Staged comedy and the 360 degree appraisal… December 9, 2011
Posted by talentinnovations in 360 degree feedback, 360 feedback.Tags: 360 feedback
add a comment
If you want to hear more about the way that the Talent Innovations 360 Degree tool can assess the behaviour of your organisation or team, click here and email us your details and any questions – we’ll get back to you
Is there a link between employee engagement and 360 degree feedback? September 21, 2011
Posted by talentinnovations in Uncategorized.add a comment
Putting the 360 into a career framework, so extracting honest and open opinions about career progression, fears and concerns, will allow those individuals to re-energise. Individuals come into a career visioning exercise with uncertainty and a low level of engagement, then they can leave with a clear 20-year plan that helps them to shift the way they relate to work moving forward.
What are your thoughts on this? We at Talent Innovations have written a new whitepaper on it available here but would love to hear your ideas: http://www.360degreeappraisal.co.uk/
Sack the slackers? Identifying the difference between lazy and just demotivated July 9, 2011
Posted by talentinnovations in Uncategorized.add a comment
A radical reform of employment law, currently being considered by David Cameron, could make it easier for employers to sack ‘lazy’ staff. If enforced, this rule change would help abolish red tape and prevent workers from claiming unfair dismissal against their employers.
The objective of the proposed reform is to enable businesses to oust the ‘slackers’ to bring in harder workers – which in turn would help to boost the stifled economy. Currently, it’s claimed that the existing rules make it very hard to prove someone deserves to be dismissed.
All very well some might say; if an employee is not pulling their weight perhaps they deserve to be sent packing. On the other hand, who defines ‘lazy’? How can we truly and fairly identify a ‘slacker’ in an organisation and where does the real blame lie for an underachieving staff member?
Unmotivated employees are not a rarity and they’re certainly not all actively looking to ‘slack off’ at any given opportunity. Lazy and unmotivated are not always the same thing and it’s important to truly find the source of underachievement before immediately dishing out the P45.
With that in mind, it’s worth considering this – the news of this possible reform comes in the same week as a survey reveals that nearly half of workers feel they’re being under-used.
The survey, conducted by multi-sector recruiter Randstad, shows that 44% of workers feel their skills are not being fully utilised and that they’re not achieving their true potential. How is it possible for a business to identify a lazy worker if that same business is not encouraging and supporting its staff in achieving maximum potential?
There are several approaches to take in determining the root of underachievement. Firstly, on-going, open dialogue and feedback is essential in understanding employee motivation, satisfaction and engagement. For example, there may be some inefficient and detrimental line management at play that’s causing a drop in a team’s or an individual’s productivity.
Secondly, all employees need to feel that their abilities are being recognised and developed to feel motivated and committed. All workers need to feel a sense of progression in their career and the security that their skills are maximised.
Career visioning can be extremely effective when integrated within a performance management and development planning process. By exploring personal talents, skills and aspirations to form clear, future-focussed career goals – you can help empower and motivate your employees to ensure they give their best to your organisation.
If you feel that under-productivity and under-achievement is holding your business back – identify where motivation is lacking, establish the cause and work with employees and managers in a structured way to build a sense of career security and fully utilise your talent pool.
Small businesses may welcome this new reform, but sacking their staff might completely neglect some serious underlying issues in their company and may only ever be a short-term solution.
Read more about the career visioning programme at Talent Innovations by clicking here, or emailing the team on info@talentinnovations.co.uk.
Should 360° feedback reports be provided to the individual before the feedback session? (Part 10 of 10) July 5, 2011
Posted by talentinnovations in 360 degree feedback, Report, Uncategorized.Tags: 360 degree feedback, focus, report
add a comment
10. Should 360° feedback reports be provided to the individual before the feedback session?
Most agree that the feedback report should not be given to the focus in advance of their feedback session. One key point of debate is whether providing the report in advance helps or hinders an individual who has received particularly difficult feedback. On one hand providing the report in advance may give the individual time to familiarise themselves with the report structure, digest the content (the feedback provider will have time to read through content in advance so why shouldn‟t the individual?), deal with emotional reactions in privacy, and think through discussion points and questions they would like to focus on; but on the other hand it is this precise initial reaction that some coaches find valuable to understand the individual.
“Once the results are in, it’s just as important for me to listen to the client’s initial reactions to the feedback – fresh as it is – for me to understand the nature of the feedback itself.“
Some feel that providing the report in advance may be seen as „cold‟ and may pre-empt a feedback session where the focus is on defensive reactions and counter accusations. In addition, if provided without the support of a coach, feedback may be misinterpreted, which could be distressing. With a coach present, the 360 process can be explained straight away and the feedback can be put into context.
“Human beings tend to see what they want to see,…we create context and meaning that isn’t necessarily truth,… we can be skilled at NOT seeing what is really there….[and we] can get overwhelmed with data.”
The degree to which possible reactions to feedback need to be mitigated may be dependent upon the culture of the organisation. If feedback is commonplace, which some believe it should be, then fewer mitigation strategies will need to be employed and receiving the report in advance will not be a point of contention.
“Feedback should be instant and continuous, not just once a year or every 6 months.”
Those who prefer to provide the report in advance do so within a short timeframe, typically one to two days prior to the session.
“I generally provide the report two days prior – so that the recipient doesn’t have too much time alone with the feedback. The feedback sessions I have debriefed where the receiver has read the report prior have been much more productive and beneficial.”
In addition, some who provide the feedback report in advance argue that this is an important method of encouraging the individual to take ownership of their own development.
“More development occurs when ownership is with the individual. Providing the feedback report prior to a feedback session is in line with treating the individual as an adult with personal responsibility for their development.”
We at Talent Innovations have written two blogs in support of our view that feedback reports should be provided 1 to 2 days in advance of the feedback session. The first shows that when shown their report for the first time in a feedback session, individuals often felt „angry, stunned, shocked, upset, and some have simply denied the relevance of the data. A few have even queried the truth of the ratings‟. Whereas when given their report 1 or 2 days in advance of their feedback sessions, sessions were more constructive and individuals were more engaged. Importantly this gives people time to reflect, allows different learning and personality styles to adjust and deal with it in a way that suits them, respects their privacy, allows them space to be upset in their own way and it actually treats them like an adult, trusting them to deal with it maturely.
Furthermore, research conducted by one of our clients who, on our advice, switched from providing feedback reports just before the feedback session (on the same day) to providing them 1 to 2 days in advance, showed that 98% of focuses either agreed or strongly agreed that they found it helpful to receive their 360 report in advance of their feedback session.
“The vast majority agreed here, with some going as far to say it was essential to have the report before the feedback session, to allow sufficient time for preparation.”
For the full paper, download it for free here.
Should feedback only be delivered to the individual by those trained in feedback techniques such as a trained coach? (Part 9 of 10) July 4, 2011
Posted by talentinnovations in 360 degree feedback, 360 feedback, Coaching, Development, Facilitation.Tags: 360 degree feedback, coach, feedback technique, trainer
add a comment
9. Should feedback only be delivered to the individual by those trained in feedback techniques such as a trained coach?
The debate here is that best practice states that 360° feedback sessions should always be run by a trained coach, however many organisations do not have the resources to provide this service, despite wanting to get the most out of their investment in the 360° feedback process. So is it always necessary to use a trained coach to deliver feedback?
Receiving performance feedback can be difficult for anyone and no matter how prepared an individual may feel most will still run through the typical cycle of rejection and non-acceptance before they emerge onto acceptance of feedback content. The area of non-acceptance can be quite emotionally difficult and if not dealt with effectively may impact on self-esteem, engagement, performance, morale and team work, especially if feedback has highlighted a lot of development areas.
A „novice‟ feedback provider or the employer themselves may not have the experience to effectively move an individual through this phase onto acceptance.
The impact of an experienced coach may also be greater as the individual themselves will have a greater „trust‟ in their input and may be more likely to accept feedback from an expert. Greater trust may also encourage greater openness. In additional to increased trust in the process, an individual may feel more valued by the organisation if they know their development has been invested in. The support of an experienced coach also has benefits outside of the feedback session. A study by Smither, London et al (2003) showed that managers who worked with an executive coach after having received 360 feedback were „more likely to set specific (rather than vague) goals, to solicit ideas for improvement from their supervisors, and to show greater improvement in direct report and supervisor ratings‟ compared with those that had not worked with a coach..
Despite the benefits, not all organisations use a coach to provide feedback, especially if the individual has received 360 feedback previously. Research by 3D Group showed that 57% of those surveyed provided feedback to participants electronically. It could be argued that for those with prior experience of the process, this method is beneficial as the individual is treated as an adult and given ownership of using their information in a way that benefits their own personal learning process.
In addition the use of an external coach may come with some drawbacks. For example, although they may be able to bring insights from different organisations that they have worked with, they may not have a depth of understanding of the individual‟s organisational context. There may also be a greater cost involved with an external coach.
Overall using a trained coach to provide 360° feedback received overwhelming support both in research and popular opinion. For example, 3D Group states that “coaching sessions should be mandatory for all 360 participants”. Research they have conducted also showed that 65% of organisations surveyed offered individual coaching to participants, with 33% stating that use of a coach was mandatory, especially if they were new to the 360 process.
Talent Innovations have been providing courses that can provide a „novice‟ with the skills needed to provide 360° feedback for over ten years, these have proved extremely successful; I cannot emphasise enough however the added value of an experienced executive/ career coach, especially for the cases where a lot of development points have been highlighted. Our overall view is that yes a coach can clearly add benefits but if it is a choice between implementing a 360 process with non-trained career coaches providing feedback and not implementing the 360 process, we would always advise to implement the process as it is extremely insightful and beneficial, with or without a coach.
Last part in this series of challenging common topics of 360° feedback best practice discusses whether 360° feedback reports should be provided to the individual before the feedback session?
For the full paper, download it for free here.
Who should see the feedback report? (Part 8 of 10) July 1, 2011
Posted by talentinnovations in 360 degree feedback, 360 feedback, Coaching, Development, Report.Tags: 360 degree feedback, coaching, data, feedback report, ownership, report
add a comment
8. Who should see the feedback report?
The debate here is around who „owns‟ the information in the feedback report. Is it the focus, because the information is about them, or is it the organisation, because the report has been provided as part of the development or performance management system they operate?
The answer to this question may change depending on whether it is agreed that the feedback obtained from a 360° process should be used for appraisal as well as development. If the view is that it should be purely for development then giving the ownership of the report to the organisation, or giving access to HR/ management may risk feedback being incorporated into performance appraisal feedback. As well as the risk of data being used for purposes other than those initially stated, there is also a risk that managers will misinterpret results, or focus on the negatives.
A way to overcome these potential issues is to provide managers with the development plan, average category scores and group norms resulting from the 360 process rather than an individual’s full report. This will then be sufficient for them to support development of the individual. Furthermore, if it is made clear that the process will be used for development an individual may feel more comfortable to share more with managers in attempt to improve performance. A further benefit of managers being allowed access to individual reports is that it leads to increased accountability, which has been shown to be a key factor leading to behaviour change post 360° feedback.
The general consensus is that the individual should own the report and have the choice to share it with those they select. This will inevitably include the feedback coach but dissemination further than that should be the choice of the focus and should be clarified up front. Having this clarity is particularly important as knowing who will see the report from the onset may not only influence the rating mind set of both the participant and other raters, but will also help ensure employees trust the process.
At Talent Innovations we believe that when used for development purposes, the focus should own the report as well as the responsibility for using the information within it to focus on self-development. When being used for performance management however the organisation should „own‟ the information as it has direct implications on HR decisions.
Part 9: Should feedback only be delivered to the individual by those trained in feedback techniques such as a trained coach?
For the full paper, download it for free here.
Is it most effective to have 8 – 10 raters? (Part 7 of 10) June 28, 2011
Posted by talentinnovations in 360 degree feedback, Uncategorized.Tags: 360 degree feedback, Raters
add a comment
7. Is it most effective to have 8 – 10 raters?
They key debate in this area is around the question „do more raters lead to more useful and reliable information?‟
Best practice states that individuals undergoing a 360° feedback process should select between 8 to 10 raters, but why, why not select 4 – 40? The purpose a 360 process is to obtain multisource feedback. The number of rater categories and the number of raters within each category is not definitive. There are some key preferences outlined for which the benefits are clear, for example raters should only provide feedback to those they know well in a work related context; and, those they have worked with in the past 12 months. There should also be a minimum of two raters per category to preserve anonymity and avoid the need to merge ratings together; merging ratings protects anonymity but removes important distinctions between rater groups so is not preferable. This suggests a lower limit of two raters per category but does not help define an upper limit, or indeed the number of categories.
There are a broad range of benefits from having a large number of reviewers, these include: more perspectives will provide a more complete picture of personal strengths and development needs; and, more individuals per group makes it harder to attribute feedback to any one rater. It could however be argued that more information does not necessarily equate to more quality as the feedback may not be detailed enough to be useful for development.
Additionally, the more raters: the greater the cost in man hours to the organisation; the more reliance there is on an intelligent software platform to cope with the number; and the higher the risk of ratings showing a regression to the mean. Furthermore, research has shown no relationship between the number of raters and performance improvements in the focus.
It may therefore be advantageous to focus on the minimum number of raters needed to obtain useful feedback. Research by 3D Group showed that 65% of organisations had a minimum of 3 raters per rater category; they also showed the most common rater categories to be: self (92%), boss (94%), peer (96%) and direct report (98%). This suggests a minimum of 8 raters in total (3 per group except self and boss). 3D Group also showed that 46% of those questioned required all an individual‟s direct reports to provide ratings.
Overall, although there is some logical indication of the minimum number of raters that should be selected, there is no logical maximum, only a consensus view. At Talent innovations we advise between 6 and 15 raters. We also advise that raters are separated into a minimum of 4 categories (self, manager and two others e.g. peers, direct reports). This is a sufficient number to ensure anonymity and the ability to distinguish between group differences, and is not too great to risk of regression to the mean (where there are so many raters per category that when results are presented as an average it shown nothing more than the mean).
Next to come in this series is ‘who should see the feedback report?’
For the full paper, download it for free here.
Is a rating scale of 1 – 5 most effective? (Part 6 of 10) June 24, 2011
Posted by talentinnovations in 360 degree feedback, HR, Performance Management.Tags: 360 degree feedback, rating scale
add a comment
6. Is a rating scale of 1 – 5 most effective?
It is important to note that research in this area tends to focus on scales used for personality questionnaires; research focusing on 360° feedback is limited.
The key debate in this area is two-fold: firstly there is the question of whether a „not applicable‟ (NA) option should be included; and secondly whether more options lead to more accurate ratings?
The first assumption to explain here is what is meant by an effective rating scale. In this context an effective rating scale is one that allows a rater to express their views in a fast, accurate, easy to analyse and consistent way. It should also be sufficient to show between rater differences. The key aim is to be able to clearly differentiate between an individual’s strengths and development areas when completing a 360 survey. For this reason the focus will be on numerical rather than Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) (BARS would take too long to complete and would not be simple to analyse). It is acknowledged that each numerical value could relate to a simple descriptor e.g. above average to below average, always to never etc.
a. Should NA be included as a rating option
The debate in favour of including an NA option suggests that this gives more accurate feedback as for example an individual is not forced to rate a behaviour that they may not have seen. The debate against the inclusion of an NA option focuses on the risk of it being seen as the „easy option‟ as it provides no „colour‟ or real content.
Research conducted by one 360 provider has suggested that the inclusion of an NA option has clear benefits. In one study they showed that when using a three point scale („strength,‟ „adequate,‟ and „development needed‟) raters reported feeling „heavily constrained‟; they also avoided use of „development needed‟ (only 10% of ratings). In a second study, where NA was included as an option („strength‟, „proficient‟, „development need‟ and „not applicable‟), feedback from raters was far more positive; further more inter-rater reliability has also been shown to be higher.
The consensus view does suggest that NA should be included. At Talent Innovations we include the „NA‟ option in almost all of our off the shelf and bespoke 360 offerings. As suggested above, we feel this results in more accurate results as raters do not feel unduly „forced‟ to make a rating decision.
b. Do more rating options lead to greater rating accuracy
There is a continuum suggested in research: too few rating options and raters feel forced and restricted and it becomes difficult to distinguish between competency ratings; too many options and you get large between rater differences and it again becomes difficult to clearly identify strengths and development areas. So what is the ideal number, here‟s what the research says…
Some state that scales of five-points or less are too small to provide a clear delineation between core strengths and behavioural challenges. Raters should have access to at least seven rating options, and a ten-point scale provides for an even greater spread of responses. Further, raters should be encouraged to utilize the entire range. It could however be argued that having any more than a five point scale could lead to large between rater differences due to the way the scale has been used – this could be misleading; with a five point scale this risk is reduced.
As well as risks associated with too many rating options, too few may lead to increased central tendency as raters typically avoid rating at either end of the scale. This leads to uninformative responses. This reluctance to provide very high or very low ratings will mean that any scale that is used will effectively be reduced by two, for example a five point scale only really offers 3 options, with the midpoint being neutral, hence a smaller scale than this would not be helpful.
Looking at common practice may provide additional insight. From a survey of 360-degree feedback program managers from 50 companies including 3M and General Motors, 76% stated they use a 5 point rating scale; 4% have a 4 point scale, 4% have a 10 point scale, 16% have a 7 point scale.
The consensus view therefore suggests that a 5 point scale is the way to go. At Talent Innovations, after 10 years of tool development experience and 20 years of industry experience we have settled on a 6 point ratings scale (a typical 5 point scale with the addition of an NA option). Feedback we receive on this shows this scale to be very well received.
Keep watching for part 7 on how many raters is most effective in 360° feedback.
For the full paper, download it for free here.
Should 360° feedback provide surprises? (Part 5 of 10) June 21, 2011
Posted by talentinnovations in 360 degree feedback, Development.Tags: 360 degree feedback, surprise
add a comment
5. Should 360° feedback provide surprises?
According to CIPD best practice4 the 360° feedback process “should not provide any surprises” to the focus. It is assumed that the thought behind this is that the performance feedback process should be effective enough within the organisation such that any points raised in the 360 report have already been highlighted previously. It could be argued that this is an idealistic view and in fact „real time‟ performance feedback is a rarity. It could also be argued that in order for 360° feedback to be purposeful it should offer insight not otherwise available. If it is simply repeating past feedback the individual may not fully engage with the process.
“If the 360 process is not adding value over and above the other processes in place, then given the time and resources required, why bother?”
With this in mind it could be argued that 360° feedback is most beneficial to organisations where „real time‟ and/or multi rater feedback is not the norm. For these organisations the additional insight that helps individuals understand aspects such as: what behaviours get results; how their self-perception differs from others perceptions; how perceptions of different groups vary; where they are unaware of things that others see (blind spots); and where they are aware of things that others don‟t see (facades), may provide surprises and be helpful.
Our view at Talent Innovations is that surprises should be expected, at least in the level of agreement and disagreement between an individual‟s self-perception compared with the views of others. Furthermore surprises this will help the process to be seen as adding value, after all what‟s the point of just being told what you already know?
Next topic in part 6 is around rating scales…..
For the full paper, download it for free here.
Do qualitative comments relate to improved performance? (Part 4 of 10) June 17, 2011
Posted by talentinnovations in 360 degree feedback, Performance Management.Tags: 360 degree feedback, coaching, Development, qualitative comments
add a comment
4. Do qualitative comments relate to improved performance?
Best practice advises that qualitative comments are provided by raters to expand on their numerical rating scores but how accurate and beneficial are they, do they relate to greater improvements in performance?
Qualitative comments fill in the gaps left by numerical ratings alone and can be particularly beneficial when creating a development plan. They can provide specific examples of where an individual‟s current behaviour has worked well, as well as showing the consequences of when it has not.
“The real colour of a 360, the brilliant insights, are obtained from the qualitative comments.”
The ability of qualitative comments to provide these benefits will of course depend upon their quality; and it could be argued that really helpful qualitative feedback is hard to come by. There may be many reasons for this, such as inadequate guidance or lack of time but organisational culture may also be a key factor. If an individual is supported in, and rewarded for providing in depth feedback they are more likely to take the time to do so. “High quality and constructive feedback takes significant time and effort from the individual providing it – including moral courage and resilience. In today’s KPI driven and short term numbers focused environments, little time, support and recognition is given to those who make the effort to give vital feedback. There seems to be greater emphasis in reducing cost than there is on focusing on staff, and many business leaders find it difficult to relate time/effort spent on people development (especially performance management) to the ‘bottom line’ or indeed other more pressing financial targets.”
Even if constructive, specific comments are made the focus may reject them if they feel they are inaccurate or from a source they do not trust. In addition to rejection of feedback, there are alternative negative reactions that could follow from qualitative comments. An individual may become pre-occupied with identifying who the comments came from by analysing perceived „give aways‟ of a raters identity such as typical wording or spelling errors. An individual may also become pre-occupied by negative feedback. Each of these negative reactions will cause a hindrance in moving the individual through to acceptance. The negative impact of these reactions could be reduced by a number of measures discussed in this report, such as use of a professional coach, removal of qualitative comments for particular groups e.g. when showing the report to managers, provision of the feedback report prior to coaching session, or checking for overly personal or inappropriate comments prior to release of the report.
The consensus view seems to state that qualitative comments are beneficial as long as they are of a high quality and are constructive. Our view on qualitative comments at Talent Innovations is that more is better. They provide the context and the real learning points that help an individual understand their perceived behaviour. However we do feel it is important for an independent party to review comments prior to the feedback report being released. This both ensures that comments are constructive but also allows time to plan for particularly difficult feedback sessions – which in our experience are few and far between.
Regardless of the feedback method chosen by our client we offer the support of a trained career coach when needed and this offer is typically accepted for the most difficult of cases. Remember it is essential that all those who take part in a 360 benefit from the experience and follow through into acceptance of the data. Although infinitely valuable when approached correctly, if a 360 is not managed well the negative impact can be detrimental and long lasting.
Part 5 discusses whether a 360 feedback should provide surprises….
For the full paper, download it for free here.
Share this: