Is your organisation ready for 360? Think again...

There is no doubt that a well implemented 360-degree review and feedback process will make a significant and cost-effective contribution to your organisation. But, is now the time? We share what we consider to be the main considerations for maximising the effectiveness of 360 feedback programmes. If you come up short on any of these, do think carefully about the timing.

1. Ask yourself – is it still a step too far?

360 should be approached as an evolutionary way to capture feedback. If there is no historical approach to feedback being a fundamental and accepted part of the culture it may encounter significant obstacles. It may be that a formalised review processes and one to one feedback needs to be introduced to lay the foundations for the full 360 and help to realise the value it can add to an open, honest culture with a genuine desire to improve performance. Perhaps a pilot in a certain part of the business (usually the top) might be a better starting point?

2. Can I create a ‘What’s in it for them’?

When positioning the 360 with the end-user it is imperative that a clear purpose is defined. Is the overall outcome designed to support Management Development, Coaching, Career Development or Performance Management? Are you introducing new competencies, ways of working or bonus schemes? It may be some or all of these. By exploring with the users it will help to sell the “what’s in it for me” gaining buy-in and provide clarity to how the organisation will use the results.

3. Can I deal with ‘emotional’ objections?

Explain how the 360 will be administered, who will ensure it happens, who will collate the results and how, when will they receive the feedback and who from? Ensure that the process is transparent and all can see what the desired outcomes are. It is useful to show at this stage that the 360 process will be revisited to allow individuals to see how they have improved based on feedback captured over time.

4. Can I create a ‘What’s in it for the Management population’?

Is there an overarching strategy or goal that the organisation is working towards? 360 can be extremely effective when clear links can be seen between the outcomes and the future vision of an organisation. Are there values or a core mission statement that the behaviours link to?

5. Can I enlist their support as opposed to just agreement? 

Identify the key stakeholders to act as “Champions” supporting the pilot of the process and promoting its worth and usefulness as a management tool. These may be a Senior Management Group or well respected members of specific business areas. This group would then define and promote the organisational need for the 360 i.e. to identify current skills against those required for future growth and develop training plans to assist this.

6. Are the questionnaires fit for purpose and considered relevant? 

Here possible ensure that the questions reflect the desired competencies. If the organisation does not use competencies ensure that the language used is common across the organisation, appropriate to the respondents and can clearly elicit the desired responses. It is useful to discuss the design of the questions and format with a pilot group of differing levels to ensure your format will deliver what is required and provide one clear consistent message of its worth. Do see our other resources on this subject.

7. Are these outputs aligned with other core Talent Management processes? 

Wherever possible align the feedback to the Personal Development and Career Planning process within the organisation (you do have those don't you?!). Formalising action plans based on the feedback and reviewing quarterly shows commitment to the users. It also ensures the feedback is revisited and discussed regularly keeping the process alive and helping to embed it into the organisations culture. The choice should be given to the individuals to discuss the action plans with their manager or a mentor. Sharing by choice in this way can then help to naturally encourage a feedback rich team who seek to adopt the process into every day operations.

8. Are those tasked with delivering and receiving the feedback ready, willing and able?

Be specific when and how the feedback will be delivered. Ensure that the individuals are briefed on the stages on feedback - shock, anger, rejection, and acceptance. This helps them to mentally prepare for the sessions and understand their emotions are natural and expected. In our experience individuals can move more quickly to acceptance (and therefore action) when they understand the stages and the reasons for their feelings. Thus helping the feedback to be digested and understood more fully. Ensure each individual understands that by being a willing participant in a 360 feedback process, they own the feedback. By accepting to be involved, make sure any ground rules are laid out in advance and that choosing to decline is 'ok'. It is only they that can act upon the feedback and use it to provide deeper self insight. Also explain that what they receive is in no way altered or edited - it is the views of their chosen respondents as provided on the forms.

How fine should the fine print in competency frameworks be?

Much of the work we do with clients involves, at some level, job analysis or competency frameworks. Working with large numbers of these you do begin to see patterns and consistent themes, but we do also see a great variation in the depth, breadth and structure of competency models. When developing a framework to underpin your talent management efforts, it can be fiendishly difficult to strike a balance between something that will apply to most and making it too generalised to be useful. The potential application and therefore level of detail and specificity required in a framework is therefore something well worth debating before you embark on a competency development project.

Research by James Meachin and Stephan Lucks (recently reported in the BPS’s Assessment and Development Matters, Vol. 2 No. 3, 2010) explored the optimal level of ‘granularity’ for competency frameworks when used as predictor measures and assessment criteria. Research into the effectiveness of various personality constructs to predict job performance suggests that some of the broad measures, such as the Big Five, have limited predictive validity, but that this might be improved when you correlate job performance with some of the finer-grain sub-traits, such as ‘dependability’. This would suggest that better predictions of job performance are made by fine-grain, or more specific, behavioural criteria.

Based on the literature, Meachin and Lucks hypothesised that assessment centre ratings which were based on a fine-grain competency framework would produce better correlations between conceptually-matched job performance measures (line manager ratings). In other words, they’d result in a more accurate prediction of high performance on the job. Interestingly, what they actually found is that the predictor measures showed stronger correlations with line manager performance ratings as they became broader, not narrower. Aggregating the competency scores into a general, overall measure of performance seemed to be a more reliable way of predicting high-performing individuals than picking on their performance in specific competency areas.

For practitioners, this is useful information. In order to create robust assessment processes, which differentiate between higher and lower performing candidates, a job analysis or competency framework has to provide depth and a level of detail which makes explicit the behaviours and competencies which are important to success or which demonstrate effectiveness. Undoubtedly, in the arena of assessment for development purposes, the value is in the detail – in helping people understand the specific aspects of their performance or behaviour which makes them more or less effective. But in recruitment, by being overly reliant on the detail and by honing in on one or two areas which may be deemed to be crucial to the job, we could be missing the bigger potential picture.

So, perhaps the optimal situation is to have a detailed, granular competency framework, which sets out the specific behavioural indicators across a number of competencies (no less than 6, and no more than 12?). By collecting assessment data against your framework (through performance appraisal, assessment processes, or 360 degree feedback), you should then perform a factor analysis on your competencies to determine whether there are any higher-order (or coarse-grained) factors underlying it (this may result in a general, overall performance construct or perhaps two or three clusters of competencies). Aggregating competency scores in line with these underlying factors and making decisions based on these broader measures is likely to improve the reliability of the framework, and ensure that you’re not letting potentially good candidates slip through the net.

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.......

Top Ten Tips - Creating Competence Frameworks

To help Human Resources practitioners improve the outcomes from talent management processes, we have distilled our top ten tips for the development and implementation of a robust, well designed and valid competence framework.

Developing such a competency framework can be a costly and lengthy process, especially if you are creating a bespoke model that is genuinely focused on high performance within your organisation. We offer here ten lessons as tips for your own work in this area. This is based on our extensive work and research with public and private sector organisations, large and small.

1. Do it back to front!

2. It’s a competency framework, not a job description....

3. Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?

4. ‘Yes’ to one thing, but not the other…

5. From 7 to 11

6. It’s supposed to change....

7. I dare you to ask them!

8. Can you see what it is yet?

9. “If only you knew the power of the Dark Side, Luke”

10. Position Vacant: Only Super Man or Wonder Woman need apply

For the detail behind each of these headings, see our article here.

A Competence Framework can ‘come alive’ when applied to the business in the context of talent management processes such as performance management, succession planning, high potential identification and development planning.

Your competence framework, combined with our Talent® suite of software products can help you do just that.

Talent Management specialists wanted

We've enjoyed strong growth over the past year and we now have opportunities for full and part-time Talent Mangement specialists to support the people-implementation of our leading talent management software.

Contact us via our Information Request page.

Is there a connection between Employee Engagement and Talent Management?

In this blog we draw on research conducted by the Institute of Employment Studies (IES) in both 2003 & 2007 (Drivers of Engagement) and 2008 (Human Capital Measurement), Henley Management College’s own study in 2005 and our own work in this field.

What is employee engagement?

Employee engagement has risen in popularity over the past few years. Some enthusiastic pundits have made categorical statements that a more engaged employee leads to better business results and anecdotally there is evidence that this is so – intuitively this would of course make sense. However, there is also evidence that there is little or no correlation whatsoever with business performance – a recent study by Henley Management College concluded that in their research in the corporate world, no such relationship exists.

We have also seen commentary relating to engagement that focuses on the notion of how to get that ‘extra discretionary effort’, i.e. to create employees that are willing to put in more work for altruistic reasons. We think that this focus on singularly attempting to get more out of people is both cynical and short-termist. Having said all this, a more productive, motivated, happy and ‘easier to get on with colleague’ is better than one who isn’t and engagement studies have sought to attempt to analyse and decode what makes this ‘better’ employee.

Consequently, employee engagement has developed into a complex and multi-dimensional concept that has gone much further than the simple notions of motivation, the psychological contract and employee satisfaction, yet it draws on elements of each of these ideas. It also has much in common with the extensively researched concepts of commitment and organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB). With these last two, there are some important differences – engagement is a two-way process: organisations engage people (intentionally or otherwise) through their systems and processes and they in turn choose the level of reciprocal engagement.

Do read our article in our last newsletter ‘Are your Talent Management Processes Fair?

http://www.head-light.co.uk/Articles/Fair_Talent_Management.pdf

So what does an engaged employee ‘look like’? From an HR perspective, the typical behaviours demonstrated by the engaged employee are:

• A belief in the organisation and its purpose
• A desire to work to make things better
• An understanding of business context and the ‘bigger picture’
• Being respectful of, and helpful to, colleagues
• A willingness to ‘go the extra mile’ , and
• Keeping up to date with developments in their field.

If only it was so straightforward that we could ask employees these questions directly and get reliable candid responses!

This is where Occupational Psychologists can add real value and develop (and validate) engagement-oriented behavioural indicators, not dissimilar from those used in 360 reviews. Subtlety and deftness can be achieved with careful wording that ask the important questions in the right way and a combination of positive and negative statements together with some discretion as who to ask for feedback, makes for an insightful diagnostic.

Ask us for some examples.

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...