focus.
Fifty-four percent of employees believe they are underperforming due to workplace distractions. Here’s what topped the list:
- Talkative co-workers (80%)
- Office noise (70%)
- Meetings (60%), and
- Social media (56%).
The majority of workers who said social media was the biggest distraction admitted that its use wasn’t work-related, but they couldn’t get through the day without checking personal accounts. One-third of millennial employees are on their phones for up to two hours during the workday.
A lot of workers are aware these distractions affect their productivity and try to combat them on their own.
Forty-three percent of employees shut their cell phones off during work. Thirty percent listen to music to block out conversations and other noises. And when workers know they’re distracted and won’t be able to focus, 26% use that time to complete simpler tasks.
What employees need to focus
Distractions not only impact productivity, but also have a long-term impact on careers.
Twenty-two percent of workers think distractions can prevent them from reaching their full potential and advancing in their careers, while 34% said distractions simply make them like their job less.
Employees had some ideas of what would make them more inclined to focus at work:
- Trying new things (54%)
- Being encouraged to learn new skills (42%)
- Knowing the path for professional advancement (35%), and
- Participating in workplace trainings (22%).
The survey also found some more tangible things employers can do to cut down on distractions. Here are the top suggestions:
- Allow flexible schedules/telecommuting (40%)
- Have designated spaces for quiet work and teamwork (38%)
- Provide time management training (37%)
- Define office norms for noise levels, conversations, etc. (31%), and
- Have regular “no meetings” days.
Employers finally have federal guidance regarding the paid-leave tax credit created under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), but that guidance is likely to fall short of what many firms were expecting.
In fact, in the initial FAQ on the tax-credit, the IRS even said it will eventually offer more comprehensive guidance for employers. But until that additional guidance comes, employers will have to make do with what the feds just rolled out.
12.5% to 25% credit
What employers already knew about the credit: It was established for employers that provide paid family and medical leave, as described under the FMLA, to employees for wages paid between Jan. 1, 2018, and Dec. 31, 2019 and will sunset unless Congress decides to extend it. Employees on leave must be paid at least 50% of their normal wages while on leave.
The tax credit ranges from 12.5-25% of the amount of wages paid to a worker during leave, depending on exactly how much of their normal wages are actually paid out. The credit only applies to those who earn below $72,000 and doesn’t apply if by paid leave is mandated by their state or local law.
While the FAQ essentially reiterated a lot of what was in the TCJA, it did clarify what constitutes “paid family and medical leave” under the credit:
- Birth of an employee’s child and to care for the child.
- Placement of a child with the employee for adoption or foster care.
- To care for the employee’s spouse, child, or parent who has a serious health condition.
- A serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of his or her position.
- Any qualifying exigency due to an employee’s spouse, child, or parent being on covered active duty (or having been notified of an impending call or order to covered active duty) in the Armed Forces.
- To care for a service member who is the employee’s spouse, child, parent, or next of kin.
In addition, if employers provide paid vacation, personal, medical or sick leave that isn’t specifically for one of those reasons, it will not be considered family and medical leave for the purposes of the tax credit.
The FAQ also clarified how employers must calculate the credit. For example, companies must reduce their deductions for wages paid by the amount of any tax credit for paid leave.
The attorneys over at Winston & Strawn LLP offered a specific example of how the calculation would apply to an employee earning $50,000 that included $5,000 of paid FMLA leave. In this example, the employer received a $1,250 credit for the leave it provided. Therefore, it could only deduct $48,750 of the employee’s wage expense ($50,000-$1,250).
What the feds didn’t include
Despite the clarifications, the IRS said IT has a lot more guidance coming on the finer points of the credit. Specifically, the agency said it will address (“eventually”) the following in future guidance:
- When the written policy [on paid FMLA for purposes of tax-credit calculation] must be in place;
- How paid “family and medical leave” relates to an employer’s other paid leave;
- How to determine whether an employee has been employed for “one year or more”;
- The impact of state and local leave requirements; and
- Whether members of a controlled group of corporations and businesses under common control are treated as a single taxpayer in determining the credit.
Want to make people happy? Make people sad? Care to create an uproar in your organization that rivals in ferocity any change you’ve ever introduced in your history? Want to stir up all of the dormant fear balls hidden just below the surface in your organization? I know; you think I’m talking about laying off half your staff. Right?
Wrong. I am talking about organizations that do a poor job of introducing and implementing 360 degree, or multirater, feedback. Indeed, I’m also talking about organizations that do a good job of introducing 360 degree feedback. Nothing raises hackles as fiercely as a change in performance feedback methods, especially when they affect compensation decisions.
Implemented with care and training to enable people to better serve customers and develop their own careers, 360 degree feedback is a positive addition to your performance management system. Started haphazardly, because it’s the current flavor in organizations, or because “everyone” else is doing it, 360 feedback will create a disaster from which you will require months and possibly years, to recover.
360 degree feedback is a method and a tool that provides each employee the opportunity to receive performance feedback from his or her supervisor and four to eight peers, reporting staff members, coworkers and customers. Most 360 degree feedback tools are also responded to by each individual in a self assessment.
360 degree feedback allows each individual to understand how his effectiveness as an employee, coworker, or staff member is viewed by others. The most effective 360 degree feedback processes provide feedback that is based on behaviors that other employees can see.
The feedback provides insight about the skills and behaviors desired in the organization to accomplish the mission, vision, and goals and live the values. The feedback is firmly planted in behaviors needed to exceed customer expectations.
People who are chosen as raters, usually choices shared by the organization and employee, generally interact routinely with the person receiving feedback.
The purpose of the 360 degree feedback is to assist each individual to understand his or her strengths and weaknesses, and to contribute insights into aspects of his or her work needing professional development. Debates of all kinds are raging in the world of organizations about how to:
- select the feedback tool and process,
- select the raters,
- use the feedback,
- review the feedback, and
- manage and integrate the process into a larger performance management system.
Now that you know what 360 degree feedback is, learn about the good side of 360 degree feedback.
Organizations that are happy with the 360 degree component of their performance management systems identify these positive features of the process. These features will manifest themselves in well-managed, well-integrated 360 degree feedback processes.
- Improved Feedback From More Sources: Provides well-rounded feedback from peers, reporting staff, coworkers, and supervisors. This can be a definite improvement over feedback from a single individual. 360 feedback can also save managers’ time in that they can spend less energy providing feedback as more people participate in the process. Coworker perception is important and the process helps people understand how other employees view their work.
- Team Development:Helps team members learn to work more effectively together. (Teams know more about how team members are performing than their supervisor.) Multirater feedback makes team members more accountable to each other as they share the knowledge that they will provide input on each members’ performance. A well-planned process can improve communication and team development.
- Personal and Organizational Performance Development:360 degree feedback is one of the best methods for understanding personal and organizational developmental needs.
- Responsibility for Career Development:For many reasons, organizations are no longer responsible for developing the careers of their employees, if they ever were. Multirater feedback can provide excellent information to an individual about what she needs to do to enhance her career.
Additionally, many employees feel 360 degree feedback is more accurate, more reflective of their performance, and more validating than prior feedback from the supervisor alone. This makes the information more useful for both career and personal development.
- Reduced Discrimination Risk:When feedback comes from a number of individuals in various job functions, discrimination because of race, age, gender, and so on, is reduced. The “horns and halo” effect, in which a supervisor rates performance based on her most recent interactions with the employee, is also minimized.
- Improved Customer Service:Especially in feedback processes that involve the internal or external customer, each person receives valuable feedback about the quality of his product or services. This feedback should enable the individual to improve the quality, reliability, promptness, and comprehensiveness of these products and services.
- Training Needs Assessment:360 degree feedback provides comprehensive information about organization training needs and thus allows planning for classes, cross-functional responsibilities, and cross-training.
A 360 degree feedback system does have a good side. However, 360 degree feedback also has a bad side and even, an ugly side.
For every good point I just made about 360 degree feedback systems, detractors and people who have had bad experiences with such systems, can offer the down side. The down side is important because it gives you a roadmap of the things to avoid when you implement a 360 feedback process.
Following are potential problems with 360 degree feedback processes and a recommended solution for each.
- Exceptional Expectations for the Process:360 degree feedback is not the same as a performance management system. It is merely a part of the feedback and development that a performance management system offers within an organization.
Additionally, proponents may lead participants to expect too much from this feedback system in their efforts to obtain organizational support for implementation. Make sure the 360 feedback is integrated into a complete performance management system.
- Design Process Downfalls:Often, a 360 degree feedback process arrives as a recommendation from the HR department or is shepherded in by an executive who learned about the process at a seminar or in a book. Just as an organization implements any planned change, the implementation of 360 degree feedback should follow effective change management guidelines. A cross-section of the people who will have to live with and utilize the process should explore and develop the process for your organization.
- Failure to Connect the Process:For a 360 feedback process to work, it must be connected with the overall strategic aims of your organization. If you have identified competencies or have comprehensive job descriptions, give people feedback on their performance of the expected competencies and job duties.
The system will fail if it is an add-on rather than a supporter of your organization’s fundamental direction and requirements. It must function as a measure of your accomplishment of your organization’s big and long term picture.
- Insufficient Information:Since 360 degree feedback processes are currently usually anonymous, people receiving feedback have no recourse if they want to further understand the feedback. They have no one to ask for clarification of unclear comments or more information about particular ratings and their basis.
For this reason and for the points listed in the several bullet points following this one, developing 360 process coaches is important. Supervisors, HR staff people, interested managers and others are taught to assist people to understand their feedback. They are trained to help people develop action plans based upon the feedback.
- Focus on Negatives and Weaknesses:At least one book, First Break All the Rules: What The World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently, advises that great managers focus on employee strengths, not weaknesses. The authors said, “People don’t change that much. Don’t waste time trying to put in what was left out. Try to draw out what was left in. That is hard enough.”
- Rater Inexperience and Ineffectiveness:In addition to the insufficient training organizations provide both people receiving feedback and people providing feedback, there are numerous ways raters go wrong. They may inflate ratings to make an employee look good. They may deflate ratings to make an individual look bad. They may informally band together to make the system artificially inflate everyone’s performance. Checks and balances must prevent these pitfalls.
- Paperwork/Computer Data Entry Overload:Need I say much more here? Traditional evaluations required two people and one form. Multirater feedback ups the sheer number of people participating in the process and the consequent organization time invested.
There are minuses with the 360 degree feedback processes. As with any performance feedback process, it can provide you with a profoundly supportive, organization-affirming method for promoting employee growth and development. Or, in the worst cases, it saps morale, destroys motivation, enables disenfranchised employees to go for the jugular or plot and scheme revenge scenarios.
360 feedback can increase positive, powerful problem solving for customers or set people off on journeys to identify the guilty – the feedback provider who rated their performance less than perfect.
Which scenario will your organization choose? It’s all in the details. Think profoundly before you move forward; learn from the mistakes of others; assess your organization’s readiness. Apply effective change management strategies to planning and implementation. Do the right things right and you will add a powerful tool to your performance management and enhancement toolkit.
By Marijan Pavisic MS SPHR
Posted on April 22, 2018
What is 360 Review?
A 360 review is a professional feedback opportunity that enables a group of coworkers to provide feedback on an employee’s performance. The feedback is generally asked for by the manager to whom the employee reports. Coworkers who participate in the 360 review usually include the boss, several peers, reporting staff, and functional managers with whom the employee works regularly.
Hence, the name of the feedback opportunity comes from the fact that performance feedback is solicited from all directions in the organization
The 360 review differs from an employee appraisal which traditionally provides the employee with the opinion of his or her performance as viewed by the manager. These employee appraisals tend to focus on the progress the employee achieved on job goals. The manager may seek feedback from other employees, especially managers, about the employee’s performance, but it’s not part of the formal system.
In contrast, the 360 review focuses more directly on the skills and contributions that an employee makes. The goal of the feedback is to provide a balanced view to an employee of how others view his or her contribution and performance in areas such as leadership, teamwork, interpersonal communication, management, contribution, work habits, interpersonal interaction, accountability, vision and more, depending on the employee’s job. The review allows coworkers to assess the employee’s impact on furthering goal accomplishment and positive customer results as observed by team members.
How Does 360 Review Feedback Work?
Organizations use a variety of methods to seek 360 feedback about employees. Some are more common than others and all depend on the culture and climate of the organization.
In most organizations that ask for 360 feedback, the manager asks for and receives the feedback. The manager then analyzes the feedback looking for patterns of behavior to note. The manager searches for both positive and constructive feedback. The goal is to provide the employee with the key and important points without overwhelming him or her with too much data.
Often the manager has sought feedback in response to specific questions so the feedback is easier to organize and share. Some organizations use instruments that are tallied electronically and that give employees a score in each area assessed. Some processes are completely online. Others still rely on open ended questions.
Organizations also hire external consultants to administer the surveys, usually when managers are receiving a 360 review. The consultants then analyze and share the data with the manager and with the manager and staff in some cases. In the best of these circumstances, the manager and staff join together to plan improvements for both the manager and for the department.
In more progressive organizations, that have built a climate of trust, employees provide 360 feedback directly to each other. But, you must always take care that the feedback must be as descriptive as possible so that the employee has something tangible to improve. When sharing is open, make sure also that you solicit frequent employee feedback about how the process is working and affecting employees.
In any case, how you introduce, monitor, and evaluate the effectiveness of the 360 review process is critical to its success or failure.
NEXT ARTICLE WILL BE ABOUT THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY OF 360 REVIEWS
Thank You For Reading
Marijan Pavisic MS SPHR