Hello everyone and welcome back to the next installment of
my blog! Today’s blog features two sections; 360-Degree Feedback and Follower Alienation.
These two topics are critical for leadership success so let us dive right in to
the discussion!
360-Degree Feedback—Better for Organizational Performance Reviews?
Let me begin this section with some personal background
information. I have been in a leadership role for over 24 years. My experience
spans across for-profit, non-profit, military organizations, sales
organizations, and even parent volunteer organizations. This blog will feature
my opinion on whether the 360-degree multi-rater feedback is really better than
a boss-based assessment. In addition, I will provide my opinion, based on my
experience, on whether I would elect to use 360-degree multi-rater feedback.
Before discussing the specifics on 360-degree feedback verse
boss-based assessment, I believe it is important to disclose this simple fact—no
system will ever be perfect! There will always be those that agree and those
that disagree with any performance feedback system put in place. This is just
human nature. The key is to do your based, based on knowledge and experience,
to perform your leadership responsibilities taking into account what is best for
the organization.
“360-degree feedback is a performance appraisal approach that
uses input from an employee's supervisors, colleagues, subordinates-and,
sometimes, even suppliers and customers” (Pfau,
2002).The
basic premise of 360-degree feedback is that “the people who work most closely
with an employee see that person’s behavior in settings and circumstances that
a supervisor may not” (Pfau, 2002). Now, as a supervisor, it is the primary
responsibility to conduct performance reviews. 360-degree feedback is not a
tool to simply delegate and side-step leadership responsibilities. This tool is
used to enhance and provide additional resources to give an accurate
representation of the employee. “Rather than relying on the perceptions or
feedback of single individual, the multi-rated feedback derives multiple
perceptions from different angles which bring a broader overview of an employee’s
performance” (Hosain, 2016). Given in the right format, and under the proper
tonality, 360-degree feedback would be beneficial. Let me elaborate.
“The most important aspect to consider when preparing for a
feedback session is to routinely observe the performance of the rate” (Air Force
Occupational Measurement Squadron, 2007 pg. 266). If the supervisor has the
ability to perform routine observations, than this performance perception
should be given the highest weight in determining ratings. However, not every
supervisor in an organization can observe all their employees, all the time. If
this is the case, the supervisor should make every effort to garner the opinion
of others around the employee. Of course, before an organization implements
such a program, training should be introduced to discuss how to properly provide
feedback, whether feedback is positive or negative. In addition, supervisor
have to give “weight” to the feedback and take into account other people
biases.
I would recommend the implementation of 360-degree performance feedback if situation warrants. If implemented correctly,
and with the right intent, 360-degree feedback can be a powerful tool in the
supervisor toolbox. “360-degree feedback can be a powerful organizational intervention
to increase awareness of the importance of aligning behavior, work unit
performance and customer expectations; as well as increasing participation in leadership
development and work effectiveness” (Hosain,
2016).
Follower Alienation- Effects and
Remedies
Vertical Dyadic Linkage Theory examines how leaders form
one-on-one relationships with followers, and how these often create in-groups and
out-groups within the leader’s work unit (Lussier & Achua, 2013). The in-group includes followers with strong
social ties to their leader in a supportive relationship characterized by high
mutual trust, respect, loyalty, and influence (Lussier & Achua, 2013). Out-group influences
followers with few or no social ties to their leader, in a strictly
task-centered relationship characterized by low exchange and top-down influence
(Lussier & Achua, 2013). So how does this affect unit
morale?
Let us analyze this picture above. It shows a sports team
with an obvious split. On the one side you have your in-group. On the other, an
alienated person in the out-group. What
emotions does this picture conjure up? Does this look like a positive situation
for the team? Some characteristics of out-groups include receiving little inspiration,
encouragement, or recognition. When a person is treated in such a manner, they
will not participate 100% to the team. Alienated followers are; low on
involvement yet are high on critical thinking; feel cheated or unappreciated;
are capable but unwilling to participate in developing solutions to problems(Lussier & Achua, 2013). Does any of these
indications sound positive to an organization? Having members on the team who
do not contribute creates negative productivity and lost opportunities. Let us analyze
a situation of alienated followers.
The local charter school where I volunteer has only been in
operation for a couple of years. During the first year, a Parent Advisory
Council (PAC) was created to organize parent volunteers. The PAC organized
functions, events, and fundraising activities. Originally, being a new school,
the PAC was comprised of only 13 members. As the year continued on, the number
decreased to eight. At the start of the second year, my daughter started her
enrollment and I volunteered to be a PAC member. What became evident is that
the PAC was separated into groups; those that were in the in-group and were
personal friends of the PAC president and those that were in the out-group.
The in-group scheduled meetings at their homes and organized
functions just within the group. The out-group was never encouraged to attend
or participate. What I soon came to realize is that the in-group PAC members
treated the organization like a social club and did not have the best intentions
in mind. In alienating new parents, a vast resource was lost. Imagine the
skills, enthusiasm, and volunteer hours lost by not recruiting additional
parents. Imagine the amount of activities and events that could have been achieved
had we worked as one unit, not a separated one. So how should the PAC leader
treated this situation differently?
An organization is usually created to achieve a mission. Whether
it is to sell goods, provide services, or other reasons, an organization is
formed for a reason. It is up to leadership to guide the organization to achieve
this mission as effectively and efficiently as possible. The leader must act
with the organizational best interest in mind. As for the PAC, embracing this
concept of leadership effectiveness, the president should have recruited and
solicited volunteers to help serve. This solicitation should have been sincere
and with the right intentions. The potential new members should have been
welcomed, embraced for their volunteerism. In doing so, the PAC president could
have recruited and developed effective followers.
Effective followers (Lussier & Achua, 2013):
-
Are high on critical thinking and involvement
-
Are not risk-adverse nor do they shy from
conflict
-
Have the courage to initiate change
-
Serve the best interest of the organization
-
Tend to function very well in self-managed teams
-
Complement the leader’s efforts and can be
relied upon the relive the leader of many tasks
The irony is that, after the PAC drove away any potential volunteers
to help, at the end of year they complained of burn out and lack of activities.
In essence, they were their own worst enemy.
Damien
References
Air Force
Occupational Measurement Squadron. (2007). Professional development guide-
AF pamphlet 36-2241. Randolph AFB TX: US Air Force.
Hosain, S.
(2016). 360 degree feedback as a technique of performance appraisal: Does it
really work? Asian Business Review, 6(13), 21-25.
Lussier, R.
N., & Achua, C. F. (2013). Leadership: Theory, application, & skill
development (5th ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage/Thomson South-Western.
Pfau, B.
(2002). Does 360-degree feedback negatively affect company performance? HR
MAgazine, 47(6), 54-60.
