Posted by Laura Sheffield on Thu, Aug 26, 2010 @ 03:50 PM
The Harvard Business Review recently published an article by Amy Gallo: "Bouncing Back from a Negative 360-Degree Review." In the article, Gallo addresses five ways to effectively move forward in the face of a negative 360-degree feedback survey report:
Reflect before reacting
Don't do anything until you've let the results of your 360-degree feedback settle in your mind. Let time take the edge off the initial emotion that is inevitable after receiving negative feedback. Try to place the feedback into the context of your work environment and feedback you have received before.
Avoid a witch hunt
Never search out where the negative feedback may be coming from. Sometimes, you may find clues indentifying who said what. Try not to read into the clues. Let the survey be anonymous as it was intended to be and take the feedback as cohesive feedback rather than interpreting specific data points.
Decide what to respond to
Trying to process and change every piece of feedback from a 360 assessment can be overwhelming and also ineffective. Prioritize what is most affecting your leadership abilities and target those issues first.
Talk with your manager or team
Avoid trying to process the assessment in solitude. The feedback came from your work community. Use their further insights and suggestions in deciding how to proceed. Be open to their responses.
Commit to Change
The decision to change is the most important part of receiving a negative 360-degree review. Using the assessment as a catalyst for change essentially transforms the results from a negative distracter into a motivator and a positive development tool.
Read more: article in the Harvard Business Review.
Posted by Laura Sheffield on Tue, Aug 24, 2010 @ 05:00 PM
Carol Dweck, a professor of psychology at Stanford University, defines two opposite mindsets that help define one's ability to adapt and change.
The first is a fixed mindset. People with fixed mindsets tend to believe that their skills, abilities, and talents are static. It's a limiting approach. Having a fixed mindset can be traced to the definitive praise we received as a child, which ultimately decided our strengths-- "You're smart!" "You are good at basketball!" The same fixed mindset will define our weaknesses as well: "I'm no good at public speaking." "I'm a terrible bowler." and "I can't draw."
Those with fixed mindsets tend to be wary of attempting to change and grow. Thus, someone with a fixed mindset not only believes that his or her talents are static, but ultimately creates a static set of talents and skills because they shrink from the opportunity to change.
A growth mindset is the opposite-- liberating, empowering, and motivating. Those with growth mindsets know that they are not limited to their current abilities and skills. They search for opportunities to improve because they see their talents as ever-morphing into a new set. Their weaknesses aren't permanent.
We've found that leadership coaching is not effective if the coachee feels that "they are who they are" and others just need to accept it. 360-degree feedback helps to foster a growth mindset because it acts as a catalyst to confront issues and challenge individuals to change.
One can't change unless they believe change is possible.
Do you tend towards a fixed or growth mindset? How does fostering a growth mindset change your perception of others and their abilities? Share an example when a growth mindset facilitated change for you, your organization, or someone you know.
Posted by Tracy Maylett, Ed.D. on Wed, Jun 09, 2010 @ 12:36 PM
Many organizations struggle to link nonfinancial metrics with results. We conducted a three-year study with several hundred employees in various industries that analyzed the results of performance evaluations, production performance, and 360-degree feedback. Surprisingly, this study showed no correlation between 360-degree feedback scores and performance evaluations. Employees scoring high on their performance evaluations were not necessarily those who scored high on their feedback.
Some of these employees with poor feedback scores were hitting their production and financial targets. This resulted in managers receiving good performance evaluation ratings, along with accompanying raises and promotions. However, these managers' departments also experienced high levels of employee turnover and had difficulty attracting and retaining talent. It soon became clear that these managers were meeting short-term targets at the expense of long-term profitability. They were pulling out all the stops to achieve these short-term revenue targets.
CHG Healthcare Services is one of the oldest and largest healthcare staffing firms in the United States. Located in Salt Lake City, CHG has consistently been named one of Utah's most-admired companies.
"We have been gathering information on our financial and service performance since day one," says Michael Weinholtz, CHG president and CEO. "But we knew that overall business success is an outcome of more than just operational performance. We are a business that is based on people. Our ability to attract, motivate, manage, and retain talented employees is key to the company's bottom line, and we knew that we needed a way to measure those factors."
CHG discovered that 360-degree feedback provided an effective way to measure individual strengths and areas for development. This overall feedback offered some enlightening information. The results of a manager's 360-degree feedback could be used as a predictor of her financial or operational success over the next year.
"We see 360-degree feedback and employee engagement as part of our performance metrics," says CHG's Ricklefs. "Low 360 scores are a warning that employee engagement is likely to decrease unless something changes. Poor engagement scores are a signal that team performance will suffer down the road."
Much of the power of these assessments lies in what they predict about future performance. The results from these "softer side" assessments predict long-term success in performance metrics. As business partners examine the link between the softer side of management and bottom-line results, the use of 360-degree feedback scores and employee engagement assessments promises to be an important part of the process.
Posted by Laura Sheffield on Mon, Mar 08, 2010 @ 01:50 PM
The 82nd Academy Awards took over Hollywood along with most American living rooms last night. As the stars arrived in their glamour and glory, the first round of judging started almost immediately.
The web was abuzz with both the beautiful and the dreadful within seconds of each red carpet entrance. The gorgeous were applauded, but for those who blew it, the public had no mercy. We took a vote of our own and are pleased to announce our picks for worst-dressed. We laughed at both Charlize Theron's awkward flowers and Zoe Saldana's purple poof.
That's the first round of judging, but the second round of judging is what really matters.
Unlike the instant judging of the red carpet glamour, the members of the Academy spent most of January considering their votes for each of the evening's honors. Who is the academy? According to their website: "The Academy is an honorary membership organization whose ranks include more than 6,000 artists and professionals." In short, they are the respected and admired peers of the nominated, peers who are involved in the day-to-day business of movies. That matters.
Contrast the Academy Awards with the Golden Globe Awards. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association selects those winners. The foreign press who are not peers of the nominated, nor are they involved in the day-to-day business of movies.
Which feedback is more valuable? The answer is easy. Which feedback is more valuable to you? The feedback given by your respected peers or the "foreign press"?
Feedback matters most when it comes from those involved in the day-to-day goings-on of your organization, company, or industry. Feedback matters most when it comes from peers that you admire, peers whose opinions you value and respect.
With 360-degree feedback, people tend to disregard feedback unless those giving the feedback are respected colleagues and coworkers. Those are the opinions that hold the most weight-- their compliments are the most valued and their criticisms are the most impactful.
The world has naturally acknowledged the Academy Awards as the more important motion picture awards. An Oscar statue is hugely valuable to an actor, because an Academy Award is awarded by people who matter.
(Interestingly, to prevent the valuable statues from being auctioned on the open market, the Academy requires that they cannot be sold unless first offered to the Academy for repurchase at the price of US $1. Winners must sign this agreement before leaving with the award.)
As another aside, we wonder whether Charlize Theron and Zoe Saldana forgot to get feedback before crashing on the red carpet. But, we like to believe that Sandra Bullock and Rachel McAdams did. They are our picks for best-dressed, in case you wondered.
Posted by Charles Rogel on Tue, Jan 05, 2010 @ 09:20 AM
Our research has shown that traditional performance appraisals fail to provide an accurate view of performance. One of the most effective ways to improve the process is to incorporate a 360 degree feedback assessment. 360 feedback provides more points of reference, measures how someone does their job, and opens up a real developmental conversation between manager and subordinate. Before using 360 degree feedback as part of a performance review process, we recommend the following 10 tips:
- Understand the differences in use and purpose. There are differences in how a 360 degree feedback survey should be used for development as opposed to appraisal. Scores are typically elevated when 360 feedback is used for appraisal purposes because raters recognize that results can impact a person's compensation. Understanding that scores will differ depending on the purpose will help in determining how best to use and interpret the scores. These differences should be taken into account when determining how to use and interpret the results.
- Communicate the purpose and process. Let employees know the intended purpose before administering the assessments, as well as how the results will be used. Communicate the process and hold to it. Train the organization on how to provide accurate ratings.
- Use a pilot group. Using a pilot group of 35-50 people prior to organization-wide rollout has several advantages. First, it allows for refinement of the process and of the instrument itself. Many potential problems are quickly identified that would have been wide-spread otherwise. Second, the pilot participants can act as champions to promote the process throughout the rest of the organization.
- Wait before taking administrative action. If you are starting to use 360 degree feedback for the first time, wait until the second year of use before to tying raises, promotions, etc. to the appraisal results. This allows people to become familiar with the process and comfortable with providing feedback.
- Manage rater selection. If participants select their own raters they may be tempted to "stack the deck" in their own favor. This can be solved by selecting raters on behalf of the employee or having the person's manager review the list before it is finalized. Be sure that the selected raters have regular interaction with the employee being rated and can provide accurate feedback as to performance.
- Use small but relevant rater groups. Consider the number of people that will be involved in providing feedback. 360 degree appraisals involve more of the organization in terms of providing feedback. Each person (especially managers), may be required to complete multiple evaluations. We recommend selecting only two to three people in each of the peer and direct report rater groups.
- Consider the answer scale. We recommend using a 7-point Likert scale, rather than a 5-point scale. This allows for greater differentiation in scores.
- Keep the survey short. Design a survey that is short enough that it can be completed in 15 minutes. We have found this to be approximately 45-55 questions. Any longer and raters tend to experience rater fatigue, often resulting in all scores falling in the "good" range. The shorter the survey, the more apt raters are to take the time needed to give accurate information.
- Use a customized 360 degree feedback survey. 360 assessments for development should include questions geared at behavior (the how), while appraisal assessments can focus more on performance (the what). 360 survey questions should reflect these differences in design. Be aware that most off-the-shelf surveys are designed for developmental use, not for appraisals. We typically find that off-the-shelf surveys are inappropriate for appraisal purposes, and that organizations should consider a survey customized to their specific purposes.
- Don't group questions into single category scores. Many performance appraisals group a series of questions under one category. An example of this would be the category of "Communications." Communications is comprised of many elements: oral communications, written communications, listening, etc. Rather than providing scores for each item, many appraisals will give one overall score for the category. When this is the case, it is often difficult for an employee to know which area of "Communications" is being addressed. Providing a score for each individual question provides more useful data, and is easier for the rater to evaluate accurately.
Posted by Tracy Maylett on Tue, Nov 10, 2009 @ 12:13 PM
I am always surprised when I read a statement by a company touting the validity and reliability of their standard 360-degree feedback instrument. The reality is that 360-degree instruments are not valid... in the statistical sense of the word. Sure, we can (and should) check for such statistical measures as content and construct validity. It should certainly have face validity. Anyone who tells you these are not important does not understand statistics. The problem is not one of statistics. The truth is, most 360s are not valid. Before I'm labled a heretic, allow me to explain.
My concerns are on a couple of levels:
- Reliability refers to the ability to produce the same results under the same conditions. The problem with this is that most 360 participants will see some gaps in their report-- differences between how raters see their performance. Technically, many statisticians would say the survey is, therefore, not reliable. The truth is, these very gaps in perception are what make make multi-rater feedback such so powerful. They allow us to see the differences in perceptions that others might have of our performance.
- The scale used is generally not a "valid" measure. Nearly all 360s use a 4,5, 7, or 10-point Likert scale. The problem here is that a "5" to one rater may be at a "6" to another rater-- they mean to indicate the same level of performance, but they inherently score differently. Also, in the rater's mind, is the difference between a 5 and a 6 on a 7-point scale the same distance as between a 3 and a 4? Usually not. Giving a score of "3" is MUCH harsher (at least in some raters' minds) than giving a "4." Yet the difference between a 4 and a 5 may not be as significant in that same rater's mind. Get the picture? Now, that said, this is mitigated in several ways: a) selecting a larger group of raters will help balance this effect; b) educating raters on the rating scale can go a long way; and c) 360s are often best at sorting out the "outliers"-- those very high and very low performers. Small differences between scores shouldn't be overemphasized. However, very high and very low scores are areas for attention.
- Off-the shelf assessments generally do not measure what is most critical to a particular organization. We work many organizations that come to us after purchasing an off-the-shelf product or software application, only to find it is not a valid measure of what's important. Customizing an assessment to the needs of an organization is extremely important. However, this means that this customized version will not have the years of statistical testing that many claim is so important.
The real test of validity? Is it a good indicator and measure of what's important, and can I act on the feedback? If the answer is "yes," to both of these, you're far better off than if you can rattle off a bunch of statistical findings.
Posted by Tracy Maylett on Sat, Nov 07, 2009 @ 08:21 PM
 |
According to a study done over 10 years ago, over 90% of Fortune 500 fims use some form of 360-degree feedback. Most people understand that 360 feedback increases self-awareness and is a great tool for leadership development. But there are many other uses that are less common and very effective. Some of these include: |
A study conducted by the American Management Association (AMA) found that 90% of organizations that use 360-degree feedback use it for both leadership development and performance appraisal.
When deciding the purpose for 360-degree feedback in your organization, be sure to think the process through carefully. The steps and outcomes vary and expectations need to be adjusted accordingly. For expert advice, contact DecisionWise and we will be glad to answer any questions you have.
Posted by Tracy Maylett, Ed.D. on Wed, Nov 04, 2009 @ 11:40 AM
Over the past five years, we have seen more and more interest in using 360-degree feedback as part of a performance appraisal process. Many organizations have made the change from using 360-degree feedback assessments strictly for development to using them for performance evaluations, talent reviews, and succession planning. The key to success is the way in which you implement the process in the organization.
360 Migration Pattern
We recommend that you begin using 360 assessments for development, and then migrate towards performance appraisal over time, if appraisal is the direction you'd like to go. This helps to break in the organization to the process and relieve any fears that people may have about 360s. The following illustrates a typical migration pattern for using 360 assessments and the different components of each method:
1. Personal Development
- 360 feedback is part of a development event
- Reports are confidential and kept within the scope of training
- Rater selection and follow-up is participant driven
2. Personal and Organizational Development
- 360 feedback is part of a development program
- Action plans are to be discussed with the participant's manager
- Management receives group reports
3. Assessment and Development
- 360 feedback is part of the performance assessment process
- Group and individual reports are shared with managers
- Rater selection and follow-up is driven by manager
4. Performance Appraisal
- 360 feedback is specific to position competencies
- Ranking and grading on group and individual scores
- Includes a formal rater selection process, appraisal, and links to compensation
How long does this migration take?
It all depends on the culture of your organization. If you have a relatively open and progressive culture that is ready for change, this process can be done over a shorter period of time- say, over the course of the first or second year.
During the first year, 360 assessments would be used exclusively for developmental purposes. During the second year, 360s could also be used as part of a performance evaluation process (Notice that we said "as part of". It's important to note that 360 feedback should never replace a formal appraisal process, but should serve as an additional source of input).
Alternatively, if there is a low level of trust in your organization and anxiousness about change in general, you may want to extend the migration over a period of two-three years.
360 assessments are a great tool for development, performance appraisals, talent reviews, and succession planning. Take care to ensure that you implement them in a way that best fits with the culture of your organization.