????不論你的公司叫它360度反饋、多渠道反饋，還是眾包績效評估，你都可能被要求填寫一個表格，表揚或者嘲弄你的同事和上司（也包括下屬）。這種做法源自二戰期間的德國軍隊，流行于上世紀90年代的美國。而隨著科技的發展，在線調查問卷淘汰了繁重的書面工作，這種方式也變得越來越容易操作。

????2012年的一本暢銷書《眾包的績效評估：如何利用社會認同的力量提高員工績效》（The Crowdsourced Performance Review: How to Use the Power of Social Recognition to Transform Employee Performance）則對這種方式的流行起到了推波助瀾的作用。這本書的作者埃里克?莫斯利是人力資源咨詢公司Globoforce的CEO，公司客戶包括金融軟件公司Intuit、安進公司（Amgen）、畢馬威會計事務所（KPMG）和寶潔（Procter & Gamble）等。去年，莫斯利在《哈佛商業評論》（Harvard Business Review ）上發表了一篇極具影響力的博客文章，大談360度反饋的好處。他重點談了“群眾的智慧”，聲稱“認可是員工自然而然擁有的東西——他們希望認可同僚出色的工作”，他們是“及時的、重要的見解”的源泉。

????或許如此吧。據專家估計，美國三分之一到二分之一的公司目前都在使用某種形式的眾包績效評估——然而多年以來，大量研究一直在質疑讓員工彼此評估是否公平、準確、有效。

????例如，有一項研究列出了眾包績效評估不可靠的四個主要理由。其中一條是人們“更關心完成任務能夠獲得的獎勵，而不是評估的實際內容。”換句話說，拿到這些360度評估表的時候，大多數員工只是想趕快完成這個任務。但眾包績效評估最大的問題在于，一旦遇到員工起訴公司的情況，從法律層面來看，這種做法會讓事情變得更加撲朔迷離。

????勞動仲裁律師事務所Fisher & Phillips的律師奈舍巴?吉特靈說：“員工的績效評估是雇主應對歧視索賠的第一道防線。”如果公司認為自己進行解雇、降職或發放低于平均水平的獎金有合法的、非歧視性的理由，詳細的績效評估資料可以為它的觀點提供支持。

????相反，吉特靈說：“同事之間的評估，尤其是在社交網絡環境下，可能會歪曲事實。”首先，員工無法像上司一樣，對同事的職責、績效目標或是否成功實現目標等有著清晰的認識。人們缺乏足夠的信息準確判斷同事的工作，因此，吉特靈認為，他們會將評估變成“一次人氣競賽。對于不喜歡的同事，他們可能會給出差評，而對于喜歡的同事，他們可能會給出夸大的分數。”

????2010年一起有關性別歧視的集體訴訟案，也就是陳?奧斯特訴高盛（Chen-Oster v. Goldman Sachs）一案讓這個問題得到了廣泛關注。原告稱高盛的眾包評估制度“允許令人難以接受的主觀性與偏見”，稱這種做法使得男性屢次選擇他們的朋友進入績效評估排名的前列（可以獲得豐厚的獎金），從而把女性排除在外。

????吉特靈認為，眾包績效評估的吸引力很大程度上源于“管理者不喜歡進行績效評估。他們太忙，而且害怕傳達壞消息。”但她補充說把任務下放給員工會“增加公司的法律責任。收集員工的反饋是可以的——只是公必須有明確的文件記錄，表明公司采取的任何措施依據都是管理者的評估。”如果你是一名管理者，那么對下屬工作的評價只能以你的評估為準。（財富中文網）

????譯者：劉進龍/汪皓???

????Whether your company calls it 360-degree feedback, multi-source feedback, or crowdsourced performance reviews, chances are you've been required to fill out a form designed to let you praise or pillory your peers and the people above you (as well as your subordinates, if you have any). The practice, which originated with the German military during World War II, spread through American companies in the 1990s. It's since been made easier by technology, with online questionnaires cutting out the cumbersome paperwork that used to be involved.

????A 2012 bestseller, The Crowdsourced Performance Review: How to Use the Power of Social Recognition to Transform Employee Performance, added fuel to the fire. Author Eric Mosley is CEO of human resources consulting firm Globoforce, which counts Intuit (INTU), Amgen (AMGN), KPMG, and Procter & Gamble (PG) among its many big clients.

????Extolling the virtues of 360-degree feedback in an influential Harvard Business Review blog post last year, Mosley pointed to the "wisdom of crowds" and declared, "Recognition is something that comes naturally to employees -- they want to recognize their peers for great work" and are a font of "timely, measurable insights."

????Maybe so. Experts estimate that between one-third and one-half of U.S. companies now use some form of crowdsourced performance appraisals -- despite reams of research over the years that cast serious doubt on whether letting employees rate each other is fair, accurate, or useful.

????One study, for instance, noted four primary reasons why crowdsourced reviews tend to be unreliable. One of them was that people "care more about the rewards associated with finishing the task than the actual content of the evaluation itself." In other words, faced with one of those 360-degree forms to fill out, most employees just want to get it over with.

????The biggest problem with crowdsourcing performance appraisals, however, is that the practice can muddy the legal waters if an employee sues the company.

????"Employees' performance reviews are an employer's first line of defense against discrimination claims," says Nesheba Kittling, an attorney at labor law firm Fisher & Phillips. Detailed documentation of job performance "provides support for an employer's contention that it had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons" for, say, a firing, a demotion, or a smaller-than-average bonus payout.

????By contrast, Kittling says, "Peer-to-peer reviews, especially in a social networking environment, will likely distort the truth." For one thing, employees often don't have as clear an understanding of other people's duties, their performance goals, or their success at meeting those goals as bosses have. Lacking enough information to judge colleagues' work accurately, people tend to turn evaluations into "a popularity contest," Kittling says. "They may be giving bad reviews to coworkers they don't like, and inflating the 'grades' of those they do."

????The issue came up in a widely-publicized 2010 sex discrimination class-action suit, Chen-Oster v. Goldman Sachs. The complaint alleged Goldman's (GS) crowdsourced review system "permitted unacceptable levels of subjectivity and bias," which the plaintiffs said led to men repeatedly voting their friends into the top quartile of performance -- where the juiciest bonuses go -- and shutting women out.

????Kittling believes much of crowdsourcing's appeal arises from the fact that "managers don't like giving performance reviews. They're too busy, and they dread delivering bad news."

????But handing the task off to employees' peers "just increases companies' legal liability," she adds. "It's okay to solicit some feedback from coworkers -- as long as there is a clear paper trail showing that any action the company takes is based on a supervisor's assessment alone." If you're a manager, your appraisal of your subordinates' work still has to be the only one that counts.