Introduction There are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths.

It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil. Alfred North Whitehead The accuracy of self-perception is a concerning issue across intellectual and social domains. Great deals of researches suggest a lack of awareness about deficiencies among individuals. As Whiteheads conception of truth observed, the ignorance of ignorance is the death of knowledge. Therefore to improve intellectual and social skills within organizations, people must develop accurate self-perception accompanied by an effective feedback system. This essay will first identify and explain the common biases of self-perception, then discuss how 360-feedback systems could improve the accuracy of self-perception. Body As Dunning et al. (2003) states, one of the factors that contribute to the common biases is the double curse carried with incompetence. Double curse occurs if the person lack of skill to produce correct responses also cursed with the ability to distinguish between right and wrong answers (Dunning, 2003). This is caused by the poor metacognition: skills of knowing about knowing. The argument was proved in the result from the research, where the score results demonstrate that the poor performers judgments are more deviates from final score against that of better performers (Dunning, 2003, Figure 2). Double curse could also results in overconfidence bias by overestimating the percentage of correctness. Another cause of biases Dunning observed is the anchoring bias. That is, by definition from Robbins (2011, p.48) A tendency to fixate on initial information, form which one then fails to adequately adjust for subsequent information. People unconsciously estimate their performance from a topdown approach base on their preconceived beliefs of the skills (Dunning, 2003). As a result, people tend to overinflated or underestimate their performances. For example, women might start to underestimate their results

on science test base on stereotype that men are more talented in science areas Eccles, 1987(as cited in Dunning et al, 2003), even though the score indicate no relationship with gender (Ehrlinger & Dunning, 2003). The consequences of anchoring bias in this case would reduce the proportion of women in science jobs Seymour, 1992 (as cited in Dunning et al, 2003). From the second text, Yammarino & Atwater (1997) addressed confirmation bias in self-other rating situation. This bias lead people discount the negative feedback from others, while accept more positive feedback and treat them as accurate (Yammarino, 1997). As a consequence, others raters might deliberately overestimate the rating to please the manager. Therefore the result of HRM outcomes is very negative (Yammarino, 1997, Exhibit 4). While the common biases identified above prevent people from making accurate self-perception, 360-degree feedback could help people to realize their incompetence and develop their skills. Unlike traditional upward feedback programs, 360-degree feedback collects the feedback from a larger group of individuals that are interacted with the respondent. By comparing the rating between self and other, aim to help individuals see how others view them and realize their strengths and weaknesses, therefore improve their performance. The key success factor in the program is the degree of consensus between the respondent and raters ratings. This issue was researched by Francis J. Yammarino, 1997 which he observed four types of self-other rating types based on the discrepancy. More importantly, how these rating results affect the human resource management outcomes. Yammarinos research illustrates the effect of 360-degree feedback on individuals. Assume the self-other rating is classified as over-estimator or under-estimator which means the self-rating is significantly different from other-ratings. This observation is in agreement with Frank Shipper (2010) who calculated the reliability of self-ratings verse other-ratings. In a typi-

cal research, the coefficient of reliability for self-ratings is 0.6 while otherratings are 0.9 (Shipper, 2010). According to common biases this is likely caused by double-curse or confirmation bias and therefore the outcome is very negative. In order to enhance individuals self-perception and reduce the discrepancy between self-other rating, coaches and mentors should base on feedbacks to train individuals via development program. To help them understand the reasons of the rating discrepancy and how to eliminate self-perception bias. Furthermore, teach how to produce a constructive feedback and eventually reach in-agreement/good outcome (Yammarino, 1997). After using the 360-degree feedback program, individuals would improve self-perception skill and enhance their performance. Although 360-degree feedback has been widely adopted as an effective management instrument, potential issues should be concerned before, during, and after the process. First, the 360-degree feedback should be linked to companys strategy and carefully planned before implementation. Otherwise the feedback process is essentially worthless according to Scott Wimer (1998). Second, employees should be fully trained how to provide accurate and useful feedback ahead of time. As Mary Carson (2006) suggests, irrelevant feedbacks from un-trained participants are more likely to hurt co-workers and lead to outright conflicts. Furthermore, 360-degree feedback is only the start of the employees skill development process rather than a one-off treatment. In order to enhance skills, feedback needs to be converted into specific activities and take at least six months to finish (Carson, 2006). And this requires mentors and coaches to assist employees to enhance self-awareness and improve performance. To sum up, after sufficient concern of the issues address above, the 360-degree feedback could be an effective multi-rater tool to the organisation. Conclusion This essay focuses on the common biases that have been introduced in the set texts, and then explains the cognitive reasons under the hood and the effects. In the second part this essay introduces the 360-degree feedback

system and how it could affect the self-perception biases that have been identifies. By explaining the process of the system and observations from several researches, this essay suggests that 360-degree feedback let individual to receive the reviews from all angles. And with further assistances from coaches and mentors, individual could recognise their incompetence and enhance self-perception. As consequence, create an open communication environment and improve the motivation and performance.

Reference list Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why People Fail to Recognize Their Own Incompetence. American Psychological Society, 68-72. Yammarino, F.J., Atwater, L.E. (1997). Implications of Self-Other Rating Agreement for Human Resources Management. Spring 1997, 73-82. Robbins., Millett., & Waters-Marsh. (2011). Organisational Behaviour 5E. Frenchs Forest, Sydney: Pearson. Carson, M. (2006). Saying it like it isnt: The pros and cons of 360-degree feedback. Business Horizons, 49, 395-402. Shipper, F. (2008). A LONG-TERM STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF A 360 FEEDBACK PROCESS ON SELF-OTHERS AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE. Franklin P. Perdue School of Business, 64-71. Hassan, S., & Rohrbaaugh, J. (2010). INCONGRUITY IN 360-DEGREE FEEDBACK RATINGS AND COMPETING MANAGERIAL VALUES:

EVIDENCE A PUBLIC AGENCY SETTING. International Public Management Journal, 422-449