Even though various forms of 360⁰ (or upward) feedback have been around the business world for some 40 years now, as I facilitate leadership workshops around the country, I still find a number of leaders with mixed emotions about the value of this process. The most commonly used argument for the process is to make leaders aware of any blind spots or perceptions about their behavior that may be negatively impacting their ability to lead effectively. But like any process that gets into interpersonal or emotional intelligence skills, the process can be highly beneficial when entered into with the right intentions and facilitated carefully OR highly destructive as well.
Reasons Against…
The push-back I have gotten from others in those workshops is evidence that there have been plenty of “bad” 360 experiences for people. Here is just a short list of some of their, in many cases, hard-earned reservations about the process:
- “Why should I open myself up to potshots from my peers and direct reports!?! They may use it as a way to take me down a peg.”
- “If the Gallup people say we should focus on building on our strengths, why go through a process that asks people to zero in on my weaknesses?”
- “I’ve been in a leadership role for a while now and would like to think that I am aware of my strengths and shortcomings, what’s the point of going through this again?”
- Etc.
I think most people who move up the leadership ranks have often already figured out what their strengths are and know they need people around them who can compensate for their weak areas. And, I agree with the Gallup research saying focusing on improving weaknesses is not very useful. Also, Peter Block’s assertion that…
by the time most adults are in their 30’s, they have all the skills and competencies they need. At that point it’s more about will than skills.
calls into question the current focus on “competencies”. For me, I think feedback about competencies is often less about what someone needs to work on and more about a data point to be brought up at performance review time. Another thing is that any leader who has been through the 360⁰ process more than once starts to understand the paradox that “the feedback I get from others often tells me more about them than it does about me.” Yet another argument that questions the value.
Reasons For…
But even with all of the above, I still think the argument for getting feedback on your potential blind spots is worthwhile. Even the most self-aware leaders find it challenging to focus on the business issues at hand AND be cognizant of the different perceptions people around them have about their behavior and thinking. By making yourself vulnerable to other’s feedback, you are saying to others “yes, I am far from perfect” – something that humanizes you as the leader. And this is the real goal, I think, of this process – making yourself more approachable by showing your vulnerability.
The value of this goes beyond the leader. When others see the leader make themselves vulnerable to pushback, they often stop fearing that for themselves and open themselves up more and the candor and trust in the group rises.
To accelerate this process toward openness, there are some things an outside facilitator can do to help. When I am taking leaders through a 360 process, I often push them to let me facilitate a “clarification meeting” between them and as many of their respondents as possible (we exempt the Boss from this meeting. It is tricky enough to facilitate without adding that dynamic). This meeting needs to be held after we review the report but before we move to action planning so you can make sure the leader focuses on the right things when they move to action planning. This meeting does not seem to be a standard step in many 360 processes, but there are three worthy reasons for taking this extra step:
- No matter how well you design your questionnaire, the report that comes back to a leader will almost always generate as many questions as it does answers. Some of the feedback will be clear “based on the scores, it’s clear the respondents want you to stop engaging in XYZ behavior”. But for every clear message, there’s usually at least one that is not. Items where the leader is left saying to him or herself “what are they trying to tell me here and is it something I need to take action on?” The clarification meeting gives the leader an opportunity to parse these out.
- Another reason for having the meeting is that it provides an opportunity to reconcile and clarify expectations between the leader and his/her team. Let’s be honest here, besides the customer and boss feedback, the most important data points to be considered by the leader has to do with the question “how does my team feel about me?” Having facilitated many of these meetings, there are usually items where team members are expressing a desire for more (or less) of something from a leader (e.g., face time, mentoring, guidance of some sort) and the reality is the leader may not be able to provide that for various reasons. This meeting can help get those and any other mismatched expectations out on the table and reconciled.
- Last, but most importantly, just by getting these people in the room for this conversation helps accelerate the candor and transparency between the leader and his/her team. If we always have to go to an anonymous process for a leader to get feedback, then there is something wrong. We end up institutionalizing a practice that lets people opt out of getting together to have hard, but necessary face to face conversations. The end goal should be that eventually a leader can, at any given moment, pull his/her people into a room and say “OK, let me hear it.”
Clarification Meeting Nuances
In kicking off the meeting, I usually have the leader start by thanking everyone for taking time out and explaining that we have an outside facilitator for the meeting to promote candor and allow the leader to focus solely on the content and not have to worry about the running of the meeting. It helps to remind people what this is all about, and not about. Here’s an example of how I as the facilitator have kicked off these types of meetings before…
“Hey everyone, thanks for coming out, per the e-mail Ryan sent out, the goal of this meeting is to help him make sure he is understanding the messages you are trying to convey in the feedback. Again what this is not about is playing ‘who said what’ or retribution. For some items you and Ryan may disagree on how you see the world, but I told Ryan, that whether he agrees or not, he needs to, at a minimum, let you know he has heard and understands your view. Our feeling is that this meeting needs to occur before he puts together an action plan so that he focuses on the right things.”
Once everyone is clear on the tone and intent of the meeting, I try to manage expectations. Because so many team members often put an unreasonable amount of emphasis on the leader’s role in creating the team’s dynamic, I often share the following quote to level-set.
Through our energies, actions and attitudes, we create the groups we belong to and they, in turn, nourish or drain us. ~ Jack Gibb
The emphasis on “we” is a reminder to the team that if there’s a pattern in effect that they don’t like, they are as much responsible as the leader.
In getting things moving, I like to start with “clear strengths” and see if we (the leader and I) understand each theme clearly (e.g., “It seems that many of you really appreciate how Ryan does…is that right?”). I then move onto strengths where there seems to be less agreement. “Now it seems some of you are OK with this area, but others less so. Help me out here. Tell me more.” The process continues along this line until the major themes are addressed and understood. When handled well, I have seen firsthand how this meeting can really acclerate openness in the team. It also helps wean the organization away from the 3rd party, anonymous path and get to something that is more timely and authentic.
So leader’s, do the 360 process not so much because you will get much needed insights into your behavior, but because it makes you more human and approachable!
