360 – how often is too often?

Once people start to use a 360 questionnaire and realise the value of gaining the insight into how others see them, it’s sometimes easy for them to make the (incorrect) leap in thought process that the more 360s they do, the quicker they’ll develop and acquire the skills and behaviours they’re looking for.

So how often should we be utilising this tool?

Based on the experience both of our Head of Psychology and the feedback from customers as to what works for them, we’d recommend this to be every 12-18 months as a minimum. Any more often than this and you may start to see a less effective 360 feedback emerge.

Why is this?

People tend to get ‘rater fatigue’ when they're constantly being asked to fill in 360- degree questionnaires. 

You need to allow sufficient time between reviews for people to make the behavioural changes identified or to plan and engage with any personal development which comes out of the 360 feedback session.  There’s likely to be little shift in the behaviour and therefore the ratings in just, say, 3 months.

But even if it isn’t the time to complete a full 360 questionnaire, it’s worthwhile gathering on-going, regular feedback at critical points. For this reason, both our Talent Performance® and Talent Advance® modules from our on-line talent management Talent® system include a ‘Get Feedback' function. This enables people to get more informal, immediate 'pulse' feedback on things that have just happened or on areas they're developing. This is usually shorter, qualitative, aimed at a small number of people and related to one or two specific questions, which doesn't create the rater fatigue that 3 month full-360s would.

To talk about this more, let us know your thoughts below.

Can you spot high potential?

In many organisations, the HR team is able to identify those with high potential – and knows how to
develop this. But for some organisations, spotting high potential can be a tricky business – and
especially so for line managers as traditional career paths no longer, if they ever, necessarily
enable the leaders of the future to rise to the top.

At Head Light, we see that two of the main challenges which impact the identification of potential are:

• Projection
• Detection

Let us explain.

To find the future stars of the organisation, line managers need to identify and understand what the
early markers of High Potential (HiPo) are. That is, what are the behavioural precursors of superior
performance in more complex or more senior roles? This involves a bit of projection and
extrapolation. Often these precursors or indicators are identified by carrying out biographical career
interviews with current high performers and looking back at what set them apart at an early stage in
their career. A crystal ball would be helpful though...

Once you know what you’re looking for, then you have to assess for it and find ways to detect it.
Traditionally this has been done by gut feel (“I know it when I see it!”), line manager evaluation or
performance appraisal. The main difficulty of these approaches is that they all rely on the view of
one individual (and it is usually the line manager) and they are typically based on an assessment of
performance in the current role, and that may not afford the individual the opportunity to
demonstrate broader capability or potential.

Evaluations that are reliant on one perspective are, of course, also subject to a number of cognitive
biases, which are naturally very hard to manage or mitigate against:  The Horns Effect; The ‘Face Fits’ bias. .
In addition to these biases, if the manager-subordinate relationship is not a happy one, this may
well affect judgement regarding current performance and future potential.

So what's to be done?


Psychology and technology have offered us a wide range of means by which we can more robustly
and reliably assess potential – although access to these is not always at a line manager level.  Assessment centres are often used to test for future potential - as are some psychometric tests. More recently, we see the emergence of 360 degree feedback as a means for picking up those HiPo markers but if course this can only be used with those already within the organisation.

But it does make sense to embed the means to ‘assess’ the potential for bigger and more complex roles into current talent management and HR practices so if you and your line managers are already using 360 review as one of one of the processes which help you to manage talent within the business, with only a slight adaptation, it could used to look for ‘high potential’ thereby providing more information and keeping costs to a minimum.


So how can we at Head Light help?

Some organisations are very clear on what ‘potential’ looks like and in our experience, there are a number of attributes which tend to predict success in higher-level roles. Common ‘HiPo’ indicators are:

• Capacity for learning – being able to learn from own mistakes, actively seeking feedback
and using it constructively to inform future performance, reflecting on own behaviour
to learn lessons for the future, being a quick learner and able to learn in a number of
different ways

• Resilience – being able to recover quickly from setbacks, coping with high pressure and
demands, finding ways around obstacles; perseverance in the face of adversity.

• Strategic thinking – longer-term thinking, looking outside the organisation for
opportunities, seeing patterns, trends, themes and relationships, being able to manage
ambiguity and deal with increasingly complex issues, problems, timescales and
information, systems thinking, seeing things from an organisational perspective.

• Flexibility – being able to adapt communication, influencing, leadership and interpersonal
style to suit the demands of the situation and the other people involved, managing change,
shifting one’s approach in response to new priorities.

• Emotional intelligence – being able to accurately recognise and manage one’s own
emotional states, recognising and understanding emotional responses in others, using this
understanding to increase interpersonal effectiveness.

• Drive and motivation – being a ‘self-starter’, actively seeking out opportunities to learn
and stretch oneself, showing a drive to make a difference, actively managing and planning
a career, setting stretching personal goals.

Building on this, we have developed the functionality within our award-winning Talent 360® tool to ‘flag’ some of the indicators within a 360 questionnaire as ‘high potential markers’, thereby supporting the line
manager in his or her need to identify these.

These ‘markers’ are not shown when people complete the questionnaire, and they may be existing
indicators across as number of different competencies. But when a report is generated, however,
the software looks at the ratings given to these indicators and produces a composite HiPo score,
providing a useful visual summary on a separate page.

If you want to see how this looks in practice, then please do get in touch.

7 benefits of moving on-line for 360 review

Want to know what the key benefits to moving to on-line 360 as highlighted in our recent survey?  Some are obvious, some less so.  Read on.

1.     Reduction in administration time.  77% of organisations in our recent survey have observed this time saving. It seems that some of this time is 're-invested'.

2.     More time spent on development planning. 46% of survey respondents signal that they now spend more time on development planning. 

3.     Better individual understanding of own strengths and development areas: 91% have found this to be the case showing the improvement since going on-line.

4.     Greater commitment to the development plan: 73% reported that their people were more committed to their individual development plan after moving on-line. 

5.     Easier comparison of people across departments and the organisation with 55% commenting that this is easier since going on-line.

6.     Faster analytics: 60% of respondents say that the analytics are faster with the on-line system.

7.     Spotting of those with high potential made easier:  57% comment that is it easier to now identify those employees with high potential.

If you’d like to know more about our research or are looking to see how moving on-line with your performance review can bring these benefits, do get in touch.

Why do some 360 degree feedback programmes have more impact than others?

In the most recent Assessment & Development Matters (Volume 2, Number 3, Autumn 2010) from the British Psychological Society, Phil Morison presents his qualitative research (conducted in collaboration with Brighton University Business School) into participants’ perceptions of the 360 experience. He set out to develop a predictive model in order to help organisations gain a better understanding of the factors that lead to successful and worthwhile 360 programmes.

This is a theme with which we at Head Light Communications are familiar; we’ve written previously on the subject of making the most of your investment in 360 and Morison’s study supports many of our views in this area. He used 11 organisations as case studies and interviewed 84 participants, exploring individual experiences of receiving 360 degree feedback in different environments. From his interview data, he identified the factors which determined a difference in the perceptions regarding the 360 degree process, finding many of these to be cultural. However, some pertained to the attitudes and personality of the feedback recipient, and Morison used the work of London and Smither (Human Resource Management review, 2001) to provide a framework for exploring reactions to 360. London and Smither cited two key factors:

• The ‘feedback culture’ of the organisation
• The ‘feedback orientation’ of the individual

In repeated exercises, within a range of organisations, we have found that the culture of the organisation plays a significant part in the degree to which 360 feedback is accepted and acted upon by recipients. Undoubtedly, personal characteristics play a part but Morison found instances of people who had been initially resistant but who had nevertheless kept to their development plans. Culture and individual differences, then, perhaps do not cover the range of factors that influence the effectiveness of a 360 process. We have also found that management skills are critical – to what degree does the individual get support, an in-depth feedback discussion and meaningful ongoing reviews? And whilst it may not be the largest determining factor, the design of the process itself is important – if you get this wrong, but have all the other things in place, it could undermine the process from the beginning.

Morison’s study supports our view that it is the interaction between a number of these factors that determine ‘success or failure’ of a 360 programme. The main factors emerging from his research as being the critical determinants of success were:

1. The design and management of the feedback process; Morison, like us, sees this as a ‘hygiene factor’. It’s important to get it right, since it will be cited as a derailer if things go wrong. This would include ensuring that the questions are clear and easy to understand, that the process was intuitive and easy to use, that the feedback is relevant to the individual’s job and that the questionnaire is psychometrically sound. However, it’s not enough, on its own, to ensure that a 360 programme is successful.
2. Organisational Justice Perception; individuals need to believe in and accept the organisation’s motives for using 360 degree feedback. If there are doubts as to how the data will be used, people are less likely to engage positively in the process. 
3. Perceived Organisational Support; the follow-up to 360 is critical. Follow-up support activities would include integrating the data into coaching, having an in-depth one-to-one feedback discussion with an experienced feedback facilitator (our work with our clients would also strongly support this as being a key enabling factor) and reviewing progress against focused personal development plans. 
4.  Leader-Member Exchange; this looks at the interaction between manager and subordinate. If the manager is responsible for following-up a 360 with feedback and action planning, then it is important that they have a positive and constructive relationship with the individual. 
5.  Feedback Intervention Theory; Morison says that 360 feedback needs to focus on specific behaviours and raise the motivation to change by identifying performance gaps. In our work on 360, we ensure that these gaps are made clear in our reports, but we also see the identification of clear strengths as being important – it’s too easy to focus on the critical feedback and overlook the more positive aspects. Our PAPU-NANU feedback model helps people to understand both their strengths and their performance gaps.

 Morison concludes by saying that, if you have all these things in place and working together, the single most influential factor is the availability and quality of dialogue between the employee and the person facilitating the feedback. He presents a model showing the interaction between these factors and a simple checklist – questions to ask yourself and the organisation when introducing and communicating a 360 degree programme:

• Is the 360 tool easy and clear?
• How significant is the feedback programme (“so what??”)
• Is it fair? Do participants get a say in it at any point?
• What help will they get?
• Is it easy for recipients to talk to their managers about their feedback?
• Does it fit with what people would expect to be asked about in their roles?
• What will the feedback actually tell people? Will they be able to act on it?

It’s a useful list.......

Appraisals - what do enployees think of them?

Why is the appraisal process a perennial problem in many organisations today? Despite best efforts, it either falls into disrepair or is undermined almost as soon as it’s introduced. Has it been noted how each year the process seems to have more paperwork and more to do? Employees and their managers struggle on with it but is there any real return on their investment in time and money? Is the Leadership Team (and HR) getting the information that they need to make decisions quickly in these turbulent times?

Let’s review a typical example of how the appraisal process is viewed.

It’s appraisal time again and line managers are not looking forward to having to spend the time completing the paper work and employees generally aren’t looking forward to the dreaded appraisal meeting itself. Unresolved issues that have been under the surface most of the year are going to be dragged out and documented and the usual unbearable ‘schmoosing’ upward to management will start if it hasn’t already behind closed doors. Everyone will get given a ‘rating’ or score that they don’t understand and by some 360 process that is shrouded in secrecy. Some say that the score is used for bonus; some say a bad score will put you ‘into the departure lounge’. It’s not good that John (a colleague) and I haven’t been seeing eye to eye lately and if he’s going to be giving me some sort of a score, he’ll put the knife in. Best I do too then. I’m not sure the forms we use really apply to my role and my Manager doesn’t really understand the realities of the job I do, so we end up with these circular or inconclusive discussions that inevitably require me to sign off on some vague actions we all know won’t happen. After all of this, it gets filed away and only used again if they want to stop me suing them if I get sacked or made redundant. The output of all of this seems pointless at best and everyone would rather not do it, but we have no choice on how, when and whether it’s done.

If it’s not working, why are we doing it like this? Discuss...

Assessing Values as part of the Appraisal Process

Having just seen a post from a 360 service provider suggesting that there should be a separate section on the assessment of Values in an appraisal, I felt compelled to offer our thoughts on this.

Frankly, we don't agree with the idea of a separate section that prompts a manager and their employee to talk about 'values' so explicitly - how crass! It prompts rather theoretical discussions about personal values and people find this overly invasive and fear being exposed - hardly conducive to a productive appraisal meeting and could easily derail the process completely. Magnify that by how many people 'go through this process' and it could be a potential disaster.

We do however think that values, and more explicitly how values manifest themselves in the context of the work someone performs, is an area of assessment in an appraisal or 360 review. The skill is in developing the right questions or combination of questions that tease out how these values play out in the work place and the impact they have on the individuals colleagues, and this is the approach we always take.

I suspect that a 'simple values section' is the hinting at right direction but it is the wrong implementation and a short cut to doing the job properly.

If your provider simply says, 'we'll add a values section on at the end', ask them why the values aren't entwined into the rest of the assessment or questionnaire.

After all, that's how values appear and are observed in the work place.

If your service provider 'doesn't get it' or can't or won't do this, then our genuine advice is to walk away before any damage is done.

Your HR processes exposed – What do they say about your culture?

Have you considered how the HR processes in your business ‘condition’ your employees? Do you take a close look at the impact that they have on the psychological contract? Do you consider the extent to which management practices support your employer brand? Do your processes such as appraisal reflect how your business is, or was or is trying to be? Is it possible that how employees ‘feel’ about one process impacts their perception of and participation in others?

Let’s consider an example using the appraisal process.

It’s appraisal time again and line managers are not looking forward to having to spend the time completing the paper work and employees generally aren’t looking forward to the dreaded appraisal meeting itself. Unresolved issues that have been under the surface most of the year are going to be dragged out and documented and the usual unbearable ‘schmoosing’ upward to management will start if it hasn’t already behind closed doors. Everyone will get given a ‘rating’ or score that they don’t understand and by some process that is shrouded in secrecy. Some say that the score is used for bonus, some say a bad score will put you ‘into the departure lounge’. It’s not good that John (a colleague) and I haven’t been seeing eye to eye lately and if he’s going to be giving me some sort of a score, he’ll put the knife in. Best I do too then. I’m not sure the forms we use really apply to my role and my Manager doesn’t really understand the realities of the job I do, so we end up with these either circular or inconclusive discussions that inevitably require me to sign off on some vague action we all know won’t happen. After all of this, it gets filed away and only used again if they want to stop me suing them if I get sacked or made redundant. The output of all of this seems pointless at best and everyone would rather not do it, but we have no choice on how, when and whether it’s done.

Clearly, there’s something wrong with this performance appraisal and management process. We all know it as we see these problems, but often the root causes might appear elusive or beyond our ability to address. We hear this sentiment expressed regularly by the HR professionals we work with and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence in literature, blogs and articles. Do you ask about the appraisal process in your Exit interviews?

Just by looking at the example we can see issues of process, purpose, secrecy, relevance and consequently buy-in. Also what does this type of feedback say about how the organisation is run and what type of culture exists here? Similarly, with this process firmly in place and established as an organisational ritual, how are other, possibly better considered, constructed and more impactful HR processes and initiatives received? To a new recruit, candidate or even someone considering their next move in the organisation, does the above suggest an open, trusting, respectful or progressive working environment?

The buck stops here, as usual

As HR professionals, we have a huge opportunity (and some would say responsibility) to ensure that the processes we introduce and advocate all contribute to the positive development of organisational culture.

Read on

Someone please explain this madness to me!

A sample 360 report has come across my desk recently. It's not one generated by our Talent360 software and its source shall remain anonymous.

What's got me 'putting pen to paper' is this idea that in addition to asking raters in a 360 review to rate someone's behaviour against a particular indicator, it also asks them to rate how important it is to the role. So let's get this straight, a direct report rates their manager on a number of behaviours, such as communication style, team working, support etc, OK so far, and then gets to offer their opinion on how important it is to their manager's role? I'm all for getting feedback on what makes a good leader or manager but its not done in the context of a 360 on an individual that then appears in their feedback report.

Firstly, what qualifies the direct report to determine and trade-off which of these indicators are more important to performance in the other person's role? Secondly, the views expressed are not necessarily going to create a consistent picture of what is important - my direct reports might have a different view than yours when it comes to importance of a behaviour in a role. So where does that leave us?

Similarly, if a behavioural indicator is rated as important by one group of raters (such as peers) but not by the manager group, where does that leave the poor individual with these conflicting messages in their feedback report.

We think this is completely bonkers and a great example of what could be done not what should be done.

If an indicator is considered to be important to high performance in a role, then this should be validated by those who hire, promote or performance manage thse folks, not the poachers turned gamekeepers! (If input from staff is required to find out their views, then management culture and employee engagement surveys are the way to go.)

With Talent360, an indicator can be marked as 'key' and therefore the scores (whatever they might be) should be taken in the context of an important characteristic and acted on accordingly.

I'd be delighted to hear a rational case to support the 'rater determines how important' argument, but not in jest please as I'll end up tearing out what little hair I have left!