Strategic 360s

360s for more than just development

Author Archive

A Matter of Trust

with one comment

“Apologizing does not always mean that you are wrong and the other person is right. It just means you value the relationship more than your ego.”

I saw that anonymous quote on LinkedIn recently and it drew me back to a small note in Traning & Development magazine dated February 24 on this topic. (http://goo.gl/8X6yRe) The text follows:

A recent survey of 954 global professionals by the Forum Corporation found that although 87 percent of managers say that they either always or often apologize for their mistakes at work, only 19 percent of employees say that their managers apologize most or all of the time.

Naturally, managers not owning up to their errors has a direct impact on employee trust levels. Another interesting insight from the survey is that while 91 percent of employees say it’s “extremely important” to have a manager they can trust, only 48 percent of managers agree that it’s extremely important for employees to trust their managers.

So we can only assume that it’s those managers who do not place a premium on trust who are committing the following worst management sins, as identified by survey participants:

  • lying
  • taking credit for others’ ideas or blaming
    employees unfairly
  • gossiping
  • poor communication
  • lack of clarity.

Managers may condone their mistakes because they are afraid of tarnishing their image. According to the survey, 51 percent of managers believe apologizing makes them appear incompetent, 18 percent believe it makes them look weak, and 18 percent shrug it off, saying that apologizing is unnecessary.

Unfortunately, the study also shows that a low regard for employees’ trust may result in low engagement levels.

This note caught my attention for a few reasons. First, this concept of trust is one that is central to the “manager as coach” work we have been doing in defining the foundation of a productive relationship that is required (in our opinion) if a manager is to be a successful coach for his/her team members.

Trust is also manifested in the perceptions of senior management, whether that group is perceived as individuals or in their aggregate actions. Either way, time after time we see that employee surveys indicate that “trust in senior leadership” is usually the primary driver of employee engagement, confirming the last sentence of the article.

Secondly, the basis for trust (or lack thereof), as listed in the bullets, is determined by behaviors. Behaviors are a choice; a person can choose to do them or not. That choice can be influenced by consequences. Evidently, a majority of managers see more value in behaving badly. We can change that behavior by making them aware that they are behaving badly, and then having negative consequences for doing so. From top to bottom.

Thirdly was the discrepancy between the importance of trust to employees versus their managers. It is hard to believe that organizations do not preach honesty, integrity and so on, whether through Values statements that hang on the walls, or by lip service. It does suggest that there is inadequate accountability.

This T+D blurb is another in a series of articles and blogs I have seen recently that bemoan bad leader behavior and the effect on an organization’s climate (see my recent blog http://dwbracken.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/nimble-and-sustainable/), but with no specific recommendation as to a solution.

I really hate whining without a proposed solution. I have suggested that a 360 process with accountability (i.e., consequences, good or bad) is a viable solution.   I recently heard of a major organization that has introduced a new leadership behavior (competency) model, and, when I asked how leaders are to be measured against the model, the response what to fall back on single-source supervisor evaluation because “360’s haven’t worked here.” I felt like I was in a backward time warp to 20 years when we started talking seriously about the shortcomings of single-source (manager) performance evaluations (see Edwards and Ewen’s first 360 degree feedback book).

Behaviors can be shaped, starting with creating awareness that change is needed, aligning to the desired behavior, and usually requiring consequences (i.e., accountability). A few leaders will change without the carrot & stick, but those are usually the ones who are not the ones who need fixing.

If you have leaders who are undermining trust, you have a problem. I think there is a solution.

 

Nimble and Sustainable

with one comment

Adam Bryant, who writes the NY Times Corner Office feature that I have referenced on multiple occasions, is finally publishing an overview of observations from his interviews of senior leaders in the form of a book (“Quick and Nimble”) and a synopsis in the January 4 edition of the Times’ Business section (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/management-be-nimble.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp), called “Management Be Nimble.”

In this article, offers 6 drivers of innovation, and I’m going to highlight 3 to make a point.  So here they are, each with a descriptive quote from the article:

Rules of the Road

“…if employees start seeing a disconnect between the stated values and how people are allowed to behave, the entire exercise of developing explicit values will damage the organization. People will shut down, roll their eyes and wonder why on earth they hoped that this time might be different.”

A Little Respect

“When we have problems with somebody gossiping, or someone being disrespectful to a superior or a subordinate, or a peer, it is swarmed on and dealt with”

It’s About the Team

“To foster such a culture, many C.E.O.’s establish a simple rule for their employees: They have to do what they say they are going to do.”

OK, I think we get it.  I, and many/most of you, understand these things, and I, for one, have been building these principles into talks about culture change for a long time. They basically come in the form of:

  • Define the values/culture/climate of the organization in behavioral terms, and then walk the talk
  • Call out bad behavior and address it
  • Hold people accountable when they violate promises, either to the company or each other

The problem, of course, is that creating and sustaining a culture requires that it applies to everyone in the organization so that employees know what to expect from each other (and their leaders), positive behavior can be rewarded, and misbehavior addressed. 

About this same time, Booz & Company released a report, Culture’s Role in Enabling Organizational Change, that has received quite a bit of attention and points out the significant potential barrier to change that culture can present:

A change plan may be especially hard to implement if employees see the transformation as being contrary to the company’s culture—to the many things, such as feedback and peer and manager behavior, that determine (as people often put it) “how we do things around here.”

The question that Adam’s article raises is how organizations can maintain their “nimbleness” while at the same time maintaining the kind of culture they desire.  I maintain that “nimbleness” and “sustainable culture” don’t have to be oxymorons.  But as organizations grow and evolve, things happen that challenge the maintenance of their culture, such as:

  • More people, more supervisors, more variability in styles
  • Larger spans of control, less ability to monitor
  • Bring in leaders from outside, not “home grown”
  • Remote locations

In my last blog (http://dwbracken.wordpress.com/2013/12/19/get-in-touch/), we considered Liz’s opinion that 360 feedback processes are all vile and that no organization needs that level of formality and rigor.  It is undoubtedly true that small organizations do not need a traditional 360 feedback process to know how their employees are behaving or misbehaving. But with challenges such as those listed above confronting growing, thriving organizations, it becomes impractical to expect that a culture can be monitored and maintained by walking around and hanging out at the virtual or real water cooler.

So I ask Mr. Bryant, just how are these drivers going to be operationalized?  The article I published with Allan Church (http://www.orgvitality.com/articles/HRPSBrackenChurch OV.pdf ) enumerates the benefits of 360 feedback processes in bringing about sustainable behavior change and resulting culture change, which, by the way, requires integration into performance management and other human resource systems (which is also endorsed in the Booz report). 

Part of the challenge is in putting in place the feedback process that will define and then monitor behavior that is consistent with the desired culture without it becoming too cumbersome.  One approach we see surfacing is the “nudge,” a kind of pulse feedback process using an abbreviated list of key behaviors administered on a regular (quarterly?) basis with some sort of accountability attached.  We see Google, for instance, implementing such a process with significant success (http://www.hreonline.com/HRE/view/story.jhtml?id=534355733&ss=The+People+Scientist). 

If someone else knows a better way to satisfy the requirements for system-wide behavioral definition, measurement, and accountability that doesn’t use multisource feedback, I’m all ears.

©2014 David W. Bracken

Written by David Bracken

February 5, 2014 at 4:15 pm

Get In Touch

with 3 comments

My friend and co-manager of the Linked In SIOP Practitioner Network, Paul Thoresen, passed along this link (http://lnkd.in/bP4ea69) that took me to a blog titled, “The Truth About 360-Degree Feedback”, noting that it was getting a lot of traction on LI.  At last, someone has seen the “truth”!!  This person is Liz Ryan, and she does indeed have quite a following.

Well, her “truth” is that 360 is “vile” and “garbage” and all sorts of nasty, inhuman things that keep us from talking to one another.  She says that employees shouldn’t give “performance reviews” on their peers but evidently it’s OK to give feedback, so I’m not sure what the distinction is.  We have all hoped that someday employees would be able to give honest, constructive feedback to each other. We also hope that all supervisors act consistently with organizational goals and values.  I also hope to win the lottery.

She says, “If your managers want to know how their Team Leaders are doing, they can get out of their offices and observe.”  Really?  There are so many realities working against that, they are impossible to count. The realities of work life are larger spans of control, empowered leaders performing in teams and out of the line of sight of their management, work happening in virtual teams across geographical boundaries on nonobservable technologies, matrix organizations and so on.

She says that leaders want to know, “Can you tell me about a specific situation where I did something you would have liked me to do differently, so that I can learn from it?” That’s what the 360 instrument can’t give you.”  Every 360 I do asks exactly that in the write in comments, and we expect our 360 participants to have a discussion with their team members and peers regarding their feedback. In other words, it is a discussion starter, a conversation enabler.  I wonder what kind of 360 she has experienced because there are indeed some bad ones in design and use.

Her solution:  Create an “assignment”.  I want you to sit down with each person on your team, individually and in a private place, and ask him or her “What is one thing I can do to be a better team leader?” Just ask for one suggestion. Write down the suggestions you get and then let’s sit and talk about them. When we meet for that conversation, I want to hear your suggestions for how I can be a better manager for you.

According to Liz, that’s going to build trust even where none exists. According to Liz, that’s going to create a more human environment. What she is describing is the kind of “one time” event she rails against in describing the vile 360 feedback system she has experienced.  Somehow writing down suggestions is going to create behavior change where none has existed in the past, where there is no follow up nor accountability.  Welcome to La La Land, Inc.

I suggest Liz and you all take a look at this recent Doonesbury cartoon (http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2013/12/08#.UrC21OLWs24) that gets at one aspect of the need for employees to have a vehicle for identifying inappropriate supervisory  (or even peer) behavior that is inconsistent with organizational expectations, whether they be values or even policies and laws.  What Liz is proposing is basically following the “chain of command” in the organization, and expecting the employee to have faith that they can all of a sudden what they have not been perhaps allowed to do for their whole career, i.e., be honest with their boss, and hope that their input will be accepted and that there will be no retribution. That is a huge leap of faith unfortunately for all too many employees. And I’m afraid Liz is out of touch with that reality as well. Installing a “hot line” seems to be her solution for handling the “end runs” she also rails against. The Doonesbury example is an extreme one, but the point can be taken down a few notches to less egregious examples of behavior inconsistent with company values, even as simple as refusing to acknowledge the viewpoints of others.

But using 360’s to manage the negative performing end of the distribution is a minor part of the story. They are also used to identify and develop the leaders of the future for placement in our high potential programs and succession planning systems. They help guide development planning and coaching experiences and give us data that can measure progress over time so we know if our training and development systems are working.

The fact is that a well-designed and implemented 360 feedback system creates a level playing field for employees to see what is expected of their managers and peers. If every leader is required to participate, it creates real and perceived fairness.  It creates an opportunity to receive feedback which is necessary to for behavior change to occur.  Some people don’t like to receive feedback and they probably don’t have mirrors in their houses either.

As for stack rankings and performance reviews and even 360’s that are used to help make decisions about employees, the fact is that in organizations some people get more and some get less, whether it’s pay, promotions, even development experiences.  I’m  not sure how those decisions get made in a fair way in Liz’s La La Land where there is no performance review or 360’s, but 360’s done fairly and consistently can help inform decisions by collecting reliable information that is superior than that collected by a single source, whether that be a single supervisor, HR manager, or water cooler.

At the end Liz proposes 3 questions that a manager can use at his/her staff meeting:

“How are we doing?”

“How are you doing?” and

“How am I doing, managing you guys?”

These are great suggestions and are often part of the action plans coming out of 360 feedback coaching.  The problems are that:

1)      Many managers don’t do it, and they are the ones who need it most

2)      When managers do it, the responses are nonexistent or not honest

360 Feedback will catch up with the managers in Group 1, and create a forum for employees in Group 2.

No two 360 Feedback processes are alike and therefore certainly vary in their quality and effectiveness. To lump them all together and then label them as “vile” or whatever is certainly not responsible, Nor are they the answer to all organizational woes; far from it. But they can make some processes incrementally better if done well.

Get in touch, Liz

Written by David Bracken

December 19, 2013 at 2:33 pm

Strategic 360 Forum II

leave a comment »

Last July, 12 companies convened in New York city for the first meeting of the Strategic 360 Forum, a full day of presentations and discussions by companies that use 360 Feedback for more than just leadership development.  The event was a great success and the group agreed that a second meeting would be useful.  Almost all of the same organizations will be returning, and we already have 3 new member organizations signed up!  We have room for a few more attendees, so here is the information:

Strategic 360 Forum II

February 25, 2014

Description

One day meeting, coordinated by David Bracken (OrgVitality), of organizations using 360 Assessments for strategic purposes, including support of human resource processes (e.g., talent management, staffing, performance management, succession planning, high potential programs).   Attendees will be senior leaders with responsibilities for both process implementation as well as strategic applications. Larger organizations (5000+ employees) will be given priority consideration for inclusion..

Location and Date:  February 25, 2014 at KPMG, 345 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10154-0102

Tentative Participant Organizations:  GlaxoSmithKline, KPMG, Starwood, PepsiCo, Federal Reserve NY, JP Morgan Chase, Cargill, Estee Lauder, WalMart, Schott NA, Thomson Reuters

Benefits for Participants

  • Learn of best practices in the use of 360 Assessments in progressive organizations
  • Discover ways that 360 Assessments support human resource initiatives, including problems and solutions
  • Create personal networks for future situations
  • Create opportunities for future professional contributions, including 2014 SIOP Conference

NOTE: The specific process and agenda will evolve as the organizers interact with the participants and discover their expectations and ways that they can best contribute to the event.

Cost

There is no cost for participants beyond their active contribution. Lunch is provided.

Content

The core content will consist of brief presentations by select attendees.  Presentations will be followed by a group discussion where questions can be asked of the presenter and alternative viewpoints shared.

Depending on the programs and interests of the participating organizations, we will explore select  theme topics of high relevance relating to use of 360 Feedback. These topics may include:

  • Performance Management
  • Succession Planning
  • High Potential Identification and Development
  • Staffing/Promotions
  • Coaching Programs
  • Sustainability

Contact Information

Interested organizations should email me with a brief description of the 360 process(es) you wish to highlight/share (purpose, size, longevity, innovations), and your personal role/responsibilities.

David W. Bracken, Ph.D.

Vice President, Leadership Development and Assessment

OrgVitality, LLC

402-617-5152 (cell)

david.bracken@orgvitality.com

Frequency: Too Often

with 4 comments

I delivered a webinar last week on using 360 Feedback in Performance Management Processes (PMP), partially built upon a recent article that Allan Church and I published in HRPS’s People & Strategy journal on that topic (let me know if you want a copy).  In the webinar, I spent a little time talking about the challenges of creating reliable/valid measurement when we are relying on input not from the target person but from observers of his/her behavior. 

One of the many elements that come into play when asking employees to rate something (a person, an organization) is the rating scale that is being used.  Note also that the rating scale’s effectiveness is likely to be directly affected by the quality of rater training, which is often neglected beyond the most basic of written instructions. 

In the webinar, I shared a list of a dozen or so various rating scales that I have encountered over the years, all in a 5 point format.  We also see in The 3D Groups recent benchmark study of over 200 organizations that use 360 feedback that, by far, the 5 point scale and the Likert Agree/Disagree format are used more often than any other scale type.  I’m not going too far out on a limb to propose that the use of the 5 point Likert scale is a carry over from employee surveys.  While there is something to be said for familiarity, I also propose that this practice is a form of laziness in 360 designers who haven’t reflected long or hard enough to consider scales that work better when the target is a specific person and not some nebulous entity like an organization that is the focus of the engagement survey.

I have advocated for the need to have the scale to match the purpose in an earlier blog (http://dwbracken.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/put-your-scale-where-your-money-is-or-isnt/) so I will move on to another pet peeve.

In the last few weeks, I pulled together a group of colleagues to submit a proposal for a SIOP symposium on helping managers to be better coaches. This process is always fun when you see research others are conducting in an area where you have special interests (kind of like buying a box set of CDs by a favorite artist and discovering some less well known gems).  One of the research papers demonstrates once again the inadequacy of frequency scales (typically 5 point scales that ask how often the person does something, ranging from Never to Always). 

Frequency scales continue to be widely used.  The aforementioned 3D Group study indicates that 23% of the reporting organizations use this scale, third most often behind Agreement (49%) and Effectiveness (31%) (which adds up to more than 100%; it may be that companies were allowed to report on more than one 360 process in their organization).  Frankly, the 23% is shockingly high.  Very recently (http://dwbracken.wordpress.com/2013/08/11/what-is-a-coach-redux/) I cited a study that presents a newly developed questionnaire about manager behaviors in the context of performance management that uses a frequency scale, to my chagrin.

For starters, a frequency scale is conceptually flawed. People can’t do everything “Always” (or even Almost Always, as some scales use).  And because they do something “always” doesn’t mean they do it well, and, conversely, because they do it Rarely or Never doesn’t mean they are bad at it. 

As importantly, every time I have seen them scrutinized in research, frequency scales come out poorly in comparison to other formats in terms of reliability and validity.  This is the 20th anniversary of a paper Karen Paul (now at 3M) and I presented at SIOP that indicated that frequency scales severely penalize supervisors who do some things infrequently but are otherwise perceived to be effective.

In a (frankly) more rigorous piece of research by Kaiser and Kaplan (2006) (that you can access here: http://kaplandevries.com/thought-leadership/list/C44), they also demonstrate that frequency scales are, by far, less satisfactory when compared to Evaluative and “Do More/Do Less” scales.

Frequency scales are used far too frequently.  They should be used Never.

 

Kaiser, R.B., & Kaplan, R.E. (2006, April). Are all scales created equal? Response format and the validity of managerial ratings. Paper in B.C. Hayes (Chair), The Four “Rs” of 360º Feedback: Second Generation Research on Determinants of Its Effectiveness, symposium presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.

 

©2013 David W. Bracken

Written by David Bracken

September 25, 2013 at 1:09 pm

Webinar: 360 and Performance Management (9/17/13)

leave a comment »

Please join me and Stan Cooper for a complimentary webinar.

360 and Performance Management

Tuesday, September 17th, 2013  at 12:30 PM EDT, 9:30 AM PST

Your performance management process (PMP) is probably broken. An ever-increasing number of organizations are creating a competitive advantage by integrating 360 Feedback into their PMPs, as well as other HR processes such succession planning, talent management, leadership development , coaching, and high potential programs. Learn how a well-designed and implemented 360 process can add Alignment, Consistency, Validity, Credibility, and even Legality to your PMP and other HR systems. Attendees will receive both the slides as well as a copy of my (along with Allan Church of PepsiCo) most recent publication, The “New” Performance Management Paradigm: Capitalizing on the Unrealized Potential of 360 Degree Feedback” (People & Strategy Journal, 2013)

You can register for free by using the following link: 

https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/2918545117149989888 

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. We look forward to “seeing” you there!

Hope you can make it!

Dave

Dr. David W. Bracken – Consultant

Dr. David Bracken leads OrgVitality’s  Leadership Development and Assessment practice. In additional to employee engagement surveys, David’s work focuses on supporting Multisource, 360 Feedback and Coaching work for clients. David assists clients to make design and implementation decisions that result in sustainable change utilizing a sustainable 360 process. Internationally, David is well known as a leader in and for advancing the science of multisource (360 degree) feedback, particularly in its use to create large scale change and to improve talent management decisions.  Prolific and widely published, David is the senior editor and a contributor to “The Handbook of MultiSource Feedback” (Jossey-Bass, 2000), “Should 360 Degree Feedback Be Used Only for Developmental Purposes?” (CCL, 1997).  David also contributed a chapter on 360 Feedback to the handbook on “Organizational Surveys: Tools for Assessment and Change” (Jossey-Bass, 1996). David received his BA degree from Dartmouth College, and MS and PhD degrees in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from Georgia Tech.

Stan Cooper

Stan has over 30 years of experience as an internal and external consultant focusing on leadership development, talent management and organizational effectiveness.  His experience includes coaching executives to develop critical leadership skills; conducting individual leadership assessments as well as participating in formal group assessment centers; assisting new executives who are integrating into new organizations or positions; developing senior leadership teams; developing leadership competencies; performing organizational effectiveness assessments; and facilitating change management initiatives; Stan has also had extensive experience working with international leadership teams at both the regional and country levels, particularly in Latin America. Stan earned a B.A. degree from Queens College in Economics and has an M.B.A. from Long Island University in Organizational Management.

Written by David Bracken

September 10, 2013 at 4:50 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

What is a coach? (Redux)

with one comment

In an earlier post (http://dwbracken.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/what-is-a-manager-what-is-a-coach/) I asked the question, “what is a coach?” in the context of the role of manager as coach. A few publications crossed my virtual desk recently that continue to make me think that this question is being addressed from very different angles, neither acknowledging the other.  Let me see if I can bring some focus to this dilemma stemming from the different mental models we have of what “coach” really means.

I think it’s a safe guess that the first vision most of us have when the word “coach” appears is that of the sports coach. From Wikipedia we find this partial definition:

“In sports, a coach is an individual that teaches and supervises, which involves giving directions, instruction and training of the on-field operations of an athletic team or of individual athletes.”  For the purposes of this discussion, I will call this the “Instructor” coach.

Contrast to this definition of coaching/coach (that I have cobbled together from various sources):

Coaching‘ is working together to identify a person’s skills and capabilities and helping that person use their skills and capabilities to the best of their ability.  A “Coach” is the individual who provides coaching.”   I will call this the “Guide” coach.

These are not necessarily mutually exclusive views of what a manager-coach should be. There are situations when each is appropriate.  My sense, though, is that the “Instructor” version is the default definition, i.e., the traditional version of coach and one that most managers find easiest and encouraged by organization. It is the “Guide” version of coaching that is more difficult to master but (I and others would argue) is more effective. More on that later.

So back to the publications I mentioned. The first is an article recently published in Personnel Psychology, “Development and Validation of The Performance Management Behavior Questionnaire” (Kinicki, Jacobson, Peterson and Prussia, 2013).  To cut to the quick, the PMBQ instrument has multiple items/scales that describe manager behaviors associated with performance management, and one of the scales is called “Coaching.”  Its items are these:

15. Shows others how to complete difficult assignments and tasks

16. Provides the resources needed to get the job done

17. Helps identify solutions to overcome performance roadblocks

18. Helps people to develop their skills

19. Provides direction when it is needed

So which type of coach does that sound like to you, Instructor or Guide?  (That’s not a trick question.) As a hint, there is nothing in there that I see that suggests a dialogue with the coachee (employee).

Two points about this research. First, the Subject Matter Experts were largely existing managers who have probably been formed by history, reinforcement and some level of success to define coaching this way.  Second, I was really disappointed to see that they use a frequency scale which I have noted before is seriously flawed both statistically and conceptually.

Compare those items with these sampled from the Perceived Quality of the Employee Coaching Relationship (PQECR) (Gregory and Levy, 2010) that I have integrated into The ManagerCoach© feedback instrument:

My supervisor and I have mutual respect for one another.
My supervisor is easy to talk to.
My supervisor spends more time listening than talking when he/she is coaching me.
I am content to talk about my concerns or troubles with my supervisor.
I feel safe being open and honest with my supervisor.
My supervisor helps me to identify and build upon my strengths.
My supervisor engages in activities that help me unlock my potential.

 

Hopefully those sound more like the “Guide” coach where the relationship comes to the forefront.

It seems like every time I read something about effective managers, the topic of empowering and involving subordinates surfaces.  Such is the case with the most recent issue of People & Strategy Journal (from HRPS) that focuses on the topic of performance management (and also includes an article by Allan Church and myself, but that’s another blog topic to come).  In one piece alone, we find these statements from Gyan Nagpal:

  • …many 21st century employees are rejecting conversations that are one-way…
  • Greater employee autonomy and empowerment also changes the meaning of management.
  • We have gone from a “supervisor of task and outcomes” to an “enabler of performance, innovative thinking and collective success.”

With a related theme, there is the most recent issue of Harvard Business Review with an article titled, “Connect, Then Lead” (Cuddy, Kohut, & Neffinger, 2013) with this observation:

A growing body of research suggests that the way to influence—and to lead—is to begin with warmth. Warmth is the conduit of influence: It facilitates trust and the communication and absorption of ideas.

But, instead of quoting others, let me make my own case for differentiating the Instructor and Guide versions of coaching using the ALAMO model that I have introduced before (most recently, http://dwbracken.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/aligning-to-alignment/) where I propose that:

Performance = Alignment x (Ability x Motivation x Opportunity)

The ALAMO view on two types of “coaching” might sound like this as we listen in on the conversation with employees:

Type of Coach

Alignment

Ability

Motivation

Opportunity

Instructor “I know what is best. Go do it.” “Here’s how to do it. It has worked for me.” “Success or failure will affect your PA rating.” “Here’s your time frame and budget.”
Guide “What do you think is the best way to achieve this goal?” “Yes, that approach is a good match for your skills.” “It seems like you are most excited by this approach.” “Are there any barriers that might hinder your progress?”

(Let me note here that there are times when the manager needs to be the “Instructor”, and one of those is in the area of organizational values. Organizational values exist to define and guide appropriate behavior, which is a process of Alignment.  But with Values, the question is not one of Ability but more a matter of choice, i.e., the choice by the employee as to whether (or not) he/she is going to behave that way.  This is where 360’s can be a valuable tool by providing the manager (and organization) reliable data on how these behaviors are observed by others (coworkers and, if applicable, customers).)

It is disappointing when I see organizations define coaching using Instructor language. I believe that most of us see that we have moved toward a more humanistic, involving and empowering model of supervision, reinforced by work configurations (e.g., global, remote, matrix) that demand nontraditional leadership styles.  As importantly, the Guide model of coaching is more sustainable AND more developmental.

©2013 David W. Bracken

Big Data and Multisource Feedback

leave a comment »

Here’s another NYTimes Corner Office offering, featuring Laszlo Bock, SVP of People Operations at Google. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-big-data-may-not-be-such-a-big-deal.html?pagewanted=1).  The first half is about hiring with some interesting observations (especially if you have responsibilities in that area).  The second half describes their Upward Feedback process, along with other HR systems. And, no, they are not a client.

I offer these observations for your consideration:

  • Big Data is the new fad, but many of us have been using large data bases to understand the impact of our change processes for a long time, whether at the organizational level (employee surveys) or the individual level (360 Feedback).
  • Your organization is not using “Big Data” (at least in the way Laszlo is describing) if you are using external norms.  Note that Google is using internal norms very aggressively, tracking progress in moving the norm over time AND giving percentile rankings for each leader.
  • The challenges he describes regarding hiring practices are very interesting, and it appears they are making some progress in implementing processes that are more predictive and more consistent. That said, hiring is always a challenge, and emphasizes the importance of using processes such as multisource (360) feedback to identify and either improve or weed out poor managers.
  • He speaks to the importance of consistency in leaders.  360 Feedback promotes consistency in a number of ways.  First, it defines the behaviors that describe successful leaders, a form of alignment. One of the behaviors can relate to consistency itself, i.e., providing feedback to the leader about whether he/she is consistent.  In addition, an organization-wide 360 process that is administered and used in a consistent manner can only help in reinforcing the views of employees that decisions are being made on a fair basis. Organization-wide implementation is the key to success in creating change, acceptance and sustainability.
  • Back to the percentile rankings.  I have found organizations strangely averse to this practice of letting the leader know where he/she ranks against peers.  As Laszlo notes, the challenge is to give the leader a realistic view of how he/she is perceived, and to create some motivation to change.  By the way, these rankings are one “solution” to leniency trends, that is, saying to the leader, “You may think you are hot stuff because you got a 4.0 rating (out of 5)  on that behavior, but you are still lower than 80% of your peers.”  That scenario is common in areas such as Integrity where we expect high scores from our leaders.
  • I am a little surprised that he believes that the managers can “self-motivate” in the way he describes. I am usually skeptical that leaders will change without accountability. I would like to know more about that.  I have already noted the use of percentile rankings that most organizations dismiss, and are seen are powerful motivators in this process.  Laszlo also describes a dialog of sorts with the leader at the 8th percentile. Who is that conversation with? If it is with another person (boss, coach, HR manager), that alone creates a form of accountability and an implied consequence if improvement isn’t seen. If the conversation is just in the leader’s head, it speaks to the power of the information provided by the percentile score.  Creating awareness is one thing. Awareness with context (e.g., comparison to others) is much more powerful.  (Maybe like, “That’s a nice pair of pants!  If it were the 60’s.”)
  • Lastly, Laszlo  speaks to the uniqueness of his and other organizations regarding what the organization needs from its leaders and how an individual employee might fit in and contribute. This clearly speaks to the need for custom designed content for hiring practices and then internal assessments once an employee is onboard.

Google is doing some very interesting research regarding leadership.  Go back and look at their work on leadership competencies that they publicized a couple years ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/business/13hire.html?pagewanted=all

Beyond the research, Google is actually using their Big Data to create a culture, define the leaders they require, and putting some teeth into the theory with upward feedback at the forefront.  Yet, at the end, he notes that all the measurement must be viewed through the lens of human insight.  The context is deeper than just organization; it is also moderated by the current version of strategy, the team requirements, the job requirements, and the personal situation, all of which are in a constant state of flux.

©2013 David W. Bracken

Strategic 360 Forum

with one comment

I am organizing a one day event in New York City on July 24 for organizations that are using 360 Feedback processes for purposes beyond just leadership development.   There is no cost. Any organization wishing to be considered for attendance should contact me. The representative must be a senior leader who has responsibility both for implementation and influence regarding its strategic use in the company.

Strategic 360 Forum

July 24, 2013

Description

One day meeting, coordinated by David Bracken (OrgVitality), of organizations using 360 Assessments for strategic purposes, including support of human resource processes (e.g., talent management, staffing, performance management, succession planning, high potential programs).   Attendees will be senior leaders with responsibilities for both process implementation as well as strategic applications. Larger organizations (5000+ employees) will be given priority consideration for inclusion.

If there is sufficient interest and support from the participating companies, the Forum would continue to meet on a semi-annual basis.

Location and Date:  July 24 at KPMG, 345 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10154-0102

Tentative Participant Organizations:  Guardian, Bank of America, GlaxoSmithKline, KPMG, Starwood, PepsiCo, Federal Reserve NY, JP Morgan Chase

Benefits for Participants

  • Learn of best practices in the use of 360 Assessments in progressive organizations
  • Discover ways that 360 Assessments support human resource initiatives, including problems and solutions
  • Create personal networks for future situations
  • Create opportunities for future professional contributions, including 2014 SIOP Conference

NOTE: The specific process and agenda will evolve as the organizers interact with the participants and discover their expectations and ways that they can best contribute to the event.

Cost

There is no cost for participants beyond their active contribution. Lunch is provided.

Content

The core content will consist of brief presentations by select attendees.  For attendees interested in participating in a submission for the 2014 SIOP Conference, we will use the format and content of their presentations to feed a proposal submission.

Presentations will be followed by a group discussion where questions can be asked of the presenter and alternative viewpoints shared.

Depending on the programs and interests of the participating organizations, we will explore select  theme topics of high relevance relating to use of 360 Feedback. These topics may include:

  • Performance Management
  • Succession Planning
  • High Potential Identification and Development
  • Staffing/Promotions
  • Coaching Programs
  • Sustainability

The Forum meeting will also include a presentation by Bracken and Church based on their People & Strategy (HRPS) article on the use of 360 Assessments in support of (or replacing) performance management processes, followed by discussion.

Outputs

1)      As noted above, the content will be the basis for a proposal for inclusion in the 2014 SIOP Conference.

2)      The presentations and discussions will be organized and reported to participants.

Contact Information

Interested organizations should email me with a brief description of the 360 process(es) you wish to highlight/share (purpose, size, longevity, innovations), and your personal role/responsibilities.

David W. Bracken, Ph.D.

Vice President, Leadership Development and Assessment

OrgVitality, LLC

402-617-5152 (cell)

david.bracken@orgvitality.com

Aligning To Alignment

leave a comment »

I have been citing the “Corner Office” (NY Times) a few times lately, but I can’t help but do it again. Recently the guest was Salesforce COO George Hu (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/business/salesforcecom-executive-on-seeking-out-challenges.html?src=recg).  When asked about leadership lessons, he turns to the importance of communication and alignment.  He says, “We use this process called V2MOM, which stands for vision, values, methods, obstacles and measures.”

In this model, the vision and values part is the alignment component, basically what we are going to do and how we are going to do it (i.e., (my words) how we are going to treat each other and our customers).  I know that “alignment” is one of those terms that has been overworked but, in this case, maybe for a reason: it is important.

In some past blogs I have shared my ALAMO model of performance:

Performance = Alignment x (Ability x Motivation x Opportunity)

While all four variables in the model can drive a fatal blow by going to zero, Alignment is the only one that can also be a negative value because it can actually draw resources away from the organization if the individual/team/organization is working on the wrong thing. “Working on the wrong thing” can be accidental (by misdiagnosis or misdirection), or even purposeful (such as sabotage, where a very motivated person can destroy value).

Misalignment can happen to both the vision and the values part of his model, but I would like to focus on the Values part as it relates to the role that 360 Feedback can play in focusing the alignment of behaviors throughout the organization.

Many organizations have Values statements, often met with some well-deserved cynicism as a plaque on the wall.  Stating a value (e.g., Respect for the Individual”) must go much farther than just defining it. It must also must be defined in behavioral terms, that is, what an employee is doing (or not doing) when they are exhibiting that value.

Some of the most spirited meetings I have been in or led have been about what a Value means in behavioral terms.  Many, many organizations have some version of Respect for the Individual in its Values list. But what does “respect” mean for your organization?  Treating everyone the same regardless of level? Saying “thank you”? Acknowledging the viewpoints of others? Creating work-life balance (i.e, acknowledging personal lives)?  Creating diversity in practice?  You have to pick; the answer isn’t “all of the above.” A Value isn’t effective if it is vaguely defined or too encompassing.

One benefit of creating behavioral definitions of a value is making it very tangible if described specifically. I am reminded of the story of the homeowner who decided he need to fix his front sidewalk, spending all day on Saturday breaking up the old one, and replacing it with a nicely laid cement walkway.  As the sun was setting, he looked out his window admiring his handy work only to see a dog run up and down the walk, leaving his footprints for posterity. The man got his gun (sorry) and shot the dog.  When brought before the court, the judge looked down and asked, “Young man, just what were you thinking?” The man replied, “Your Honor, I really like dogs in the abstract, but not in the concrete.”  Ba bump.

Values are very easy to like in the abstract, but much less so in the “concrete,” as in your actions. Just ask religious leaders about that.

Another value that might seem obvious to you but not others is Integrity.  One version of Integrity is the core notion of telling the truth, not lying, not cheating, etc.  But more and more we see organizations who see telling the truth as a given, and choose to use Integrity as communicating the more subtle message of “walking the talk, “ as in doing what you say you will do, following through on commitments, and following the same rules/expectations that you set for others.

An organization-wide 360 feedback process built around an organization’s Values has many powerful benefits, including:

  • Reinforces the importance of the Values as part of the “how” side of performance
  • Requires the identification of the behaviors that uniquely define the Values for the organization
  • Are disseminated to all employees, usually requiring serious consideration as the raters perform their duties as feedback providers
  • Creates accountability for follow through assuming development plans are integrated into performance management processes
  • Creates a method for trending individual and organizational progress toward “living the Values.”
  • Can be used to identify leaders who do not comply with the Values

We would like to think that Values statements are enduring and wouldn’t require change very often. But if the organization finds that it needs to change its emphasis to support strategy (e.g., more customer focus, quality, innovation, accountability), the message can be quickly operationalized by inserting the behaviors (labeled as a dimension to further create alignment) in the 360 that is used by all segments of the enterprise.  This need to shift quickly is now called “Agility” in the vernacular, and organizations as well as individuals are being required to demonstrate it more than ever.

Alignment and Agility are intertwined, and communicate simultaneously focus and flexibility on both the Vision (“What”) and Values (“How”) that are uniquely defined by the organization.  I would argue that Alignment is one activity that cannot be overdone or overused, which is one message I take away from George Hu’s lessons of leadership.

Finally, one other message to take away from Mr. Hu’s V2MOM: Measurement.  Measurement reinforces Alignment, and you get what you measure. Measurement also creates accountability.  And a 360 Assessment, well-designed and delivered, does both. We largely know how to measure the “what;” show me a better way to measure the “how.”

©2013 David W. Bracken

Written by David Bracken

April 22, 2013 at 9:55 am

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34 other followers