 |
 |
|
|
|
7 Failures and Fixes for 360 Degree Reviews
Washington, DC
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Francie Dalton, CMC
"Implementing a 360 degree review process will either be a destructive and devastating experience or a developmental epiphany, depending entirely on how the process is structured and managed" says Francie Dalton, President of Washington, D.C. based Dalton Alliances, Inc.
Briefly, the 360-degree feedback questionnaire is so named because it captures perceptions about one's leadership from "all around" the person being assessed. For example, if Jack is being 360'd, he'll complete the questionnaire about himself. Relevant superiors, subordinates, and peers of Jack will also complete the questionnaire about him. Jack can then compare his self view to how the other groups view the quality and impact of his leadership.
"If you're convinced that the way you see yourself aligns with how others see you, it's possible you're in for a rude awakening", says Dalton. "But – would you rather know, or not know this?" asks Dalton. "Putting your head in the sand merely provides an alternative - and for most of us, a larger - target"
"Unless and until management is willing to exert the same level of scrutiny on management and leadership behavior as is already exerted on finance and manufacturing, incompetent mangers will be free to impede business results with impunity" claims Dalton.
"The 360", she says, "is the only tool that provides quantitative and qualitative evidence of the causal link between management behavior and such business outcomes as
"Many people fear a 360 process", she says, "and with good reason" Dalton describes seven reasons why the process can go awry, and provides her recommended fixes for each.
1. Failure to Sub Out the Process: Anonymity is absolutely crucial to a successful 360 process. Hosting 360's on internal computers simply cannot provide the necessary assurances, eroding credibility and generating distrust.
Fix: Choose a qualified consultant to host your 360. Ensure your consultant can provide on-line instrumentation, has a strong background in facilitating senior executive work sessions, and a successful track record of executive coaching.
2. Failure to Customize the Questionnaire: Successful executives understandably resent being measured against generic criteria that don't reflect organizational uniqueness. Management in a manufacturing setting shouldn't be assessed using the same questions used in a hospital environment.
Fix: Your consultant should collaborate with your senior executives to establish and define the dimensions of excellence for leadership and management in your firm and develop an instrument customized exclusively to your organizational culture. Because those who'll be evaluated by the mechanism have input into its construction, greater receptivity to the process is secured, greater validity is imputed to the results, and commitment to improve is easier to sustain.
3. Failure to Properly Introduce the Process: It's not enough to explain the 360 process only to those who'll be 360'd. The rest of the organization, from which respondents will be selected, should be briefed as well.
Fix: The CEO should conduct all-staff meetings to explain why the process is being inaugurated and how anonymity will be protected. The CEO should also inspire staff esteem for the courage and emotional maturity requisite of those who'll be going through the process, asking that staff provide honest but constructive feedback.
4. Failure to Allow the "First Time" to be Self-Directed: Some organizations require the results of one's first 360 to be shared with the boss. This potentially punitive use of one's initial 360 is anything but constructive; it's intimidating and generates fear around the whole process.
Fix: The first time one is 360'd, the results should be confidential, known only to the consultant and the individual, who meet monthly to develop and review action plans to remediate undesirable scores. Accountability for improvement is achieved when the second 360 is administered, and those results ARE shared with the supervisor. Because the perceptions of others take time to change, the second 360 should not be done until 18 to 24 months after the first. What CAN be shared with the supervisor regarding the first
set of results is a Composite Report, which combines the scores of all those 360'd without revealing the identity of individuals. Composite reports can reveal shared characteristics of teams or departments, which can form the basis for the targeted improvements of groups. Those who were 360'd can also compare their individual results to the composite results to see how their scores affect the group.
5. Failure to Provide Follow-Up Coaching: The scope and depth of scrutiny imposed by a 360 is available through no other workplace experience. Delivering the results without providing supportive follow-up is irresponsible and potentially hurtful.
Fix: After delivering an individual's 360 results, the consulting coach should
immediately secure a date for a second meeting. Assignments between meetings with the coach are typical, with the first assignment being the prioritization of undesirable scores.
Future coaching sessions focus on facilitating the development of and monitoring the progress of meaningful action plans targeted at improving prioritized scores.
6. Failure to Control Respondent Selection and Anonymity : Because respondent selection can significantly skew results, choosing respondent pools shouldn't be left to either the organization or the individual being 360'd. Additionally, respondents will be understandably concerned that their inputs not be identifiable.
Fix: Three respondents in each rating population is the minimum number required to protect anonymity. Those to be 360'd should identify at least 5 people in each respondent population, (5 superiors, 5 peers, and 5 subordinates) from which the consultant then randomly selects 3. For purposes of a 360, these need not be direct reporting relationships; instead, a "superior" respondent can be anyone hierarchically superior to the individual to be 360'd who works closely enough with that individual to be able to respond to the questions. Similarly, a "subordinate" need not be a direct report of the individual to be 360'd; they just have to have worked together closely enough for the subordinate to be able to respond to the questions. Narrative comments must be aggressively sanitized to eliminate any chance of attribution.
7. Failure to Deploy a Second 360: Seasoned consultants aren't unfamiliar with CEO's reneging on the 2nd round of 360's. The "new initiative" has become "old hat" and the CEO is no longer enamored; those who dislike the process (usually those whose scores were particularly low) lobby the CEO to abandon further efforts; and the constant pressure to distribute scarce resources among competing priorities combine to imperil the critically important 2nd round.
Fix: The best way to ensure the 2nd 360 is completed on schedule is to include it in the initial contract, with a substantial penalty clause for abandonment. This may sound harsh, but avoidance of the following negative consequences provides more than adequate justification for such a step. (1) Without supervisory review of the 2nd 360, accountability for improvement by those who participated in the process cannot be meaningfully imposed, so the entire initiative won't be taken seriously from the beginning; (2) Absent the 2nd 360, those who worked diligently to improve their scores won't have visibility into the results of their efforts, so they'll be left with uncertainty and lack of closure; (3) Respondents who labored in good faith to provide thoughtful input will believe their opinions never really mattered in the first place.
~
Francie Dalton is founder and president of Dalton Alliances, Inc., a premier business consultancy specializing in the communication, management and behavioral sciences. For more information, call 410-715-0484 or visit www.daltonalliances.com.
Briefly, the 360-degree feedback questionnaire is so named because it captures perceptions about one's leadership from "all around" the person being assessed. For example, if Jack is being 360'd, he'll complete the questionnaire about himself. Relevant superiors, subordinates, and peers of Jack will also complete the questionnaire about him. Jack can then compare his self view to how the other groups view the quality and impact of his leadership.
"If you're convinced that the way you see yourself aligns with how others see you, it's possible you're in for a rude awakening", says Dalton. "But – would you rather know, or not know this?" asks Dalton. "Putting your head in the sand merely provides an alternative - and for most of us, a larger - target"
"Unless and until management is willing to exert the same level of scrutiny on management and leadership behavior as is already exerted on finance and manufacturing, incompetent mangers will be free to impede business results with impunity" claims Dalton.
"The 360", she says, "is the only tool that provides quantitative and qualitative evidence of the causal link between management behavior and such business outcomes as
- productivity
- retention
- morale
"Many people fear a 360 process", she says, "and with good reason" Dalton describes seven reasons why the process can go awry, and provides her recommended fixes for each.
1. Failure to Sub Out the Process: Anonymity is absolutely crucial to a successful 360 process. Hosting 360's on internal computers simply cannot provide the necessary assurances, eroding credibility and generating distrust.
Fix: Choose a qualified consultant to host your 360. Ensure your consultant can provide on-line instrumentation, has a strong background in facilitating senior executive work sessions, and a successful track record of executive coaching.
2. Failure to Customize the Questionnaire: Successful executives understandably resent being measured against generic criteria that don't reflect organizational uniqueness. Management in a manufacturing setting shouldn't be assessed using the same questions used in a hospital environment.
Fix: Your consultant should collaborate with your senior executives to establish and define the dimensions of excellence for leadership and management in your firm and develop an instrument customized exclusively to your organizational culture. Because those who'll be evaluated by the mechanism have input into its construction, greater receptivity to the process is secured, greater validity is imputed to the results, and commitment to improve is easier to sustain.
3. Failure to Properly Introduce the Process: It's not enough to explain the 360 process only to those who'll be 360'd. The rest of the organization, from which respondents will be selected, should be briefed as well.
Fix: The CEO should conduct all-staff meetings to explain why the process is being inaugurated and how anonymity will be protected. The CEO should also inspire staff esteem for the courage and emotional maturity requisite of those who'll be going through the process, asking that staff provide honest but constructive feedback.
4. Failure to Allow the "First Time" to be Self-Directed: Some organizations require the results of one's first 360 to be shared with the boss. This potentially punitive use of one's initial 360 is anything but constructive; it's intimidating and generates fear around the whole process.
Fix: The first time one is 360'd, the results should be confidential, known only to the consultant and the individual, who meet monthly to develop and review action plans to remediate undesirable scores. Accountability for improvement is achieved when the second 360 is administered, and those results ARE shared with the supervisor. Because the perceptions of others take time to change, the second 360 should not be done until 18 to 24 months after the first. What CAN be shared with the supervisor regarding the first
set of results is a Composite Report, which combines the scores of all those 360'd without revealing the identity of individuals. Composite reports can reveal shared characteristics of teams or departments, which can form the basis for the targeted improvements of groups. Those who were 360'd can also compare their individual results to the composite results to see how their scores affect the group.
5. Failure to Provide Follow-Up Coaching: The scope and depth of scrutiny imposed by a 360 is available through no other workplace experience. Delivering the results without providing supportive follow-up is irresponsible and potentially hurtful.
Fix: After delivering an individual's 360 results, the consulting coach should
immediately secure a date for a second meeting. Assignments between meetings with the coach are typical, with the first assignment being the prioritization of undesirable scores.
Future coaching sessions focus on facilitating the development of and monitoring the progress of meaningful action plans targeted at improving prioritized scores.
6. Failure to Control Respondent Selection and Anonymity : Because respondent selection can significantly skew results, choosing respondent pools shouldn't be left to either the organization or the individual being 360'd. Additionally, respondents will be understandably concerned that their inputs not be identifiable.
Fix: Three respondents in each rating population is the minimum number required to protect anonymity. Those to be 360'd should identify at least 5 people in each respondent population, (5 superiors, 5 peers, and 5 subordinates) from which the consultant then randomly selects 3. For purposes of a 360, these need not be direct reporting relationships; instead, a "superior" respondent can be anyone hierarchically superior to the individual to be 360'd who works closely enough with that individual to be able to respond to the questions. Similarly, a "subordinate" need not be a direct report of the individual to be 360'd; they just have to have worked together closely enough for the subordinate to be able to respond to the questions. Narrative comments must be aggressively sanitized to eliminate any chance of attribution.
7. Failure to Deploy a Second 360: Seasoned consultants aren't unfamiliar with CEO's reneging on the 2nd round of 360's. The "new initiative" has become "old hat" and the CEO is no longer enamored; those who dislike the process (usually those whose scores were particularly low) lobby the CEO to abandon further efforts; and the constant pressure to distribute scarce resources among competing priorities combine to imperil the critically important 2nd round.
Fix: The best way to ensure the 2nd 360 is completed on schedule is to include it in the initial contract, with a substantial penalty clause for abandonment. This may sound harsh, but avoidance of the following negative consequences provides more than adequate justification for such a step. (1) Without supervisory review of the 2nd 360, accountability for improvement by those who participated in the process cannot be meaningfully imposed, so the entire initiative won't be taken seriously from the beginning; (2) Absent the 2nd 360, those who worked diligently to improve their scores won't have visibility into the results of their efforts, so they'll be left with uncertainty and lack of closure; (3) Respondents who labored in good faith to provide thoughtful input will believe their opinions never really mattered in the first place.
~
Francie Dalton is founder and president of Dalton Alliances, Inc., a premier business consultancy specializing in the communication, management and behavioral sciences. For more information, call 410-715-0484 or visit www.daltonalliances.com.
Andie Sugrue
Public Relations
Dalton Alliances
Columbia, MD
304-433-1960
First Url: Learn more about 360's
Second Url: Take the Test!
