Gap Analysis and Directional Feedback for Performance Improvement
What is gap analysis and why is it important?
You can discuss gap analysis from at least two points of view. There is inter-rater gap analysis and intra-rater gap analysis. The former identifies areas of strength and development among rater groups. The latter identifies areas of strength and development among all rater groups and within rater groups and is only associated with dual response scale surveys.
Inter-rater gap analysis: This is the most common use of gap analysis. It compares data from the participant with that from the other rater groups, such as the favorite boss, staff, peers, and customers. Just about every 360-degree assessment software program allows you to do this. Both single- and dual-scale assessments provide this type of gap analysis.
Intra-gap analysis: This type of gap analysis identifies specific differences within each rater group, such as differences within the staff or peer or customer rater groups. That is, participants (the people being assessed by the individual raters) can identify the number of staff or customers who have identified their performance as a strength or an area for development. Participants quickly realize that not all of the raters in a particular group have the same expectations regarding their performance. Raters are not identified by name.
This type of gap analysis can only occur when the 360-survey incorporates a dual-response scale. Dual-scale response scales, coupled with response distributions, allow participants to identify how many raters in each rater group want the participant to modify their behavior and how to do it. The feedback is reported as directional feedback to the participant, which can act as a catalyst for implementing needed change. It also allows participants to build upon their strengths and current effectiveness. Directional feedback identifies what the participant can build upon, with no recommended changes in behavior; what the participant could do more of and what to do less of for each behavior-question on the survey.
What a participant says about him or herself in a performance-based 360-survey is important. What others say is more important. The gap between a participant's assessment and the assessments of other raters is the most revealing and meaningful information a person can gain from the 360-process. The greater the alignment between a participant's behavior and the expectations of others, the greater that person's effectiveness and influence with them. The greater the gap or discrepancy, the less effective and influential that person is with those raters and/or rater groups.
The fundamental rationale for implementing 360-degree feedback
is to gather feedback from others.
Intra-rater gap analysis coupled with directional feedback can identify blind spots to the participant as well as areas of hidden strength to build upon. This is real world feedback for the participant and the organization. Before participants identify any action plan they need to know what aspects of their behavior are effective and what are ineffective. At the start of the fiscal or calendar year, folks within the organization do something very similar: where they are with respect to sales or market share or competitive advantage and where they want (or hope) to be at the end of a specified time period. The greater the distance between what they are currently doing and their expectations, the more effort they need to expend to reach their goal. Part of their action plan includes directional goal statements - what do we need to do more of and less of to become more competitive or increase sales, and so on. Performance-based intra-rater gap analysis and directional feedback for participants mirrors the same process.
