4554P LEADERS
Arev/gk
31/1/06 4:48 pm
Page 306
Chapter 16
360-degree feedback and leadership development Ioannis Nikolaou, Maria Vakola, and Ivan T. Robertson
At the beginning of the new millennium organizations are faced more than ever with an unprecedented demand for competent leadership. The constant change they have to cope with, irrespective of their size, nature, and geographical area of activity, requires on behalf of their management and especially their top management, strong leadership skills. It calls for individuals exhibiting not only the appropriate dispositional traits, but also demonstrating a series of relevant skills, abilities, perceptions, and attitudes. Collins and Holton (2004) state that increased strategic vision is now a prerequisite of leaders’ profile as a result of the almost continuous restructuring activities, demographic changes in the workforce, and technological changes in a complex and fast-paced environment. Multinational companies face the constant need to develop the ability to compete in the global market, something that is contingent upon their ability to change and adapt resources strategically. Global organizations are also faced with dual reporting structures, proliferation of communication channels, overlapping responsibilities, and barriers of distance, language, time, and culture. All these conditions require efficient changes, immediate reaction and effective interaction from people who combine visions, insight and reality perception.There is a need for something more than managers used to be. There is a strong request for leaders. Effective leadership has been identified as a central goal. Many organizations are concerned about the leadership inadequacies of their employees and are committed to education and training to develop managers’ skills, perspectives, and competencies. As a result, budgets for leadership development programmes are expected to grow even further at the beginning of the new millennium. Such development programmes typically focus on improving leadership skills, awareness, and behaviours. As companies become aware of the shortage of talented managers and the importance of developing strong future successors to widen perspectives to compete in a global market, a wide range of leadership development programmes have been commissioned and delivered.
306
4554P LEADERS
Arev/gk
31/1/06 4:48 pm
Page 307
360-DEGREE FEEDBACK AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
1111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 411 5111 6 7 8 9 20111 1 2 3 4 51111 6 7 8 9 301111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 40 1 2111
One major mistake is the organization’s perception that leadership development interventions will result indisputably in improved leadership skills.This appears to be taken for granted by many corporations, professional management associations, and consultancy companies. Research indicates that organizations are spending little time evaluating the effectiveness of their interventions and, more specifically, evaluating whether those programmes improve organizational performance (Collins & Holton, 2004; Day, 2000). Similarly, organizations appear to believe that improving knowledge and skills of individual employees automatically enhances the organization’s effectiveness. What is commonly evaluated is the improved interpersonal skills and work performance of individual managers. Measurement of organizational effectiveness is somewhat more difficult, because it often involves analysis at multiple levels of the organization, such as the effectiveness of an organization in achieving outcomes as defined by its strategic goals, or an increase of a return on investments.
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT Managers have always wondered, even from their earliest career stages, what it takes to become a leader. Is it their own individual/personality characteristics? Is it a genetically predisposed ability to act as a leader or is it situation specific as contingency theories of leadership imply? Van Velsor and McCauley (2004) suggest that without doubt, leadership effectiveness is rooted in genetics but also in early childhood and adult experience. If that’s the case, then it would be simply a matter of a successful recruitment and selection procedure to attract, select, and maintain competent leaders. However, practical experience has shown that people can effectively enhance their strengths and improve their weaknesses, if they want to, while organizations have adopted strategies to assist their employees by providing them with learning – and other – opportunities to accelerate into effective leadership. London and Maurer (2004) identified three major trends in designing leadership development programmes. These are the need to integrate organizational and individual development in alignment with learning theories; secondly, the need to assess, guide and support leadership competencies; and, finally, leaders’ need for self-assessment and behavioural change. In the last 20 years we have witnessed a proliferation of leadership development programmes in organizations (Hernez-Broome & Hughes, 2004). Although traditional classroom-type training remains the most widely used method, it is now complemented by a number of different strategies (McCauley & van Velsor, 2004). A full range of leadership development experiences includes mentoring, formal coaching, hardships, job assignments, feedback-intensive systems, on-the-job experiences, developmental relationships, leader–follower relationships, networking, action learning, and formal training (Day, 2000; McCauley & van Velsor, 2004).
307
4554P LEADERS
Arev/gk
31/1/06 4:48 pm
Page 308
IOANNIS NIKOLAOU, MARIA VAKOLA, & IVAN T. ROBERTSON
Day (2000), in a significant review of the most widely used leadership development techniques, made the distinction between leader and leadership development, following the parallelization of management and leadership development. Management development primarily includes management education and training and the acquisition of specific knowledge, skills, and abilities to enhance task performance in managerial positions, whereas leadership development expands the collective ability of organizational members to engage successfully in leadership roles. According to van Velsor and McCauley (2004) leader development refers to the expansion of an individual’s ability to be effective in leadership roles and processes, and should more closely linked to ‘personal development’. Therefore, leader development is only an aspect of the broader concept of leadership development, which is the expansion of the organization’s capacity to endorse the most important leadership tasks needed for organization-wide work, such as guiding, directing, and aligning. Day (2000) refers to this distinction as the ‘conceptual context’ in leadership research and practice. The focus of this chapter is on leader development and more specifically on one of the most contemporary methods of leader development, namely 360-degree feedback.
360-DEGREE FEEDBACK The assessment of work performance is one of the most significant and difficult issues faced by organizations throughout the world. Large companies especially have invested heavily in introducing improved techniques and methods of assessment since organizational performance is related to its employees’ level of performance and this is especially the case for managerial and top management positions. One of the most significant developments in the field of employee performance and development is the introduction and use of 360-degree (or multisource, multirater) feedback. Seifert,Yukl, and McDonald (2003) define multisource feedback as a programme where the manager receives information about how she is perceived by various groups of people with whom she interacts regularly. Fletcher and Baldry (1999) describe the multisource, multi-rater assessment systems as entailing a process whereby a targeted manager is rated on various behavioural dimensions or competencies by one or more bosses, peers, subordinates, and – sometimes – customers. More recently, the 360-degree feedback has become more widely accepted as a managerial tool for leadership development, in hopes of improving workplace attitudes and organizational performance. In spite of its complex and multidimensional characteristics, organizations are increasingly implementing 360-degree feedback. As has been proved from research and practice, there are both benefits and potential problems associated with 360-degree feedback, especially if used as an evaluation system rather than just as a personal development technique. Before discussing
308
4554P LEADERS
Arev/gk
31/1/06 4:48 pm
Page 309
360-DEGREE FEEDBACK AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
1111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 411 5111 6 7 8 9 20111 1 2 3 4 51111 6 7 8 9 301111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 40 1 2111
the contribution of 360-degree feedback to leadership development, it is essential to identify the major advantages and disadvantages that relate to this methodology. One of the major advantages is that 360-degree feedback provides ratees with information on how they are perceived by others. Combined with self-evaluation results, it can lead to intrinsic changes in managers’ perceptions and behaviour. It provides a wealth of information from the widest cycle possible, than any other technique. It is an open procedure for the participants but with confidential results and feedback for the rate. Confidentiality and openness force both the participants and the organization to examine the results carefully and make suggestions for improvement on aspects that probably could never be identified as significant. Furthermore, observations can be obtained from different groups with special insights. Almost everybody related to the individual can participate in the assessment process, enhancing in the organization a positive feeling for future organization-wide implementations, as 360-degree feedback may become an ongoing process. On the other hand, there are a number of disadvantages related to 360-degree feedback. Some opponents argue that showing up managers’ weaknesses, and putting pressure on them to change, cannot be an effective way to increase their performance. As a result, rather than openness, appraisal systems can often create defensiveness and low morale. Furthermore, 360-degree feedback provides an overwhelming amount of information, making it difficult for ratees to understand and analyse effectively. Another criticism of the process is that guidance – usually from an external facilitator – is needed not only during the implementation but also for the feedback evaluation and development as well. Further, if the organization has not foreseen training and/or coaching, the effectiveness of the 360degree programme will not reach the desired level. Moreover, differences between self-ratings and others’ ratings could cause confusion and negative feelings, and end up creating personal conflicts, especially when the confidentially of the process is breached. Finally, even if the procedure is only used for development prospects, it is quite hard to be completely independent and unbiased, even in an unconscious level, from performance appraisal.
MAIN ISSUES IN 360-DEGREE FEEDBACK AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT Although any organization member whose job interacts with other people can participate in multisource feedback, 360-degree feedback is typically provided to managers, hence its relationship with leadership development. However, 360degree process could be implemented for a variety of corporate roles. In order for a 360-degree feedback to be successful, especially in leadership development, some main points and considerations should be clearly defined.
309
4554P LEADERS
Arev/gk
31/1/06 4:48 pm
Page 310
IOANNIS NIKOLAOU, MARIA VAKOLA, & IVAN T. ROBERTSON
The context The introduction and implementation of a multisource feedback should take place in a compatible environment. The requirements for that compatibility should already be in place. Otherwise, the organization should first apply the necessary conditions and then implement the 360-degree feedback procedure. Individuals should be aware about their involvement in the procedure, and a trustful relationship should be developed among managers and employees. They should be aware of all the important instructions about the procedure and have a clear understanding of the criteria. This is vital for the acceptance of the procedure by all parties involved. Performance is enhanced, apart from the trust, with the use of training as well. Especially in the case of the initial implementation of the 360-degree feedback, leaders and individuals of all levels should be trained for the clarity of the criteria, the rating of individuals and the interpretation of the results, the reaction to the feedback and the steps involved in the follow-up and development stages. Another issue that needs to be resolved in relation to 360-degree feedback is the objective it aims to satisfy. Is it going to be purely developmental in nature or is it going to serve as an administrative and evaluative tool as well? In the latter, the results of the feedback are used from the organization in order to facilitate HR-related decisions, such as hiring, promoting, and rewarding, whereas in the former the exclusive objective of the programme is to further develop the targeted individual. Pollack and Pollack (1996) have claimed that when the purpose of the 360-degree is evaluative, rather than developmental, it is hard for the programme to succeed. The parties involved tend to inflate their evaluations when they know that the results will be used for decision-making in the organization.The anonymity of the procedure may assist the emergence of negative feelings on behalf of the participants and an ‘opportunity for revenge’. However, when the owner of the results is the targeted individual and not the organization (Chappelow, 2004) he has the sole responsibility not only to choose who to share his/her results and report with but also to take the appropriate actions for personal development. Assessment and criteria The first step in the implementation of a multisource feedback programme for leadership development is the assessment stage. Here, information is sought by individuals who are linked to the individual, such as colleagues, supervisors, clients, etc. However, the most important member of the 360-degree process is the individual herself, and this is especially so for leader development. Although the practical applications of multisource feedback may vary (e.g. performance appraisal, assignment selection, facilitation of organizational change) (Tornow, 1993a), it is widely acknowledged and accepted that the single most important
310
4554P LEADERS
Arev/gk
31/1/06 4:48 pm
Page 311
360-DEGREE FEEDBACK AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
1111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 411 5111 6 7 8 9 20111 1 2 3 4 51111 6 7 8 9 301111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 40 1 2111
use of it is the developmental aspect and more specifically the opportunity it provides to enhance self-awareness and prompt behaviour change of the targeted participants (Waldman, Atwater, & Antonioni, 1998). This information is usually gathered through company-specific questionnaires or off-the-self surveys, completed by raters anonymously. Following the completion of the questionnaires is the analysis and reporting of the results, which may occur either in-company or by an external consultancy. Criteria should be carefully developed, defined, and selected. As with any assessment procedure, the criteria chosen should capture and identify those behaviours and characteristics that are associated with effective performance, as defined by organizational goals. Simply knowing and understanding the criteria by which one will be evaluated can help increase job performance. The criteria communicate performance expectations to the person evaluated, the supervisor, and others who are asked to rate an individual’s performance. Thus role expectations are clarified for the parties involved. Raters’ selection Multisource feedback by definition involves multiple raters. The typical 360degree feedback paradigm involves collection of information from the whole range of people involved with the targeted individual.Tornow (1993a), in the introductory article of a special issue of Human Resource Management on 360-degree feedback (Tornow, 1993b), refers to ‘significant others’ as the individuals who typically provide feedback to the target individual, such as co-workers, subordinates, supervisors, as well as customers. Chappelow (2004) mentions that in some cases even family members may be included in the process.There are two main points about the raters: how they are chosen and if they will keep their anonymity. In 360degree feedback raters may be chosen from the full web of working relationships associated with the ratee.Vertical relationships include superiors and subordinates. Lateral relationships include peers within the work group or even outside the organization, such as customers.The question of who chooses the raters is also an important one. The incumbent may be in the best position to identify those who have sufficient knowledge of herself to provide a useful and accurate appraisal. Supervisors on the other hand may feel the need to select raters in order to provide a balanced review and to minimize the possibility of ratees selecting their raters solely on the basis of the expectation of a positive evaluation. When 360-degree feedback is implemented, individuals rate their own performance as well. While many problems have been associated with the results of this procedure, many organizations are in favour of doing this.The main reason for this is to construct a complete picture of every individual’s performance. Considerable attention has been given to studying agreement between self and other ratings, because there seems to be a positive relationship between agreement and effective
311
4554P LEADERS
Arev/gk
31/1/06 4:48 pm
Page 312
IOANNIS NIKOLAOU, MARIA VAKOLA, & IVAN T. ROBERTSON
managerial performance (Van Velsor,Taylor, & Leslie, 1993;Yammarino & Atwater, 1993). The tendency to rate oneself higher, lower, or in agreement with other constituencies has been shown to be influenced by demographic and personality characteristics (Brutus, Fleenor, & London, 1998). Finally, there is the question of raters’ anonymity. In order to ensure confidentiality, the grouped results of the different sources must be aggregated.Therefore, when there is a very small group of people from a particular group (e.g. subordinates or clients) special attention should be provided or even exclusion of the process. If anonymity is not assured, some raters may not be willing to be frank, both because of reluctance to provide what they consider to be negative feedback, and also because of fear of retribution. Feedback The subsequent and most important step of the procedure is the feedback session. Managers often receive informal feedback during their daily activities and interaction with the ‘significant others’. They ‘read’ the messages sent by colleagues, subordinates, and/or customers. However, because of the hectic pace at which most of them function, they rarely have the opportunity to reflect upon themselves and most importantly to systematically ‘compare’ their own perception of themselves with that of others. This is the opportunity provided by multisource feedback and it is especially applicable in and useful for leadership development. Kluger and DeNisi (1996) defined feedback as ‘actions taken by an external agent to provide information regarding some aspect(s) of one’s task performance’ (p. 235). The results of their meta-analysis on feedback interventions found that on average, feedback is positively related to positive job outcomes. Formal feedback is an essential part of any multisource feedback programme. It provides the opportunity of reflecting on the breadth of information gathered at the previous stage. However, in order to be effective and objective it is essential to maintain a formalized structure and a neutral character (Chappelow, 2004), while at the same time remaining primarily developmental in nature. Chappelow (2004) also suggests that the feedback session should be carried out by a facilitator who has experience with the particular instrument. To provide the greatest possible return from the process, training in both giving and receiving feedback can be given to all involved. In giving feedback it is important that individuals understand how to provide it in a non-threatening way that focuses on the behaviour and not the person.Those receiving feedback can be trained in receiving feedback non-defensively so that they may be open to learning more about how their behaviour is perceived by others.The maximum benefit may be attained by focusing on how the individual employee can use the feedback to improve performance. Feedback that is judgemental, punitive, or threatening will raise defensiveness, block progress, and may well activate psychological processes
312
4554P LEADERS
Arev/gk
31/1/06 4:48 pm
Page 313
360-DEGREE FEEDBACK AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
1111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 411 5111 6 7 8 9 20111 1 2 3 4 51111 6 7 8 9 301111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 40 1 2111
that lead to dysfunctional behaviour. It will also serve to act as a deterrant to future 360-degree attempts. Feedback is needed to set development goals. Supervisors and raters will share the data together and will define ways to satisfy the desired outcomes. Follow-up or development Probably the most significant part of the 360-degree feedback is the response to the question ‘what happens next?’ Feedback is more effective when it is accompanied by goal-setting activities (DeNisi & Kluger, 2000). The participant, often with the assistance and guidance of a ‘personal coach’ or facilitator, establishes and agrees on a development plan aiming to improve her performance in the future, focusing not only on her weaknesses but also on further developing her strengths. The development plan is based on the mutual understanding between the two parties, i.e. the organization and the participant, that the former will provide the necessary resources to the latter to facilitate his personal improvement. Also, on behalf of the participant, that she understands and accepts the issues involved in the development plan and, more importantly, that she wants to be involved in a self-development procedure. In a similar vein, McCauley (2001) distinguished three major components of leadership development: (a) developmental experiences (i.e. opportunities to learn), (b) the ability to learn (a mix of motivational, personal orientation, and skills), and (c) organizational support for development, including a variety of contextual factors, such as coaching, feedback, and rewards for development. Chappelow (2004, p. 66) summarizes the following points in assisting employees to receive the maximum impact of the 360-degree feedback session: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
establishing a systematic and safe learning environment by maintaining confidentiality of the data; giving participants access to a trained facilitator for clarification of the data and assistance in putting together a personal development plan; following a top-down approach where the first involved in the process will be the top management of the company; allowing the participant and the immediate supervisor to meet in advance in order to discuss the objectives of the 360-degree process; offering organizational support for the methods and tools that are know to contribute to effective leadership development; exploring with the participant ways to establish ongoing feedback after the formal 360-degree process is over; and identifying with the organization ways to follow up and adjust, when necessary, the development plan.
313
4554P LEADERS
Arev/gk
31/1/06 4:48 pm
Page 314
IOANNIS NIKOLAOU, MARIA VAKOLA, & IVAN T. ROBERTSON
EFFECTIVENESS DEPENDS ON A VARIETY OF FACTORS The ultimate criterion of ‘success’ for the use of 360-degree feedback for leadership development depends on the results of the organization’s performance. Among particular individuals success is defined differently depending on the constituent group one is trying to satisfy. Raters, for example, would consider a 360-degree process successful if ratees appeared to accept the feedback and change their behaviours, if their working relationships with ratees are improved, if they provide objective evaluation and honest feedback, and if the overall feedback climate is improved. Similarly, each of the principal constituencies (ratees, top management, clients, and the organization itself) has its own definition of the factors that contribute to successful implementation of the process. However there are some elements that are able to improve and create an appropriate basis for the successful implementation of the 360-degree feedback for both the organization and the individuals, and counteract any potential deficiencies. Top management commitment As is the case in most organization-wide interventions, the participants should feel that the top management acknowledges the importance of this attempt, providing the appropriate support and necessary resources.This is especially the case for the use of 360-degree feedback for leadership development because of the significant requirements it entails both at the initial stages of its implementation (e.g. confidentiality and trust culture) and at the follow-up of the programme (e.g. the provision of the necessary development opportunities). Further, leadership development involves the notion of succession planning for most organizations.When the leadersto-be are involved in an intensive appraisal and development process, such as a 360-degree programme, their expectations and ambitions are raised. The top management of the company should actively demonstrate their desire to utilize successfully the results of the programme by incorporating them in fast-track succession planning processes for leadership positions within the organization. As a result, the motivation of the participants and their commitment to the process will increase. Customization A 360-degree programme is almost never the same as another 360-degree programme. Every company has a different culture, and there is a need to customize some or all the parts of the assessment and appraisal procedure, especially if an off-the-shelf method or measure is used. This need may occur because of the differences among industries, individual differences, particular democratic
314
4554P LEADERS
Arev/gk
31/1/06 4:48 pm
Page 315
360-DEGREE FEEDBACK AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
1111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 411 5111 6 7 8 9 20111 1 2 3 4 51111 6 7 8 9 301111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 40 1 2111
characteristics, cultural differentiations, and, in most cases, due to the use of different core competencies.These differences will be reflected in the criteria that will be used in the assessment process. Customization should match 360-degree appraisal with the internal environment and the organization’s culture in order to give the desired improvement in the organization’s performance. Pilot test Managers tend to be impressed by an innovative idea and want immediate action. A pilot implementation of the 360-degree programme may last a year or longer, something that makes it look unattractive for most organizations, considering the resources that need to be applied. However, the benefits of a pilot study can be immense. In organizations with traditional structures, the inversion of the organizational pyramid that accompanies 360-degree feedback can be threatening and problematic. Pilot studies can identify the potential threats and problems. A pilot test can be used in a few departments before full-scale implementation throughout the organization. Many problems could be identified and fixed following its implementation and before its official roll-out. For example, employees’ and managers’ resistance and fear are potential problems that can be countered with briefing sessions or further training for all employees in the targeted departments. Coaching The effectiveness of 360-degree feedback has been combined with coaching focused on enhanced self-awareness and behaviour management and can result in improved individual – manager and employee – satisfaction, commitment, and, indirectly, the firm’s performance (Smither et al., 2003). Feedback coaching helps managers evaluate the great amount of information they receive from 360-degree feedback (Antonioni, 1996) in order to reconcile and develop strategic goals.These goals focus on reducing the rating discrepancies between themselves and others and enhancing self-awareness. It is therefore suggested that 360-degree feedback should be accompanied by systematic coaching. It is common for organizations to hire external coaches when their aim is the individual’s leadership development (Ting & Hart, 2004). Regular one-to-one meetings are held between the coach and the coachee.These meetings cover issues arising from the feedback process, as well as other organizational problems and pressures.Wherever possible, the coaches are guided and assisted to the development and follow-up of their action plans by the coach and regularly review them and update during the coaching process.
315
4554P LEADERS
Arev/gk
31/1/06 4:48 pm
Page 316
IOANNIS NIKOLAOU, MARIA VAKOLA, & IVAN T. ROBERTSON
Climate of trust and security between managers and employees Trust is an essential part of the contextual factors the organization should take into account when implementing 360-degree feedback for leadership development. The participants, both the raters and the ratees, should feel comfortable in responding to the survey and the targeted individuals should feel comfortable and secure in their positions when receiving feedback from the survey. Both the feedback and the follow-up stages of the 360-degree programme will provide the maximum benefit to the targeted individual if she feels that it is the outcome of a trustful, honest and simultaneously secure for her position relationship with the organization. However, in cases where the relationships between the participating parties are not appropriate, the assessment process will not work successfully and will most likely create rather than resolve problems. Confidentiality Confidentiality is probably the single most significant key for successful results. The 360-degree programme needs to be implemented on a basis of honesty and confidentiality. It prescribes that the company will require the highest levels of honesty from individuals, demonstrating the willingness to address the emerged issues, and simultaneously providing the best means for confidential execution of the various stages of the appraisal and development process. Accountability Another significant factor influencing the effectiveness of 360-degree feedback as a leadership development technique is the accountability of those involved. London, Smither, and Adsit (1997) suggest that the accountability of all major groups involved is very important: the raters (to provide honest feedback), the ratees (to use the feedback), and the organization (to support the process). They also claim that the components of the 360-degree programme include sources of accountability (e.g. the boss and organizational policies), the objective (i.e. the behaviour or outcomes for which the actor is accountable), forces used by the sources to affect the actor’s feelings of accountability (such as reinforcement for performance improvement), and mechanisms for activating these forces and holding someone accountable.
IMPACT OF 360-DEGREE FEEDBACK ON DEVELOPMENT The increased use of 360-degree feedback implies that it is related to improved performance. A number of studies have investigated the impact of multisource
316
4554P LEADERS
Arev/gk
31/1/06 4:48 pm
Page 317
360-DEGREE FEEDBACK AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
1111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 411 5111 6 7 8 9 20111 1 2 3 4 51111 6 7 8 9 301111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 40 1 2111
feedback interventions on changes in self-awareness and behaviour for ratees.The results are not conclusive and a major reason is the extensive use of cross-sectional samples and correlational research designs, which do not allow for the examination of a cause–effect relationship between feedback and recipient performance and development. This is especially important, but even more difficult, when researching in leadership development. This is probably one of the main reasons why there is very limited research published in scientific journals exploring the links between 360-degree feedback and leadership development. Earlier studies have generally shown modest improvements in ratings provided by other sources following feedback (Atwater, Waldman, & Brett, 2002). That is, self-rating became more similar to others’ resources ratings following feedback. Atwater, Roush, and Fischthal (1995) in a study using students from the US Naval Academy identified improved leadership performance, as identified by studentsfollowers, on measures of leaders’ performance following feedback. In a similar vein were the results of Hazucha, Hezlett, and Schneider (1993) and Waldman and Atwater (2001). Atwater and Brett (2005) investigated the factors influencing the leaders’ reactions to 360-degree feedback and the subsequent developmental activities and changes in leader behaviour. Personality was not related with reactions to feedback and the latter was not related to follow-up activities but was related to the degree of change in ratings over time. Leaders who overrated themselves relative to their raters’ ratings were more motivated than underraters, and this was especially true for overraters with high self–other agreement, as opposed to underraters or leaders who overrated themselves but where there was low self–other agreement. The results of this study replicate previous findings which suggest that increased self-awareness, as defined by high self–other agreement is related to increased follow-up and developmental action by the managers. However, the results of London, Larson, and Thisted (1999) were not so positive. They explored the relationship between feedback-seeking and self-development in a large Danish organization, which is quite interesting since the vast majority of 360-degree studies have been carried out in the US. Contrary to predictions, perceptions of feedback and empowerment were not related to self-development. The results also showed that managers who were rated higher in job performance perceived more positive reinforcement, non-threatening feedback, and empowerment. Positive reinforcement was more important than the other feedback factors in predicting performance. Unfortunately, the results did not support the idea that a supportive environment enhances self-development.
CONCLUSIONS The use of 360-degree feedback for leadership development is nowadays considered a very effective tool in organizations. Subject to a set of requirements, as
317
4554P LEADERS
Arev/gk
31/1/06 4:48 pm
Page 318
IOANNIS NIKOLAOU, MARIA VAKOLA, & IVAN T. ROBERTSON
described in the previous sections, it may provide organizations with very useful information about the potential of their future leaders. The ‘objectivity’ of the information provided to participants by various sources, if supported by the necessary resources and further leadership development programmes, such as coaching or on-the-job experiences rather than traditional in-class training, may assist managers’ development dramatically. Top management should note, however, that 360-degree feedback can only be useful if it is an essential part of a development culture within an organization. A development culture requires much more than simply the existence of a valid and reliable 360-degree tool. It requires enhanced trust between management and employees, and accountability as discussed earlier, but also a climate of trust, transparency, and meritocracy. As a result, organizations have to be patient with the implementation of such a programme. Unfortunately, because of the constant change they have to cope with, organizations often hope that the results of such a programme, which is usually quite expensive, will have an immediate impact on organizational performance, or can be treated as a stand-alone process. This is probably the most common mistake organizations make when attempting to implement a 360-degree feedback process. Both future leaders and organizations as a whole can benefit the most from 360degree programmes for leadership development, despite the controversial research findings on the effectiveness of such programmes in personal development, if they correctly apply the requirements discussed earlier in this chapter and at the same time avoid the common pitfalls of these programmes.
REFERENCES Antonioni, D. (1996). Designing an effective 360-degree appraisal feedback process. Organizational Dynamics, 25(2): 24–38. Atwater, L. E. & Brett, J. F. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of reactions to developmental feedback. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 66: 532–48. Atwater, L. E., Roush, P., & Fischthal, A. (1995). The influence of upward feedback on self- and follower ratings of leadership. Personnel Psychology, 48(1): 35–59. Atwater, L. E., Waldman, D., & Brett, J. F. (2002). Understanding and optimizing multisource feedback. Human Resource Management, 41(2): 193–208. Brutus, S., Fleenor, J., & London, M. (1998). Does 360-degree feedback work in different industries? A between-industry comparison of the reliability and validity of multi-source performance ratings. Journal of Management Development, 17(3): 177–90. Chappelow, C.T. (2004). 360-degree feedback. In C. D. McCauley & E. van Velsor (eds), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 58–84.
318
4554P LEADERS
Arev/gk
31/1/06 4:48 pm
Page 319
360-DEGREE FEEDBACK AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
1111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 411 5111 6 7 8 9 20111 1 2 3 4 51111 6 7 8 9 301111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 40 1 2111
Collins, D. B. & Holton, E. F. (2004). The effectiveness of managerial leadership development programs: a meta-analysis of studies from 1982 to 2001. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(2): 217–48. Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11(4): 581–613. DeNisi, A. S. & Kluger, A. N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved? Academy of Management Executive, 14(1): 129–39. Fletcher, C. & Baldry, C. (1999). Multi-source feedback systems: A research perspective. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (eds), International review of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 14. Chichester: Wiley. Hazucha, J. F., Hezlett, S. A., & Schneider, R. J. (1993).The impact of 360-degree feedback on management skills development. Human Resource Management, 32(2–3): 325–52. Hernez-Broome, G. & Hughes, R. L. (2004). Leadership development: Past, present, and future. Human Resource Planning, 24–32. Kluger, A. N. & DeNisi, A. S. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention. Psychological Bulletin, 119: 254–84. London, M. & Maurer, T. J. (2004). Leadership Development. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (eds), The nature of leadership. London: Sage. London, M., Larson, H. H., & Thisted, L. N. (1999). Relationships between feedback and self-development. Group Organization Management, 24(1): 5–27. London, M., Smither, J. W., & Adsit, D. J. (1997). Accountability: The Achilles’ heel of multisource feedback. Group and Organization Management, 22(2): 162–84. McCauley, C. (2001). Leader training and development. In S. J. Zaccaro & R. J. Klimoski (eds), The nature of organizational leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 347–83. McCauley, C. D. & van Velsor, E. (eds). (2004). The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pollack, D. M. & Pollack, L. J. (1996). Using 360 degree feedback in performance appraisal. Public Personnel Management, 25(4): 507–28. Seifert, C. F., Yukl, G., & McDonald, R. A. (2003). Effects of multisource feedback and a feedback facilitator on the influence behaviour of managers towards subordinates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3): 561–9. Smither, J. W., London, M., Flaut, R., et al. (2003). Can working with an executive coach improve multisource feedback ratings over time? A quasi-experimental field study. Personnel Psychology, 56: 23–44. Ting, S. & Hart, E. W. (2004). Formal coaching. In C. D. McCauley & E. van Velsor (eds), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Tornow, W. W. (1993a). Introduction to special issue on 360-degree feedback. Human Resource Management, 32(2–3): 211–20.
319
4554P LEADERS
Arev/gk
31/1/06 4:48 pm
Page 320
IOANNIS NIKOLAOU, MARIA VAKOLA, & IVAN T. ROBERTSON Tornow, W. W. (1993b). Special issue on 360-degree feedback. Human Resource Management, 32(2–3). Van Velsor, E. & McCauley, C. D. (2004). Our view of leadership development. In C. D. McCauley & E. van Velsor (eds), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 1–22. Van Velsor, E., Taylor, S., & Leslie, J. B. (1993). An examination of the relationships among self-perception accuracy, self-awareness, gender, and leader effectiveness. Human Resource Management, 32(2–3), 249–64. Waldman, D. A. & Atwater, L. E. (2001). Attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of an upward feedback process. Group Organization Management, 26(2): 189–205. Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Antonioni, D. (1998). Has 360 degree feedback gone amok? Academy of Management Executive, 12(2): 86–94. Yammarino, F. J. & Atwater, L. E. (1993). Understanding self-perception accuracy: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management, 32(2–3): 231–48.
320