This specificity is one of the key advantages of using the interview method. The data that emerge, because they are so directly relevant and clarify what may have seemed like the generic information provided by the questionnaire, are often more likely to have an impact on the recipient; as DeVries points out, it cannot be as easily denied or explained away. Thus, using the interview approach can motivate people to follow through on their development plans with more enthusiasm and commitment than they might otherwise have had.

The interview method also furnishes an opportunity to learn about an individual’s temperament and personal characteristics. Interviewees may describe experiences or make observations that shed light on the individual’s personality as well as specific skills. Such feedback further enriches and rounds out the picture.

In fact, in some cases, interview data are collected not just from the people with whom the person deals on the job but also from external sources that may include clients as well as the manager’s spouse, children, siblings, and close friends. Obviously, interviewing these “significant others” will require a major investment and should be considered only when it seems likely to yield information that is both necessary and unobtainable from other sources.¹

If resources were not a factor, interviews might always be used to augment questionnaire data. Says Penny Nieroth, president of Learning By Design and a consultant with broad experience in using interviews to augment feedback from questionnaires, “As you establish rapport, people will tell you things at the end of the interview that they would never have told you at the beginning—and that they would certainly never have committed to paper.” In addition, according to DeVries, “An added value to interviews is that they can be wonderfully encouraging. When interviewees are asked, ‘What else would you like to say to this person?’ some powerfully positive words come out.”

Given the labor-intensive nature of interviews, however, most organizations opt for gathering additional feedback through interviews only when key personnel are involved or when recipients require additional help to decide on development targets and strategies for change. Nieroth describes one such example. “Following a major restructuring in a global consumer products organization a senior executive found herself in a new role, one where product categories had been realigned, geographical boundaries had been redrawn, and almost half of her newly acquired team was being replaced. The senior leader faced challenges related to learning new business and product lines, dealing with new constituencies both on and off her team, and a broader geography. The business challenges were compounded by the fact that she was seen as having a very different management style than the individual who had previously occupied the role and her new team included managers, spread across several countries in Europe, who had not always had productive working relationships in the past. The use of interviews to get a view from past and current bosses, direct reports, and peers to identify what would serve her well in the role and what she would have to learn ASAP led to the development of a robust action plan to help her manage in the demands of the new role—scope change, team change, cultural diversity, structural realignment—with a particular focus on transition.”

One way to gain some of the benefits of interviews without incurring the cost is to combine a standardized multiple-choice questionnaire and a separate open-ended questionnaire to which people write in responses. “This approach is more anonymous and quite efficient to score, and we find we get much of the richness of person-to-person interviews,” says DeVries.

Another potential problem concerns respondents’ reluctance to provide in-depth and rich feedback for fear that recipients will be able to identify them from their quotes and examples. Even though they are assured of the anonymity and confidentiality of their feedback, fear of being found out may prevent people from being forthcoming and perfectly honest. For that reason, says DeVries, “The interviewer needs to explain very concretely what is meant by confidentiality and should explain the anonymous form in which the feedback will be presented to the recipient. Explain that you will firmly discourage any speculation about who said what and then follow through on that.” To protect the identity of the respondents, we suggest using quotes that reflect the comments of several interviewees. In addition, the quotes selected should not refer to specific situations or information that would enable the recipient to single out any one person. Finally, there is a possibility that a manager who is given both types of feedback at the same time will focus on the written comments from the interview and ignore the quantitative results from the questionnaire.

Clarify the Purpose. To gain commitment to the interview process, it is vital that both recipients and raters understand the purpose of the interview (to initiate data gathering, to clarify questionnaire data, to identify ways to address issues raised in the questionnaire), how it will be conducted, what the results will look like (a summary discussion or a written document), and how they will be used (to create a development plan, to supplement appraisal feedback, as input for talent management decisions, etc.). Sheryl Spanier, president of Sheryl Spanier and Company, sees this as fundamental. “From the start there has to be clarity on the purpose of the 360 and how it will be used. You can’t start out thinking this feedback is for development purposes and morph it into something that will be used for performance appraisal. The magic of the 360 for development is in the personal understanding. When done well, and with a consistent view by all of the why’s, what’s, and how’s up-front, the recipient will have the kinds of ahas that will lead to a true commitment for change.”

Select the Interviewer-Facilitator. The more the feedback recipient trusts the person who is collecting and analyzing the feedback, the more likely it is that he or she will act on the data collected. Similarly, the more raters trust and “connect” with the interviewer, the more honest and detailed the feedback is likely to be. For that reason, you need to decide at the outset who will be assigned this important role.

You can choose either an internal or an external resource. At first glance, the internal resource may appear to be the more attractive alternative. Not only can you count on an inside person knowing the ins and outs of the organization and its culture, but he or she may already have a relationship with the raters. This instant credibility will mean that they can quickly move beyond the introduction stage. Finally, you can be sure that the internal person will be available for the duration of the project.

However, choosing an external resource has its advantages, too. First, external facilitators are likely to have had more experience at this sort of work. Second, because they are outsiders, they will have no preconceived notions about those who are involved in the process and may be better able to listen without biases or personal opinions. (Even a respected internal person can be viewed as more committed to meeting organizational agendas than to helping managers with their development for its own sake.). “As a facilitator you must be capable of going outside your own experience and relationship with the individual you are working with. Your own personal impressions of an individual might be quite different than the impressions he or she is making in the work environment. What you can learn from a 360 interview is exactly what others perceive as needing change and also what they see as the person’s strengths,” says Marilyn Puder-York, Ph.D., author of The Office Survival Guide. And finally, when the interviewer is an outsider, both recipients and raters may feel more comfortable being totally candid, because they will not be so worried that their comments might be revealed to others in the organization.

Whomever you choose, you must take into account the skill and credibility of the interviewer. Effective interviewing is both an art and a science, and the ability to elicit information from people that is useful and honest largely depends on:

Because it is so vital that the interviewer be trusted and accepted by everyone involved in the process, it is worth spending some time finding the best possible person for the role. You may need to interview several candidates and set up several meetings with the recipient before you find the facilitator who is just right. Remember to make sure, if an external resource is selected, that the person will be available for as long as may be needed to coach the manager through any follow-up activities or next steps.

Whatever time is required to select an interviewer-facilitator is well worth it. A good choice means a strong foundation will have been laid for the rest of the process.

At this stage, you will also want to decide how the feedback should be presented and let the recipient know which method will be used. There are two options, the first of which is a straightforward, one-on-one meeting in which the interviewer and the recipient review the feedback, either in verbal or written form, together, and the recipient identifies a series of appropriate next steps. The second option is to include the manager’s boss or a human resource professional who can help define appropriate development goals. Only if the feedback recipient feels comfortable with the idea of having someone else present, however, should this option be chosen. And, if the boss or other parties are to have access to the results at some point, all parties should agree on how that will occur—through the facilitator or the manager, in written or verbal form, in total or as an overview of the findings.

Whether the feedback is presented one-on-one or with a third party present, we strongly suggest that the report of the findings not be given to the recipient ahead of time to review on his or her own. Even reports that are very positive may contain messages the recipient will find disturbing. An accurate interpretation of the data and openness to receiving the messages are increased when the first review of the report is conducted by a trusted coach-facilitator.

Another effective technique is to ask the recipient of the feedback what questions he or she thinks might produce the most helpful responses. Most people have some sense of where they might need some help, and their suggestions on what to ask often produce the richest answers. Furthermore, they may feel they need clarification of certain data from the questionnaire and want specific questions asked in the interview to help them do that. For that reason, DeVries, among others, always involves the recipient in determining what to ask. As he explains, “Their questions are particularly useful, because people do have an inkling of what their vulnerabilities are.”

Below is a list of sample interview questions we have used in the past:

Whatever your final interview format, we recommend learning about both the recipient’s behaviors and the context within which he or she works. Puder-York describes this as key to gathering the most useful feedback. “What you can learn from a 360 interview is exactly what others perceive as needing change—What are the behaviors that need to be modified? When do they occur? What are the priorities? Because I’ve asked for behaviors during the interviews, it becomes easy to talk about situations that trigger the behaviors and how people react to those behaviors in those situations. Managers don’t necessarily know their impact and since most of the time they don’t intend to be negative, they are blown away to learn about impact. If I can focus on the dynamic between the situation and the behavior, there will be lasting change. I also always learn about people’s strengths. Managers need to understand that, in spite of the negative impact they may have under certain circumstances, they are valued for their strengths.”

If the organization is looking for more in-depth feedback on motivation and personality, as opposed to just information about on-the-job behavior, it might be appropriate to interview the recipient’s spouse, family, and close friends. Such interviews can contribute to getting a complete psychological profile of an individual.² Because of the time involved and the sensitivity of this type of information, however, it is important to consider whether it is truly likely to help the person achieve specific development goals. It is also critical that an interviewer who is going beyond on-the-job issues be appropriately qualified to use and interpret what might be relatively sensitive information.

Telephone interviews can be quite effective for gathering 360-degree feedback from a large number of sources who may be scattered in different locations. But however convenient this option may seem, a great deal of subtlety and information can be lost in the translation. Often, messages of anxiety and frustration will be communicated through simple body language, hand gestures, and facial expressions that go undetected in telephone interviews. Telephone interviews also tend to be shorter because of the physical inconvenience and discomfort of speaking on the phone for long periods. Finally, establishing real trust is more difficult on the telephone.

On a recent assignment, we found the use of video conference to be a good way to achieve the advantages of the face-to-face interview and minimize the downsides of phone interviews. Because over half of the interviewees were in multiple locations and around the world, we were able to gather feedback from the best-balanced group of people and we were able to do it cost-effectively. We also gained a useful insight into the nature of the day-to-day challenges of the long-distance communications our coaching client experienced with her bosses, direct reports, and colleagues.

In our experience, group interviews are the least reliable format. Participants are often unwilling to provide harsh or negative feedback for fear of looking mean-spirited or of being revealed as the source of the critical feedback after the meeting. There are also group dynamics that present a challenge to the interviewer—someone talks too much; someone else does not talk at all. “One thing I’ve learned,” says DeVries, “is never to interview groups. I once interviewed a pair of colleagues. One colleague constantly interrupted and contradicted the other. Then the other colleague would say, ‘Yes, that’s right. That’s what I wanted to say.’ ”

The most valuable interview format, and the one we have used more than any other, is the individual, face-to-face interview. While this is by far the most time-consuming format, the higher quality of the feedback makes it well worth the investment. Meeting with feedback contributors one-on-one precludes the possibility of group-think and also sends a message to the contributors, especially at the direct report level, that their input is highly valued. “Sometimes the act of doing a 360 can instill a certain amount of goodwill. If a manager has asked for his or her direct reports and peers to participate in a 360, they know that there is intent to change. This can generate optimism on their part and a willingness to support efforts for change,” says Puder-York. The result is a willingness to give specific, thoughtful feedback. Furthermore, the face-to-face interview allows the interviewer to establish rapport and gain the trust and confidence of the feedback giver, who, knowing it will remain anonymous and confidential, provides more honest feedback.

When scheduling the interviews with colleagues, direct reports, and the boss, make sure they are all aware of the how’s and the why’s of the feedback process. It has been our standard practice to send a confirmation note describing what will happen in the interview, how long it will last (usually from forty-five minutes to one hour), an expression of appreciation for the rater’s time and effort and a reaffirmation of the confidentiality of the responses. We always include the interviewer’s contact information in the event of changes in schedules or if there are questions prior to the interview. Also included in the confirmation letter is a set of interview questions to help them come prepared with appropriate anecdotes or examples. A typical set of questions might include:

When last-minute scheduling conflicts occur, it is best to reschedule the interview immediately if possible.