360o Feedback and Competency Analysis

By: Avinash Pakhre

Vikas Tiwari
Under the Guidance of: Srinath Vedula

At Bharti Realty Holding Ltd

In (Partial) Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree of
PGDHRM

Indian Institute of Management

Suchana Bhawan,
5th Floor, Audrey House Campus,
Meur’s Road, Ranchi – 834 008

1|Page
Table of Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................4

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................6
Literature Review....................................................................................................................................... 10
Research Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 13
Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 16
Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 17
Findings ....................................................................................................................................................... 22
Suggestions ................................................................................................................................................ 38
Reference ................................................................................................................................................... 40

2|Page
 Acknowledgement

These last two months of summer training had been nothing short of a journey- a journey of
great learning experiences. We got our first glimpse of corporate culture and also how the
Human Resources department fulfils its role in an organization. Our internship at Bharti Realty
Ltd. has been possible because of many people, who throughout our project have been constant
source of encouragement, support and guidance.

First of all, we would like to express our earnest gratitude and sincere thanks towards our project
guide, Srinath Vedula for his timely and valuable guidance and support offered to us throughout
the course of this project work.

We whole heartedly thank, Priyanka Saha, who was always ready with a helping hand and
quick tips, for providing us with imperative insights and feedback throughout the project.

We offer our sincere gratitude to our project guide and mentor, Prof Dr Bijaya Mishra as
without her immense help and unfailing support in giving the necessary information of
processes, this project would not have been possible.

We would also like to express our sincere gratitude to Tanvi Srivastava for her support and
guidance in the summer internship program.

3|Page
 Executive Summary
\

The 3600 feedback administered in November ’12 and April ’12 taken together helped us in
doing the comparative study of individual and group performances during the aforementioned
periods. As the questions were modelled on the competencies prescribed by the organization,
the individual and group scores gave us a valuable insight into the fit of the individual with the
organization. The group scores gave a clear understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of
the groups. There was consistency in performances of both individuals as well as groups across
the time-periods measured.

The administration of the test was transformed from an outdated hard-copy method to a robust
automated method using Qualtrics software. Ample time was saved and work-load was
drastically reduced. This is our contribution to Bharti Realty whose fruits will be devoured by
the organization for a long time to come.

There were also many pitfalls in the whole process. Some employees were rated by co-workers
of one group while others were rated by co-workers of multiple groups, depending on the
number of groups the employee belonged to. The scores of an employee obtained through
multiple groups were then averaged. The final score thus obtained gave no idea of the
individual performance in different groups. We feel there is ample scope for improvements in
the whole procedure, especially the sync of the questions with the competencies.

Our recommendations were for a particular competency and not for a particular group. The
groups which scored below a certain threshold on a particular competency were given
recommendations pertaining to the same. This standardised the process of improvement of
individuals and groups. But the competencies should be responsive to the dynamic
circumstances the organization encounters, to transform into a torch-bearer for competitors and
to stay ahead of the competition.

4|Page
 Chapter 1

Introduction

5|Page
Purpose of the study:

1. To execute the process of 360o Feedback of employees at Bharti Realty

2. To evaluate the performances of employees with respect to the competencies
3. To recommend measures from enhancing the performance

In human resources or industrial psychology, 360-degree feedback, also known as multi-rater

feedback, multi source feedback, or multi source assessment, is feedback that comes from
members of an employee's immediate work circle. Most often, 360-degree feedback will
include direct feedback from an employee's subordinates, peers, and supervisor(s), as well as a
self-evaluation. It can also include, in some cases, feedback from external sources, such as
customers and suppliers or other interested stakeholder

The first documented use of surveys to accomplish 360° Feedback was in the 1950s by the
Esso Research and Engineer-ing Company (now a part of Exxon Mobil). The organization
credited the process for increased efficiency and financial success. Anonymity was a key to
success (Maloney, 1959).

According to Fortune magazine, it is estimated that 90% of all Fortune 500 companies use
some sort of multi-rater feedback (Thornton, 2009). Forty percent of companies were using
360° Feedback in 1995; by 2000, the figure jumped to 65% according to the HR consulting
firm William M. Mercer (Pfau, Kay, Nowack, & Ghorpade, 2002).

The first known use of a multiple-source feedback method was during World War II, by the
German military. Although it lacked the flashy name, the concept was exactly the same:
Soldiers were evaluated by peers, supervisors and subordinates to provide insight and
recommendations on how to improve performance. The U.S. military used a similar
performance appraisal concept during World War I, but the feedback lacked the appraisals of
subordinates that the Germans incorporated; however, both tied the merit ratings directly to
compensation and promotions.

The conventional wisdom in leadership development circles is that you should discover and
capitalize on your strengths, assuming that they are aligned with some organizational need. No
matter how hard you work on certain weaknesses, the logic goes, chances are you’ll make only

6|Page
marginal progress. Don’t waste too much time overcoming flaws; better to focus on what you
do best and surround yourself with people who have complementary strengths.

It’s a reasonable approach that emerged as a response to an arguably unhealthy fixation on

weaknesses when it came to performance reviews. Seven years ago, in fact, one of us (Kaplan)
cited in a short HBR article the value of understanding your strengths – and not just because
it’s hard to overcome weaknesses. But it turns out you can take strengths too far. The article
referenced a brilliant media executive who considered himself unexceptional. Although he
grasped complex concepts more quickly than most people, he didn’t realize it – so he was
impatient with colleagues who, in his view, couldn’t keep up. Only with some pointed feedback
did he see that he was run ning roughshod over his colleagues. In other words, he had
unknowingly corrupted his quick-wittedness by taking it to excess.

"360-degree" feedback has become a popularly used term. It refers to the practice of involving
multiple raters, often including self-ratings, in the assessment of individuals. Typically,
feedback about a target individual is solicited from significant "others," using a standardized
assessment instrument. These "others" typically include the individual's co-workers,
subordinates, and managers, as well as customers. The requirement is that they are
knowledgeable about the individual and are people whose opinions are valued by the individual
and the organization. Over the past fifteen years, the number of publicly available 360-degree
feedback instruments has increased significantly. In a two-volume report, titled Feedback to
Managers, Van Velsor and Leslie (1991) present a simple but comprehensive process for
evaluating 360 degree instruments and compare sixteen of the better known feedback
instruments which are currently available.

7|Page
 Chapter 2
Literature Review

8|Page
360 degree feedback is a widely used technique in the area of strategic human resource
management (SHRM) and strategic human resource development (SHRD). The reliability of
360 degree feedback on the capacity to develop personal qualities has been investigated. This
study shows to what extent the number of raters is related to an increasing reliability and an
enhancement of correlation between supervisor and peer ratings. Ten raters are needed to reach
a satisfying reliability level of 0.7 for the rating of the capacity to develop personal qualities,
while six raters are needed for a reliability level of 0.7 with regard to the rating of motivation to
develop these qualities. The use of two or three peer raters, as is common in the daily
HRM/HRD practice, results in low reliability levels and in low agreement between supervisor
and peer ratings. These results imply that 360 degree feedback is more useful in a personal
growth system than in an administrative system, where the outcomes of the feedback are
considered to be objective representations of work behaviour.

360 degree performance appraisal system is a challenging and effort requiring process which
should be applied after an appropriate planning. Logic model is a visual and systematic tool
which is used to define and determine the relationships between the resources needed to apply a
program, the planned activities and the goals that are aimed to achieve. It is thought that by
using the concepts of 360 degree performance appraisal and logic model together, a synergy
can be created among two concepts and the effectiveness of application processes can be
developed. Consequently it is predicted that through logic model, the preparation phase of the
application of 360 degree performance appraisal system can be realized systematically with the
participation of all the participants and argued that this application will provide the system to
be understood well by the participants, to achieve strong communication and prevent the
probable problems.

Essential to an organization’s capacity for sustainable growth is the ability of its managers to
learn better skills that improve performance. Millions of dollars are spent each year on
development initiatives that often fail to transfer into performance gains, primarily due to
insufficient support given to the learning transfer process. One initiative used by companies to
develop managerial skills is the 360 feedback process. This process has been recognized by
some for its value because of its inherent ability to reinforce learning and create actionable
knowledge. Some companies have gone so far as to assume that the 360 feedback process will
apply equally across cultures.

9|Page
Multi-source feedback (often called 360-degree feedback) is, in itself, an excellent idea. There
is enormous potential value in knowing how you are viewed by people who have different
working relationships with you. In practice, though, multisource feedback is often implemented
in a way that can do more harm than good. So what’s wrong with 360-degree feedback? Well,
too often it is characterized by one or more of the following problems:

• Overload

• Confounding

• Inaccuracy

• Difficulty of interpretation

• Discouraging impact or defensive response

• Short-lived effect

Augmenting the traditional practice of top-down supervisory performance appraisal, 360-

degree feedback entails having multiple sources (e.g., subordinates, customers, peers,
supervisor, self) provide performance feedback to a leader in areas important for organizational
success (Bracken & Timmreck, 1999; Tornow, 1993). Thus, the leader is offered a multi-
dimensional view of his or her performance that reveals discrepancies, consistencies, strengths,
and developmental areas. These data provide the targeted leader with a framework for
improving behaviour and increasing effectiveness.

A primary application for 360-degree feedback has been to enhance managers' awareness of
their strengths and weaknesses to guide personal development planning. 360-degree assessment
activities are usually based on two key assumptions: (1) that awareness of any discrepancy
between how we see ourselves and how others see us enhances self-awareness, and (2) that
enhanced self-awareness is a key to maximum performance as a leader, and thus becomes a
foundation block for management and leadership development programs.

A second use for 360-degree feedback is as input for performance appraisal. Here, the
traditional source for performance appraisal—the individual's manager—is supplemented by
other sources who have significant perspectives to provide, which the manager may not have.
These additional sources typically include customers and subordinates Customers are in the
unique position of appropriately judging what the performance expectations are, and how well

10 | P a g e
these expectations have been met, as they regard customer satisfaction. Subordinates can be
seen as the most direct source for providing feedback regarding the target manger's leadership
behaviour. It is because of this, that London and Beaffy ("360-Degree Feedback as a
Competitive Advantage") see subordinates also as customers—"customers of managerial work.

A third use for 360-degree feedback involves assignment selection, typically as part of an
organization's succession planning system. According to Moses, Hollenbeck, and Sorcher,
("Other People's Expectations") in this context 360-degree instruments provide a basis for
systematically collecting inferences so that they can be used by others for prediction purposes.
When used as a basis for prediction, such as in succession planning, Moses et al. recommend
that the appropriate population of raters is those individuals who will be involved in
determining future assignment planning for the target individual.

A final use for 360-degree feedback instruments that will be discussed in this issue is to
facilitate organizational change. London and Beaffy, for example, see 360-degree feedback as
an organization intervention strategy As such, if raises awareness of the importance of aligning
leadership behaviours, work unit results, and customer expectations with the organization’s
strategy and core values. According to London and Beaffy, managerial performance
measurement needs to include not only the manager's contribution to organizational
performance through measures of business success, but also the l

11 | P a g e
 Chapter 3
Research
Methodology

12 | P a g e
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In the light of the gap areas that came across during our thorough review of the literature the
objectives of the current research were framed. A systematic and orderly procedure was
followed for attaining the desired objectives.

RESEARCH DESIGN

To accomplish the predefined objectives of the research, Descriptive Research Design is used
to collect the require information from the sources. Descriptive Research is a part of
Quantitative research which is used for frequencies, averages and other statistical calculations.
Descriptive research is used to conduct a survey investigation. Qualitative research often has
the aim of description and researchers may follow-up with examinations of why the
observations exist and what are the implications of the findings. The focus is on gaining
insights and familiarity for later investigation.

 The design was formulated to be a flexible one so that changes can be adapted in the
execution of the research.

 Care was taken to minimize the biasness at every stage since any research work made
untrue information would turn out to be unreliable or worthless.

 Effort has been taken to collect as many information as possible through the
questionnaire so that elaborate analysis can be carried thereafter.

 The design was closely linked with the objectives set earlier, so that the essence of the
information collected and analyzed does not get diluted.

Target Population
All the employees of nine process teams and four hubs were the target population. These
employees were to be assessed by the superiors, immediate superiors, juniors, peers and by
themselves.

13 | P a g e
Sampling Instrument
A well-structured questionnaire was used as sampling instrument.

Research Questions
There are total 10 questions in the questionnaire. The questionnaire was based on Likert’s five
point rating scale technique. The responses for assessees were measured with the help of this
technique. All the questions were designed in a such a way that they incorporate the five
competencies.

Data Analysis
Various pie-charts and bar graphs are made to have an easy and quick understanding of the
study conducted. Initially all the questionnaires were analysed individually, & then finally an
overall comparison of the various responses from all the customers was done & analysed.

14 | P a g e
 Chapter 4
Data Analysis

15 | P a g e
 ORGANIZATIONAL CAPABILITY BUILD-UP INITIATIVES

 Comprised of the Most Valuable Potential Talent

 Self-driven and result-focused team
 Charter:
Innovation • Idea Generation & Fulfillment Scheme
Hub • Voice of customer and market – business intelligence
• Co-innovation with partners
• Support to other Cross-Functional Teams

 Small teams assigned to specific projects, with the responsibility

Cross- of delivering improved output
 Six Project-based CFTs (Worldmark, Pavilion, Cyberium
Functional Towers, Celesta, Astra Towers & Eldorado) and three other CFTs
Teams (Knowledge Management, Intelligent Buildings, Innovative
Marketing).

Process  Mandate to improve the quality and efficiency

Excellence quotients within the organization based on standard set
Hub by CII

Engagement  Objective to enhance employee productivity and motivation

levels so that all share in the Company Vision and
Hub Objectives

Process Teams No of Team

Members
1. Astra Towers 7
2. Celesta Point 3

3. Cyberium Towers 7

4. Eldorado 7
5. Innovative Marketing 6

6. Intelligent Buildings 7

7. Knowledge Management 9
8. Pavillion Mall 3

9. Worldmark 11

16 | P a g e
Data Analysis and Findings

November'1
April'13 2
Emp. G G Improveme Ran Percentil
Code M SD M SD nt k e
P293 4.7 0.1 4.5 0.3
6 5 3 8 8 3.64 1 100.00%
P299 4.7 0.1 4.7 0.3
1 2 8 5 5 -0.54 2 98.40%
P288 4.6 0.1 3.4 1.0
8 6 1 8 2 34.09 3 96.80%
P294 4.6 0.2 4.4 0.5
7 5 0 8 2 3.85 4 95.30%
P292 4.6 0.2 3.9 0.5
4 5 8 6 8 17.46 5 93.70%
P293 4.5 0.2 4.2 0.2
5 6 5 1 8 8.42 6 92.10%
P306 4.4 0.1 3.9 0.5
6 9 8 6 8 13.36 7 90.60%
P303 4.4 0.1 4.6 0.4
0 7 5 4 9 -3.53 8 89.00%
P297 4.4 0.2 3.9 0.5
5 6 8 6 3 12.72 9 87.50%
P297 4.4 0.2 3.9 0.4
1 0 8 2 7 12.26 10 85.90%
P292 4.3 0.2 4.3 0.4
3 9 3 3 1 1.38 11 84.30%
P299 4.3 0.2 2.9 1.6
6 0 0 8 7 44.45 12 81.20%
P303 4.3 0.1 4.1 0.5
3 0 8 7 8 3.18 12 81.20%
P304 4.3 0.1 3.7 0.7
2 0 5 3 4 15.37 14 79.60%
P307 4.2 0.1 4.4 0.4
6 8 8 4 9 -3.62 15 78.10%
P299 4.2 0.2 4.0 0.9
3 6 6 1 1 6.25 16 76.50%
P298 4.2 0.5 4.1 0.7
1 5 6 8 1 1.70 17 75.00%
P305 4.2 0.2 3.8 0.6
7 3 5 2 9 10.64 18 73.40%
P306 4.2 0.2 4.3 0.4
9 2 8 8 4 -3.50 19 71.80%

17 | P a g e
 P289 4.2 0.2 3.4 0.8
8 2 3 9 7 20.93 20 70.30%
P307 4.2 0.2 3.9 0.8
0 0 0 6 0 6.17 21 68.70%
P307 4.1 0.2 3.9 0.6
5 9 1 0 9 7.45 22 67.10%
P295 4.1 0.3 4.4 0.4
9 7 2 3 4 -5.97 23 65.60%
P302 4.1 0.2 3.8 0.6
4 6 3 2 4 8.75 24 64.00%
P303 4.1 0.2 3.2 0.5
6 5 5 4 8 28.16 25 62.50%
P301 4.1 0.1 4.3 0.4
6 4 1 4 1 -4.61 26 60.90%
P305 4.1 0.1 4.0 0.5
2 2 8 8 4 0.88 27 59.30%
P299 4.1 0.5 4.5 0.3
5 1 5 0 8 -8.69 28 57.80%
P301 4.1 0.2 3.7 0.5
9 9 0 3 0 12.30 29 56.20%
P299 4.0 0.2 3.6 0.6
8 8 5 8 9 10.68 30 54.60%
P304 4.0 0.1 4.0 0.6
9 5 3 6 1 -0.30 31 53.10%
4.0 0.2 4.0 0.6
#N/A 4 7 1 6 0.57 32 51.50%
P306 4.0 0.3 4.1 0.4
0 0 6 5 9 -3.52 33 50.00%
P304 4.0 0.2 3.5 0.6
0 0 4 8 7 11.60 34 48.40%
P297 3.9 0.1 3.7 0.5
4 7 4 5 2 5.93 35 46.80%

P3038 3.96 0.37 4.42 0.45 -10.27 36 45.30%

P3073 3.96 0.35 3.62 0.92 9.40 37 43.70%
P3045 3.91 0.21 3.18 1.03 22.88 38 42.10%
P3068 3.89 0.13 3.73 0.88 4.31 39 40.60%
P2989 3.88 0.43 4.04 0.30 -4.05 40 39.00%
P3051 3.86 0.18 3.86 0.55 -0.05 41 37.50%
P2992 3.89 0.36 3.54 0.37 9.99 42 35.90%
P3009 3.85 0.38 3.21 0.75 20.06 43 34.30%

18 | P a g e
 P2727 3.84 0.25 3.82 0.59 0.63 44 32.80%
P2942 3.81 0.22 3.49 1.07 9.20 45 31.20%
P2856 3.79 0.30 3.21 1.23 17.76 46 29.60%
P2999 3.74 0.37 2.94 1.50 27.11 47 28.10%
P2951 3.74 0.42 3.79 0.68 -1.34 48 26.50%
P2940 3.72 0.12 2.72 1.35 36.67 49 25.00%
P3087 3.64 0.16 2.52 1.38 44.43 50 23.40%
P2962 3.63 0.14 3.53 0.95 2.92 51 21.80%
P3008 3.60 0.48 3.32 1.26 8.31 52 20.30%
P3078 3.59 0.25 2.35 1.44 52.43 53 18.70%
P3021 3.54 0.11 2.40 1.30 47.47 54 17.10%
P3050 3.52 0.15 3.16 0.76 11.59 55 15.60%
P3031 3.52 0.29 3.12 1.00 12.93 56 14.00%
P3006 3.49 0.39 3.13 0.81 11.36 57 12.50%
P3026 3.45 0.62 1.99 0.99 73.15 58 10.90%
P2921 3.36 0.39 2.99 1.00 12.37 59 9.30%
P2963 3.40 0.38 2.83 1.51 19.94 60 7.80%
P3022 3.40 0.32 3.37 0.97 0.87 61 6.20%
P3003 3.38 0.13 3.32 1.14 1.62 62 4.60%
P2973 3.38 0.33 3.58 0.71 -5.79 63 3.10%
P3054 3.13 0.36 2.68 1.44 16.65 64 1.50%
P2953 2.98 0.43 2.74 1.48 8.75 65 0.00%

19 | P a g e
 Star Performers

Grand Overall Overall

Emp. Code
Mean Rank Percentile
P2936 4.8 1 100.00%
P2991 4.7 2 98.40%
P2888 4.7 3 96.80%
P2947 4.7 4 95.30%
P2924 4.6 5 93.70%

Process Teams:
Astra Towers

Emp. Code GM Group Rank Overall Percentile

P3066 4.49 1 90.60%

P2996 4.29 2 81.20%

P3033 4.29 3 81.20%

Celesta Point

Emp. Code GM Group Rank Overall Percentile

P2991 4.72 1 98.40%

P2924 4.65 2 93.70%

P3038 3.96 3 45.30%

Cyberium Towers

Emp. Code GM Group Rank Overall Percentile

P2936 4.75 1 100.00%
P2947 4.65 2 95.30%

P2971 4.4 3 85.90%

20 | P a g e
Eldorado

Emp. Code GM Group Rank Overall Percentile

P2888 4.66 1 96.80%

P3066 4.49 2 90.60%

P3042 4.30 3 79.60%

Innovative Marketing

Emp. Code GM Group Rank Overall Percentile

P2975 4.46 1 87.50%

P2971 4.40 2 85.90%

P3073 3.96 3 43.70%

Intelligence Building

Emp. Code GM Group Rank Overall Percentile

P2923 4.39 1 84.30%

P3057 4.23 2 73.40%

P2898 4.22 3 70.30%

Knowledge Management

Emp. Code GM Group Rank Overall Percentile

P3030 4.47 1 89.00%

P3076 4.28 2 78.10%

P3070 4.20 3 68.70%

21 | P a g e
Pavillion Mall

Emp. Code GM Group Rank Overall Percentile

P3069 4.22 1 71.80%

P3060 4.00 2 50.00%

P3038 3.96 3 45.30%

Worldmark

Emp. Code GM Group Rank Overall Percentile

P2981 4.25 1 75.00%

P2959 4.17 2 65.60%

P3016 4.14 3 60.90%

Hubs:
CR Council

Emp. Code GM Group Rank Overall Percentile

P2975 4.46 1 87.50%

P2898 4.22 2 70.30%

P3036 4.15 3 62.50%

Engagement Hub

Emp. Code GM Group Rank Overall Percentile

P2971 4.40 1 85.90%

P3019 4.19 2 56.20%

P2998 4.08 3 54.60%

22 | P a g e
Innovation Hub

Emp. Code GM Rank Overall Percentile

P2947 4.65 1 95.30%

P2924 4.65 2 93.70%

P2935 4.56 3 92.10%

Process Excellence

Emp. Code GM Rank Overall Percentile

P2981 4.25 1 75.00%

P2995 4.11 2 57.80%

P3040 4.00 3 48.40%

23 | P a g e
 Leadership Competencies at
Bharti Realty

24 | P a g e
Classification of attributed on the basis of leadership competencies:
Displaying Entrepreneurial spirit

He has a strong commitment towards the Hub/Process Team

Is actively involved within the Hub/Process Team

Achieving Business Success

Involves other people in the problem solving process

Seeks to understand problems

Delivers as promised to the team

25 | P a g e
 Empowering and Development
Involves other people in the problem solving process

Is open to Feedback from the Hub/Process Team

Delights the customer

Communicates clearly

Listens effectively
Building Collaborative Relationships

Helps in Building team spirit to meet key objectives of the Hub /

Process Team

Values your perspective and maintains openness, even when not

in agreement

Maintains relationship with other team members within the Hub /

Process Team

26 | P a g e
Team: Astra Towers

High on all four competencies except Displaying Entrepreneurial Spirit

Astra Towers
4.50

S 4.20
o
3.90
c
r 3.60
4.06 4.13 4.11 4.09
e 3.30
3.79

s
3.00
1 2 3 4 5

Competencies

Team: Celesta Point

Performing well on all five competencies

Celesta Point
4.80

S 4.50

c
4.20
o
r 3.90 4.56 4.52
e 4.34 4.34
4.17
s 3.60

3.30
1 2 3 4 5
Competencies

27 | P a g e
Team: Cyberium Towers

Performing well on three competencies slightly low on Achieving Business Success and
Displaying Entrepreneurial Spirit

Cyberium Tower
4.80

S 4.50
c
4.20
o
r 3.90
4.40 4.39
4.27
e 4.11 4.08
3.60
s
3.30
1 2 3 4 5

Competencies

Team: Eldorado

Performing exceedingly well on all five competencies

Eldorado
4.80

S 4.50

c
4.20
o
r 3.90 4.50 4.43
4.33 4.35
e 4.25
3.60
s
3.30
1 2 3 4 5
Competencies
28 | P a g e
Team: Innovative Marketing

Performing below average on Displaying Entrepreneurial Spirit and Achieving Business

Success

Innovative Marketing
4.50

S 4.20
c
3.90
o
r 3.60 4.14 4.18
4.06
e 3.30 3.69
s 3.44

3.00
1 2 3 4 5
Competencies

Team: Intelligent Buildings

Performing decently on all the other competencies except Achieving Business Success

Intelligent Building
4.50

s 4.20

c 3.90
o 4.38
4.33 4.33
3.60
r 4.06 3.96
e 3.30
s
3.00
1 2 3 4 5

Competencies

29 | P a g e
30 | P a g e
Team Knowledge Management

The team with performing below average on all the five competencies

Knowledge Management
4.50
S 4.20
c
3.90
o
r 3.60
e 3.85 3.87 3.86 3.87 3.87
3.30
s
3.00
1 2 3 4 5

Competencies

Team: Pavillion Mall

Performing slightly low on the competency, Delights the customer

Pavilion Mall
4.50

S 4.20
c
3.90
o
4.41
r 3.60 4.22 4.11
3.96 3.89
e
3.30
s
3.00
1 2 3 4 5

Competencies

31 | P a g e
Team: Worldmark

The team has performed least on all the five competencies

Worldmark
4.50
S
4.20
c
3.90
o
r 3.60

e 3.30 3.68 3.61 3.67 3.68 3.73

s 3.00
1 2 3 4 5
Competencies

Team: CR Council

The team has fairly done its job and performed well on almost all the competencies except
Displaying Entrepreneurial Spirit

CR Council
4.50

S 4.20

c
3.90
o
r 3.60 4.25 4.17 4.22
4.02
3.90
e 3.30
s
3.00
1 2 3 4 5

Competencies

32 | P a g e
Hub: Engagement Hub

The least performer on first three competencies and below average performer on the last two

Engagement Hub
4.50
S
4.20
c
3.90
o
r 3.60
3.97
e 3.30
3.49 3.58 3.66
3.37
s 3.00
1 2 3 4 5
Competencies

Hub: Innovation Hub

One of the leading performing hubs with topping on three competencies

Innovation Hub
4.80
S
4.50
c
4.20
o
4.59 4.69
r 3.90 4.50
4.19
e 4.05
3.60
s 3.30
1 2 3 4 5
Competencies

33 | P a g e
Hub: Process Excellence

Performance of this hub hovers around the average performance but has performed quite well
on Building Collaborative Relationships

Process Excellence
4.50

S 4.20
c
3.90
o
r 3.60 4.16
e 3.92
3.72 3.79 3.81
3.30
s
3.00
1 2 3 4 5
Competencies

34 | P a g e
 Chapter 5
Conclusion

35 | P a g e
The 3600 feedback administered in November ’12 and April ’12 taken together helped us in
doing the comparative study of individual and group performances during the aforementioned
periods. As the questions were modelled on the competencies prescribed by the organization,
the individual and group scores gave us a valuable insight into the fit of the individual with the
organization. The group scores gave a clear understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of
the groups. There was consistency in performances of both individuals as well as groups across
the time-periods measured.

The administration of the test was transformed from an outdated hard-copy method to a robust
automated method using Qualtrics software. Ample time was saved and work-load was
drastically reduced. This is our contribution to Bharti Realty whose fruits will be devoured by
the organization for a long time to come.

There were also many pitfalls in the whole process. Some employees were rated by co-workers
of one group while others were rated by co-workers of multiple groups, depending on the
number of groups the employee belonged to. The scores of an employee obtained through
multiple groups were then averaged. The final score thus obtained gave no idea of the
individual performance in different groups. We feel there is ample scope for improvements in
the whole procedure, especially the sync of the questions with the competencies.

Our recommendations were for a particular competency and not for a particular group. The
groups which scored below a certain threshold on a particular competency were given
recommendations pertaining to the same. This standardised the process of improvement of
individuals and groups. But the competencies should be responsive to the dynamic
circumstances the organization encounters, to transform into a torch-bearer for competitors and
to stay ahead of the competition.

36 | P a g e
 Chapter 6
Limitations and
Recommendations

37 | P a g e
Recommendations

Competency I: Displaying Entrepreneurial Spirit

Reduce power distance and encourage employees to bring in new ideas. Innovation and
knowledge management should be bred into the organization for efficient transfer of
knowledge across the ranks and files.

Competency II: Achieving Business Success

Encourage employees to take initiatives. Empower employees to execute their plans. Policies
for positive reinforcement should be implemented for plans well executed. Increase
decentralization of the organization.

Competency III: Empowering and Developing

Leadership training should be provided to the leaders. The performance of a leader should be
measured by the measures and reforms the leader has taken for improvement of performance of
his/her subordinates. Decentralization should be positively reinforced at all levels.

Competency IV: Delights the Customer

Customer relationship and soft-skills training should be provided to frontline employees for
polishing their customer interaction. Knowledge and negotiation skills should be worked upon.
As these frontline employees are the face of the company, they should also be evaluated by the
customers and measures should be taken to improve their performance.

Competency V: Building Collaborative Relationships

Team building activities like the outbound program should be organised. Bilateral and
multilateral team meetings should be a regular feature for effective reconciliation of
differences. The team performance results should be a very important component of evaluation
of employees.

38 | P a g e
Limitations:

 Slow and outdated process

 Multiple feedback for some employees whereas single feedback for rest of the
employees
 As members of a team knew that they were being assessed by fellow team members,
there were chances of bias creeping in.
 Multiple responses from a few respondents evaluating same assessees could not be
found out and removed, as respondents didn’t have to mention their names.

39 | P a g e
References:

George Vulkotich, (2010). “The 360o Process, Planning for Action”, OD Practioner, Vol 42,

No 3

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, (2010). “360 degree feedback:
how many raters are needed for reliable ratings on the capacity to develop competences, with
personal qualities as developmental goals?”, Vol 21 No. 15

International Journal Social Science, 2012. “Developing the Application of 360o Performance
Appraisal through Logic Model.” Vol 3 No 2

Frank Shipper, Richard C Hoffman, and Denise M Rotondo, 2007. “Does the 360 Feedback
Process Create Actionable Knowledge Equally Across Cultures?”. Academy of Management
Learning and Education Vol6, No. 1

Donald T Tosti, and Roger M Adisson, “360-Degree Feedback: Going Around In Circles?”
Performance Improvement, Vol 48, No 3

Treena L Gillespie, “360-degree feedback: are subordinate ratings comparable?”. Journal of

Business and Psychology, Vol 19 No 3, 2005

40 | P a g e