We can discuss gap analysis from two important 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. This is the CCi advantage.
Using Intra-Gap analysis participants can identify the number of staff, peers or customers who have identified their performance as a strength or area for development. Participants quickly realize that not all of the raters in a particular group have the same expectations regarding their experience.
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.