Part III: Administering a Multirater EQ 360 2.0

Planning the EQ 360 2.0 Assessment Process

Overview

Planning a successful EQ 360® 2.0 administration involves a few additional considerations beyond the ones covered in Planning the EQ-i 2.0 Assessment Process. This page provides 360-specific best practices and recommendations aimed to reduce the administrative complexity of the 360 process. Although many online features have been added to streamline the setup and administration of the EQ 360 2.0, you should take the time to properly plan the 360 process before you even reach the setup stage to greatly reduce the chance of any logistical issues popping up later in the process.

Due to the complexity of a multirater assessment, prepare to be faced with different schedules, several correspondences, and many questions. Some questions need to be addressed early in the assessment process, long before the participants fill out the actual inventory. Common questions asked by participants early on in the administration process include (but are not limited to):

Addressing these questions early in the 360 initiative will help the participants, the administrator, and the organization get the most out of the process and the results by fostering a climate of trust and shared understanding. Since not all people invited to take part in the EQ 360 2.0 will actually follow through with the assessment due to work demands or other reasons, 100% participation is sometimes not possible. Low response rates, however, invariably denote problems with the survey process, poor timing, or respondent attitudes towards the survey.

Additional Information

The best practices provided on this page can help you implement an effective EQ 360 2.0 administration with maximum participation. These principles are summarized in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1. Multirater Assessment Planning Dos and Don’ts

Do

Don’t
Identify what the organization or individual hopes to gain from the process by connecting it to specific business needs. Clearly state the goal (e.g., EQ 360 2.0 assessment will be used to improve leadership skills) and how the company will get there (e.g., through the assessment, coaching, and development of skills). Forget to communicate the purpose of the assessment. Participants should understand what behaviors will be measured and how it is relevant to their jobs and the organization. It is much easier to gain people’s commitment if participants believe the behaviors that will be measured by the assessment tool will be directly related to improving individual and organizational performance.
Prepare a business case. Make the value proposition of the EQ 360 2.0 very clear by linking it to the organization’s strategic objectives. Senior management will want to know what are the costs and benefits of the initiative. Well-constructed summaries of research that demonstrate the benefits of EI can have an enormous influence on the decision-making of senior executives. The best EI business cases show a return on investment (ROI) such as increased sales, better customer satisfaction ratings, or higher productivity. It may also be beneficial to list some companies that have used EI assessments. Most organizations like to know what other companies and competitors are using to get an edge. Ignore senior management. Start by speaking with senior management on how critical it is to track organizational and individual growth and development. Just as a company would collect and analyze its financial information, information about change initiatives should also be analyzed to understand what impact the human resources side of the equation has on overall productivity. Senior management may ask to participate in a pilot study to assess the application of the EQ 360 2.0.
Consider the timing of the assessment. Be sensitive to what is going on in the organization that might get in the way of a successful 360 implementation. For example, midway through a downsizing may not be the best time to conduct a 360 assessment. Assume everyone’s schedule is open. Consider the availability of managers, raters, and stakeholders (e.g., are there many participants on vacation or away from the office for an extended period?) and whether there are other survey-intensive activities occurring at the same time. If so, reschedule the assessment to a more convenient time.
Involve any necessary stakeholders in decisions around who can select raters and who will have access to the results. Leave the participant out of the rater selection process. They have the best sense of who interacts with them most and will feel more accountable to the results if they have input in selecting raters.