How important are national and industry norms?

360-degree feedback gives two kinds of information: (1) qualitative (written comments), and (2) quantitative (average scores based on ratings). Most participants affirm that comments contain the most meaningful feedback. This isn’t surprising. Scores may show which area of behavior is strong or weak, but they can't explain why. The lesson is that scores shouldn't be considered the main element of feedback. They should be used to locate problem areas, so that the individual can get clarification through written comments, supplemental in-person feedback, reflection and coaching.

Set a goal based on comparison with own scores: When a person examines feedback scores, the most natural question is, "What do the scores mean?" Are they high or low? The only way to answer is to compare them to something.

Other behavior scores: Is this score a relative strength or a potential area for development?

Previous score for the same behavior: Has there been improvement in the score over time?

Norms: How does this score compare with the same score for other people?
• Group norms
• Organization norms
• Industry norms
• US national norms

If a person receives 360 feedback, analyzes scores, sets a single development goal and actually improves behavior in that area, the feedback process is an enormous success. It's not easy to change patterns of behavior that have been ingrained on a daily basis for decades. It's simply not realistic to try to correct every performance problem in one campaign of self-improvement. Recipients of 360 feedback should be encouraged to set one major development goal, or two at the most.

Therefore, we can conclude two things about norms. First, they aren't the most meaningful points of comparison. To determine which areas of professional behavior need improvement, it's more meaningful to compare low scores with high scores to discover weak areas, or to compare present performance with past performance.

Comparing self with others doesn't indicate where someone needs to improve. A person may score below the norm in three areas, but even lower in three other areas. Or an individual may score above the norm in all areas; that doesn't mean that there isn't a need for improvement.

Local norms are more meaningful.
However, even though norms are less meaningful, they may be interesting to feedback recipients. If you wish to include norms with feedback, the second conclusion about norms is that comparisons with coworker scores are more meaningful than more generalized populations. Comparing the scores of plant foremen in a plastics factory with the scores of account managers in a pharmaceuticals company is like comparing apples to oranges. Comparing individual scores with national norms is like comparing apples to fruit salad. It's far more meaningful for individuals to know how they compared to other members of their work unit or how they compared to other people in their organization.

National norms aren’t needed.
The idea of comparing individual scores with industry or national norms originated in the early years of 360-degree feedback, when surveys were standardized instruments. Organizations everywhere administered the same assessment, which typically contained over 100 items established by research to apply to all managers, regardless of industry, organizational culture or leadership roles. This is an outdated approach, and today most organizations don't use this kind of survey. They customize surveys to align with the requirements of particular positions. In some organizations, no two surveys may be the same. This provides targeted feedback, but it also makes it impossible to compare with national norms.