Interpreting 360-Degree Head Feedback
The close of head evaluation season in 2013 yields another year with increasing use of 360-degree (multi-rater) head assessment tools by boards. While we applaud the acceptance of 360-degree technology by boards, we also caution that the power of such methods lies in appropriate interpretation and use. Too often we encounter a board (or, more typically, a few board members) who tends to see the 360 itself as an up-or-down referendum on the head's leadership, rather than as one data stream among many in a much larger evaluative process.Some lessons from the field include:
- Board ratings tend to be the highest of all rater groups.
- Faculty ratings tend to be the lowest.
- Faculty ratings in a K-12 are lowest of all.
- Lengthy written comments (screeds) can be over-interpreted because of their length and stridency.
- One-off assessments are snapshots; useful by themselves, but better when compared to other assessments over time.
- All feedback must be interpreted in light of context; e.g., the school's circumstances and necessary actions taken by the head and board during the prior year.
Finally, we think the ultimate usefulness of a 360 is as a developmental tool--formative, rather than summative in nature. The question of what adjustments the head needs to make should dominate the board's interpretation, not a discussion of whether the head stays or goes on the basis of the 360 alone.