Do You See What I See? Self Score Inflation in 360-degree Feedback

Posted on September 20, 2011 by Tracy Maylett, Ed.D.

360-degree feedback provides a unique opportunity for one to compare his/her self-perceptions against the perceptions of others. Bosses, direct reports, peers, and others provide individuals with feedback about their performance and behaviors.  The individuals also rate themselves against the same criteria, and the results are typically compared side-by-side in a 360-degree feedback report.

But what happens when self-perceptions do not necessarily match the perceptions of others? 

It may not be surprising to find that self-perceptions are often somewhat, if not completely, different from the perceptions of other raters. In fact, our DecisionWise research of over 10,000 360-degree feedback recipients indicates that more than two-thirds of the time, 78%, to be exact, participants rate themselves higher than others rater them! In other words, most of those with whom we work (not us, of course) have an inflated view of their own performance and behaviors.

Part of this discrepancy can be explained through statistics.  Let’s look at Heidi, for example. Heidi is a manager with eight years of experience in her current organization.  When she takes her 360 feedback survey, she rates herself a “7” out of “7” on questions related to “Project Management.” Because she is the only rater in the “self” category, the score she would receive on her 360-degree feedback report would be, of course, a “7.”  However, in order to receive a “7” on that same competency from all 8 of Heidi’s direct reports, all 8 of them would have to rate her project management skills and behaviors as a perfect “7.”  Highly unlikely. 

A second reason for this self-rating inflation is due to field of view.  Heidi is the only person who sees every aspect of what she does.  Her supervisor may not know that she provides excellent direction to team members, as Heidi’s boss isn’t in a position to observe it every day.  Similarly, Heidi’s direct reports are not in a position to know that although Heidi is an excellent project manager, her boss continues to throw unnecessary wrenches in Heidi’s well-thought-out plans.  She receives a lower score from each group (and is left questioning when reviewing her feedback).

While the statement “perception IS reality” comes to mind in these scenarios, it’s also important to understand additional insights along these lines.  Our research also shows a very clear correlation between on-the-job performance and the way people rate themselves relative to those who also provided them ratings.  If Heidi’s “self” scores (the way she rated her own behaviors in her 360) are close to the scores provided by others, there is a strong likelihood that her on-the-job performance will be stronger than her counterpart, Aaron, who rated himself significantly higher than did his other raters on his own 360.

Why? Again, there are likely several reasons, but two stand out as most common.

First, those whose “self” scores most closely match those provided by their other raters tend to have formed relationships in which honest feedback is regularly exchanged, and communication is strong.  Because of this, when 360 feedback time rolls around each year, there are few surprises.  Heidi has a pretty good idea of how she is perceived, and tends to score herself accordingly.  Additionally, because this strong communication exists with others, Heidi is a generally more effective leader.

Second, one of the basis tenets of Emotional Intelligence is the concept of self-awareness.  Those leaders who are self-aware, particularly when it comes to how their behavior impacts others, tend to be better leaders.  Consequently, those individuals whose 360 self-ratings most closely match those of his/her raters show a greater sense of self-awareness and are better leaders.

I am puzzled when individuals chose not to rate themselves in a 360-degree feedback process.  I’m equally perplexed when I hear that an organization has chosen not to require an individual to rate him/herself when that individual is participating in a 360 (or performance evaluation, for that matter). One of the reasons gaps in perception (differences between scores) on 360-degree feedback are so valuable is that they give us another point of data that helps us understand our own behaviors, and how these are viewed by others.

Posted in 360-Degree Feedback | Leave a comment

Shhhh… That’s What Friends are For?

Posted on September 2, 2011 by Tracy Maylett, Ed.D.

I am intrigued by a recent Monster.com poll regarding the propensity to provide (or not to provide) feedback regarding under-performing co-workers. Poll results reported that, of the 10,676 respondents, 58% would step in and help their underperforming friends at work, rather than reporting him or her.

The question was asked, “A colleague you are friends with has been seriously underperforming. Would you report him or her?” The poll received the following responses:

• Yes, if the team’s success is on the line: 27%
• No, if possible, I’d help my friend with work: 58%
• Yes, if it will help me get ahead: 4%
• No, if the boss doesn’t notice, it’s not my concern: 11%

Even more intriguing to me were the follow-up discussions held in various online groups. I found the following responses especially interesting:

“I would rather maintain the friendship.”

“If they were under-performing, they are probably hurting everyone else. Someone else has to pick up the load.”

“That’s the boss’s job.”

“What kind of ‘friend’ would report someone to the boss? Seriously? Time to find new friends!”

I fully support helping out co-workers in times of need. We’ve all been on both the giving and receiving ends of the need spectrum. While I’m certainly not suggesting that co-workers go out and start a “narc on your neighbor campaign,” I wonder what percentage of these ten thousand-plus respondents would have a discussion with his or her co-worker worker regarding this underperformance. Based on the poll results, it’s clear that not many would involve the boss, even if the boss could help.

One interesting option on the Monster poll would have been, “No, but I would tell my friend about his/her underperformance,” although in this poll it was not one of the possible responses. Withholding appropriate feedback does not help an individual correct a performance problem (Guys… notice I said, “appropriate feedback”… the answer to “Does this dress make me look fat” is NEVER “no, it’s not the dress”). I also question whether allowing an individual to continue in failure could really be “helping.”

An interesting follow-up question to this poll would be, “If YOU were seriously under-performing, would you want your co-worker friend to tell you about it?” I would suspect that most of us would want to know.

Posted in 360-Degree Feedback, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Using 360-degree Feedback to Gauge Leadership Improvement

Posted on August 24, 2011 by Tracy Maylett, Ed.D.

The vast majority of our DecisionWise clients administer 360-degree feedback assessments across multiple years, meaning 360s are conducted on an annual basis. Yearly administration gives individuals a sense of how they are progressing (or NOT progressing), as well as serves as a gauge for understanding whether an individual’s action plan from the previous administration had the intended results. Using 360-degree feedback is an effective way to measure this progress, and should be considered a valuable tool in any manager’s or organization’s toolkit.

While 360-degree feedback is an excellent tool when used correctly, there are some organizations that may not be using this year-over-year measurement appropriately. For example, if an individual had an overall 360-degree feedback score of 5.1 (on a 7-point scale), and that individual did not receive at least a 5.3 overall during the following administration, some would see this as lack of improvement, or even failure. Some would use this to question the value of the 360 process within their organization.

While this makes sense on the surface—track 360 results over time to gauge levels of improvement— there are several additional factors to consider when relying on this methodology to assess an individual’s progress or the overall effectiveness of a 360-degree feedback process:

1) Rater Changes: Many 360 recipients will have different raters from administration to administration. Technically speaking, this changes a variable, making year-over-year comparisons inexact.

2) Rater Mindset: Many organizations, when administering 360s over multiple years, become more accustomed to providing 360-degree feedback. While there may be some hesitance in Year 1 (due to perceived threats of retaliation, lack of confidentiality, intended use, whatever…), many of these misperceptions will have changed by Year 2 when raters see that their feedback was properly considered. This means that raters may respond with a different mindset in Year 2 versus Year 1, knowing that they are safe to open up.

3) Changing Roles: In today’s environment of change, a year is a long time. During this year, the possibility that the individual being assessed will have changed roles or reporting relationships is quite high. Again, we’re assessing with a different set of variables.

4) The Bar is Raised: In a performance-oriented organization, performance that is “great” one year will be considered merely “good” the next. While the individual’s actual performance levels in terms of key performance indicators may not have decreased, he/she will be rated according to (hopefully) increased expectations from one year to another. This may be reflected in 360 scores. 360s are reflective of performance relative to expectations (which change from year to year).

5) Overall Average: Logic would seem to dictate that multi-rater (360) assessment results would improve when looking at the same subject group over a period of time. Several studies (Hazucha et al., 1993; London & Wohlers, 1991; Walker & Smither, 1999) appear to support this logic. However, Smither, London, and Reilly (2005) claim that much of this change will not be readily visible year-over-year in 360 overall results, due to the fact that most feedback programs suggest participants focus on only a few key areas for change. Subsequently, the recipient may only make meaningful changes in those areas; yet those changes may be significant in overall on-the-job performance. These changes, however significant they may be, would have little impact on the average ratings.

Certainly, an individual who shows dramatic improvement in 360 scores is likely one who has made meaningful strides since the previous administration. While reviewing changes year-over-year makes sense, and should certainly be a part of gauging progress, we must be careful basing our evaluation of an individual’s 360 success solely on looking for improvement from “5.1 to 5.3” overall, or on a particular competency or question.

—-
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), 325-351.

London, M., & Wohlers, A. J. (1991). Agreement between subordinate and self-ratings in upward feedback. Personnel Psychology, 44(2), 375-390.

Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 33-66.

Walker, A., & Smither, J.W. (1999). A five-year study of upward feedback: What managers do with their results matters. Personnel Psychology, 52(2), 393-423.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Why Coaching Models Don’t Work

Posted on August 18, 2011 by Tracy Maylett, Ed.D.

“What was going on? A roar of laughter from the aphasia ward, just as the President’s speech was coming on, and they had all been so eager to hear the President speaking… There he was, the old Charmer, the Actor, with his practiced rhetoric, his histrionisms, his emotional appeal—and all the patients were convulsed with laughter.”

So begins the ninth chapter of Oliver Sack’s book The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat. A respected professor of clinical neurology, Sacks describes, in the paragraph above, his work with aphasic patients.  Receptive aphasia, or “word deafness” describes a condition in which the brain is damaged (typically through a stroke, head injury, infection, or brain trauma), leaving victims with the ability to hear but not understand words.  Interestingly, however, these patients are generally able to understand most of what is said to them.

This is a phenomenon visible also in animals.  Many animals have an infallible sense of one’s intonation, expression, rhythm, volume, body language, and inflection.  Although words may not be directly understood, a dog has the ability to comprehend meaning.  For this reason, dogs are often used to detect malice, suspicious behavior, falsehood, deception, and who can be trusted.

While aphasia is an extreme illustration of the impact of non-verbal communication, for most of us communication involves more than listening to a series of words.  Natural speech does not consist of words alone.  Accompanying the words are subtleties, gestures, expressions, grimaces, and so on that provide meaning—that cause us to act or that bring forward emotion and understanding.

As Sack’s describes speech, it consists of “utterance—an uttering forth of one’s whole being—an understanding of which involves infinitely more than mere word-recognition.” This is why a roar of laughter was heard from the aphasia ward during the President’s speech.

In the world of coaching, we see countless models emerging.  These prescriptive coaching models generally consist of a series of steps to be followed by the person doing the coaching.  Each of these steps, if followed precisely, will supposedly provide the means by which a coach can direct a coachee from Point A to Point B.  These steps are typically formulated in such as way that they can be outlined on “cue cards”—at-a-glance references for stepping a coach through the coaching conversation.  Potential coaches and/or managers often attend a training course in which they are taught the “Four steps of coaching using the (add your favorite acronym here) model.”  They then leave the training anxious to go back and try their newly learned model on their subjects.

Unfortunately, what these coaches have learned is a sequence of words—often without the depth of meaning.  While the coach may carefully ensure that she has gone through each step in the model, following the “Next, say this…” sequence listed on their card, the coachee is hearing words only.  Nothing more.  The coach leaves the discussion, having following the steps without deviation, thinking that the individual is now equipped to succeed.  Meanwhile, the coachee caught a series of words and steps, but little meaning.

True coaching is a process, not a step-by-step discussion that follows the sequence of some simplified model.  It is a process that doesn’t occur over a single conversation.  It is an exchange (note the word “exchange,” which means two people are communicating) of more than mere words.  It evolves over a period of time and is deeper than the simple checking off of the box places before each “talking-point” listed on the coaching card.  That exchange involves emotion, expression, listening, understanding, and the willingness to deviate from the model in order to get at what is truly applicable to the individual being coached.

While a model may be helpful in kicking off a conversation, it is not a replacement for true coaching.  Yet many managers and coaches simply follow the steps, paying careful attention that their words match those on their coaching cheat-sheet.

It leaves me wondering how many of those being coached leave the “coaching conversation” laughing.

Posted in Coaching | 3 Comments

Leveraging Feedback to Become a Human Alchemist

Posted on August 16, 2011 by admin

by Linda Linfield

Some managers seem to transform nearly everyone they work with into confident, high performers. I call it human alchemy. Other managers seem to have the opposite effect: even the most talented and motivated individuals become hesitant, self-doubting employees who either disengage or become agents of discontent within the organization. To extend the metaphor, they take gold and turn it to lead; diamonds to coal dust.

I’ve thought often and extensively about what makes the difference in managers. Is the “Midas Touch” a natural gift, or rather, is it something that can, and must, be learned and developed? Similar to other domains where the nature/nurture debate is active, the answer lies in the middle. While many managers have natural ability, the gift is useless without concerted effort to become a transformative leader.

The primary difference between a transformative, empowering leader who generates energy and catalyzes achievement and the would-be leader who struggles to engage and motivate others is not the leader’s technical expertise, natural intelligence, disposition, nor personality. The difference is in the leader’s propensity to create an open environment where everyone contributes more than they thought they could. It starts with the manager’s ability to see, understand, and value people and their perspectives.

The transformative leader sees people as they really are, including where they are today in the context of what and who they want to become. The leader understands current skills and abilities, disposition, motivations, aspirations, and most importantly, an individual’s trajectory. To come to this understanding the leader listens intently, observes continuously, and asks questions. In conversations, however brief or extended, the leader is fully present – attentive, engaged, and validating. The leader gives immediate and candid feedback intended to help the individual become more effective and successful. When an employee or colleague walks away, he or she feels heard, understood and valued, confident and energized for future tasks and responsibilities.

Conversely, the ordinary, task-focused manager assumes that what employees think or how they feel is not relevant to the work at hand. The manager operates from a belief that employees should be thankful they have jobs – they should toughen up and be smart enough to see things the “right” way, which is to say, the manager’s way. This manager sees people mostly in terms of their experience and credentials in relation to their job descriptions, and this manager is likely to write people off who don’t immediately measure up. This manager is often abrupt and impatient. He or she talks and tells others what to do and how to do it again and again if people don’t “get it.” When an employee or colleague walks away from an encounter with this manager, he or she feels stressed and unappreciated, shaken and hesitant, or exasperated and angry.

So, assuming human alchemy is worth pursuing, how does an every-day manager of processes, procedures and resources become a human alchemist?

Start by creating self-awareness of personal leadership strengths and weaknesses. Talk to those within your circle of influence. Create a safe environment for others to be open and honest with you. 360-degree feedback is a good tool to begin such conversations. Expect to be surprised by the feedback of others. Use their opinions to springboard into additional conversations about how to improve the work environment, what motivates the people closest to you, what risks or opportunities have they noticed you may not have seen, and what would they love to be doing that they don’t have much opportunity to do right now? Listen carefully, take notes, think about what they’ve told you, and get back to them with immediate response and action. Empower your people by engaging in their conversations, listening to their feedback, and processing their ideas, talents, and motivations.

By truly listening to the perspectives of others you will reflect and embody the trust, openness, and attentiveness that will propel you into a human alchemist.

Posted in 360-Degree Feedback, Leadership Development | 1 Comment

Top 5 Ways to Kill an Employee Engagement Process

Posted on August 1, 2011 by admin

by Linda Linfield

We’ve often talked about and published some of the positive results achieved by organizations that have leveraged an engagement process effectively. But what about other organizations – those who had good intentions when they started the engagement survey process but then failed to achieve the value anticipated? What do these organizations have in common and why did their efforts come to naught? Here are the Top 5 ways to fail with Employee Engagement:

1. Skip communication with middle management in advance of initiating the engagement surveys.

While executive sponsorship of the survey process is critical, so is the support of middle management. Employees look to their own supervisors for evidence of whether or not company values are being lived, for insight into the purpose and value of new programs, and for follow through. If first and second level supervisors are blindsided by the program or if they are suspicious of the underlying intentions, then they can undermine its effectiveness.

The solution is to communicate with managers well in advance – to convey purpose and expectations, to answer any questions, to prepare them to advocate for the program, and ultimately to engage in action planning and goal tracking on the back end of the process.

2. Delay reporting results to survey participants.

When employees take time to complete engagement surveys, they are typically eager to share their opinions, curious to see if others think or feel the same way they do, and hopeful that work conditions will change as a result of their feedback.  When weeks and sometimes months pass before employees see the feedback results, they often start to think they wasted their time by participating, that they shouldn’t have gotten their hopes up, and that nothing will really change.

The solution is to report out the data as soon as practical, even before the executive team has time to process it all intellectually and come up with a plan of action. Give employees the highlights, the overall report, or even the raw data, and clearly lay out the plan for follow up. Let them know that the executive team is in the process of discussing the findings and what is most critical to address at the scale of the entire organization. Encourage departments to begin to address what seems most important within their own teams or workgroups.

3. Take offense at some of the feedback.

The engagement survey process encourages employees to be candid with both positive and negative feedback, and employees who believe their responses are truly anonymous, will tell you exactly what they think and how they feel.  Executives and senior managers are often surprised by some of the feedback, especially if it calls into question their own effectiveness, compensation (including perks), or temperament.  In the worst cases, managers may launch a quest to find out who said what, and to punish people for what they wrote.  If this happens, employees will instantly learn that it is not safe to give honest feedback.  They will still think and feel the same, and probably worse now that they’ve experienced or witnessed retaliation, they just won’t take the risk to tell you.

The solution is to prepare mentally for the reality that you will see results that will make you uncomfortable and maybe even angry, and that’s okay. Demonstrate leadership.  Absorb the hit and let it go.  Accept and appreciate the feedback for what it is.  Prioritize what you want to change in terms of business processes and perceptions.  And, get into action.

4. Fail to track progress against goals.

If leaders and managers neglect to follow through on commitments they make, they may experience a double whammy in employee perception – first, an employee survey conveys the intention to enact positive change, so employees are apt to notice progress or lack of it; second, leaders who demonstrate they will not or cannot keep their promises to employees lose credibility and trust.

The solution is to do action planning at the team/group level with accountability clearly articulated for each specific action or result – no vague generalities or feel-good wishes allowed to stand unsubstantiated. Then, the process for follow through needs to be put in place as part of the normal course of business – tied to business objectives, KPIs, project plans or other methodology for regularly tracking projects, initiatives and deliverables to completion.

5. Avoid follow through to resurvey on a regular basis.

Employee surveys provide serious data on which to base human resource strategy and objectives.  When an organization fails to measure progress in employee engagement, it loses its ability to track the return on investment for management effectiveness, employee loyalty, and various people programs and initiatives.

The solution is to survey on a regular basis and to learn to use the data with rigor, year after year, to address issues that need attention – whether those are personnel problems or employee programs that are no longer driving or supporting the right business results.

Posted in Employee Engagement, Employee Engagement Survey | 2 Comments

Employee Engagement Lessons from the Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For: Boston Consulting Group

Posted on July 26, 2011 by Laura Sheffield

As part of our quest to highlight a few of this year’s Fortune Magazine “100 Best Companies to Work For,” we’d like to spotlight the Boston Consulting Group. The 2011 Fortune list marks the sixth year that BCG has placed in the top dozen of the “100 Best Companies to Work For,” moving this year to the #2 position from #6. (Read the first “100 Best Companies to Work For” spotlight, here.)

Company Spotlight:   #2 Boston Consulting Group

The Boston Consulting Group is committed to its people. BCG recognizes that their employees are their greatest asset, a true fact in any industry, but especially true in a consultant firm where consultants are the foundation and driver of the firm’s value.

As part of the BCG commitment to their employees, the firm exercised extensive efforts to retain and even add employees during the recent recession. In fact, in 2010, BCG hired its largest class of recruits, ever. This unbelievably happened in a year when most companies, especially consulting firms, decreased their workforce to placate financial losses.

Good things (like having the stability to hire during a recession) come to companies who are committed to doing good. BCG fosters an extensive commitment to social impact work, striving to work on a global and local level. The firm even pulled consultants away from client projects to provide on-the-ground support in Haiti after the devastating earthquake.

In cooperation with a generous compensation and benefits system, paid sabbaticals, and unprecedented flexibility to facilitate increased work-life balance, the BCG commitment to its employees and to improving the world attracts top talent and engaged employees.

What do you think of the BCG approach? How much catering to employees is too much? Is there such thing as too many employee benefits and perks?

Posted in Employee Engagement | 3 Comments

Create Ownership to Promote Change

Posted on July 22, 2011 by Laura Sheffield

An important trait of a good leader is adaptability to change. That said, most people know, and researchers acknowledge, that human beings are inherently predisposed to routine. Even simple daily tasks, like driving to work or getting ready for bed, are dominated by habit. Our brains unwittingly grow attached to the way we process our emails, how the furniture is arranged, and even the official process for submitting reimbursement receipts.

So, what happens when it all changes? As human beings, we naturally have anxiety and aversion to change. Although some may feel aversion more than others, various psychological studies assert that everyone’s brains react with some hesitancy when it comes to change.

Personal and organizational development processes depend upon processes of improvement, growth, and progress. Consequently, change has become an integral part of life, and specifically an integral part of the employee experience in a work environment. Because change is ubiquitous and we have a natural aversion to it, becoming more adaptable is key to becoming a better employee and manager.

So, how can we become more adaptable to change? Adaptability and flexibility are most easily achieved when individuals are allowed the freedom to “own” the changes they are required to make. It’s easier to deal with change when you have a say in some part of the who, what, where, when, and why of the change. When change is required, it’s important to allow each employee, and even yourself, the independence to make decisions surrounding the change. In this way, you pacify natural anxiety with a balance of control and independence.

Posted in Leadership Development | 1 Comment

10 Tips for Using 360-Degree Feedback for Performance Appraisal

Posted on July 12, 2011 by Tracy Maylett, Ed.D.

The extended version of this article was published in Compensation and Benefits Review. We’re excited to announce that since publication, the article has become the SAGE Publishing most downloaded article of 2009 and 2010. The full version of the article, as published, is available for free download, here.

________________________________________________________________

Originally used almost exclusively for developmental purposes, using 360-degree feedback for purposes other than employee development increased significantly over the past decade. One application increasing in popularity is the use of multirater feedback for performance appraisal. Whether one agrees with it or not, economic reality has caused an increasing number of organizations to begin using 360-degree feedback for appraisal rather than exclusively for development.

A number of organizations have successfully used 360-degree feedback for their performance appraisals and have noted great benefit from this. These organizations appear to share a common process that helps them succeed where others fail. Companies can use the following tips to smooth the way:

1. Recognize the differences in use and purpose of 360s for performance vs. 360s for appraisal: Understanding that scores will differ depending on the purpose will help in determining how best to use and interpret the scores.

2. Communicate the purpose and process: Let employees know the intended purpose before administering the assessments as well as how the results will be used. Communicate the process and hold to it.

3. Use a pilot group: Using a pilot group before rolling the survey out to the full organization allows for refinement of the process and of the instruments used.

4. Do not use the organization’s first 360 process as an appraisal process. Start with using 360s for development: Although some organizations successfully use 360s for appraisal on the first 360 roll-out, most have waited 12-18 months before tying 360s to compensation and administrative action. This allows people to become more comfortable giving feedback before the feedback has consequences.

5. Select the appropriate raters: It is critical to ensure that selected raters have regular interaction with the employee being rated and can provide accurate feedback as to performance.

6. Use small but relevant rater groups: Multirater appraisals involve much of the organization in terms of providing feedback. Limit the number of raters to minimize the time spent on survey completion across the organization.

7. Consider and communicate the rating scale: A 7-point Likert-type scale is generally more effective than a 5-point scale.

8. Keep the survey short: Design a survey that is short enough that it can be completed in 15 minutes or less.

9. Use a customized survey: Multirater assessment for development should include questions geared at behavior (the how), whereas appraisal assessments can focus more on operational performance (the what).

10. Provide a score for each question, not just each section: Rather than providing scores for each survey item, many appraisals solicit one overall score for the category. When this is the case, it is often difficult or an employee to know which area of a category is being addressed. Be specific in scoring.

Maylett, T. M. (2009). 360-Degree Feedback Revisited: The transition from development to appraisal. Compensation and Benefits Review, September/October 41(5), 52-59.

Posted in 360-Degree Appraisal, 360-Degree Feedback Process, 360-Degree Feedback Survey | 2 Comments

Performance: It Is About More Than Operational Metrics

Posted on June 28, 2011 by Tracy Maylett, Ed.D.

interpersonal behaviorEstablishing effective operational metrics may be the first step to improved performance, but unless you’re also gauging managers’ and employees’ interpersonal performance, you’re managing with an incomplete picture. It’s not just about what gets done, but also how we go about getting those results.

In a recent multi-year study of 140 employees spread across several facilities of a Fortune 500 manufacturing firm, we conducted regular 360-degree feedback assessments. Unlike performance measurements, such as on-time delivery, fill rate, accurate invoicing, and damage-free shipments (measurements that were also collected), the 360-degree assessment gathers feedback on an individual’s interpersonal behavioral tendencies from supervisors, direct reports, peers, customers, suppliers, etc. One might assume that employees who scored high on performance metrics would also score well on these 360-degree feedback assessments. However, we found no correlation between the scores.

Instead, we discovered that managers hand out high performance scores to employees whom they felt performed the best in operational results, compliance, and job-specific skills. These same employees did not always score well with their co-workers. In fact, we discovered that over the short-term, these employees often achieved the desired operational results by leaving a “wake of dead” in their paths, reaching operational, performance success “at any cost.” Unfortunately, the “at any cost” mentality destroys relationships, cooperation, and teamwork, all of which sustain long-term performance success.

Over18 months following the assessments, many of the employees who had high operational marks but low interpersonal abilities were terminated. And they were terminated, ironically, for poor operational performance, which resulted over time from ineffective interpersonal performance. Further investigation revealed that employees who achieved results “at any cost” burned client, customer, co-worker, and vender relationships. In most cases, the relationships were irreparable and performance metrics suffered. The company discovered that it simply could no longer sustain operational performance without being more attentive to interpersonal issues.

Organizations must embrace a balanced approach between operational and interpersonal results. Effective interpersonal behaviors lead to stronger relationships, which lead to better operational performances. Organizations that fail to consider the interpersonal component eventually find that this failure has serious consequences on sustainable operational performance.

Posted in 360-Degree Feedback Survey, Leadership Development, Succession Planning | 3 Comments