a) Managers who met with direct reports to discuss their own feedback improved more than other managers.

b) Managers improved more in years when they shared their results than in years when they did not.

It would seem that there are some pretty clear benefits to sharing 360 results, and it is a practice that is becoming increasingly used – and expected. However Lubin also points out some potential downsides to sharing 360 results. For example, managers run the risk that direct reports may lose confidence in them, or even exploit their weaknesses.

This raises the question: Should we ask managers to share their 360 results? Research (and our experience as consultants at Added Insight) would suggest that the short answer is “Yes”. However HR managers may need to consider issues such as whether it will be more difficult to gain buy in from managers if they feel pressured to share their feedback – especially in cases where they may be expecting poor results. The trick may be to find the balance between ensuring confidentiality, and encouraging openness.

What do you think?

References:

Walker, A.G. & Smither, J. W. (2006). A five year study of upward feedback: What managers do with their results matters. Personnel Psychology, 52, 393-423.

Transparency pays off in 360 degree reviews:

file:///Z:/blog%20and%20tweet%20ideas/Transparency%20Pays%20Off%20In%20360-Degree%20Performance%20Reviews%20-%20WSJ.com.htm

Author: Anika Harper (Organisational Psychologist)

Every organisation has a culture or ‘way we do things around here.’ This manifests in a system of norms, values,  work processes,  modes of communication and style of management (Cooper, 1995) . In short, organisational culture often guides the behaviour of employees.

What is safety culture/climate?

Safety Culture: “the product of individual and group values, attitudes, perceptions, competencies to, and the style and proficiency of, an organisation’s safety management” (IAEA, 1991, p. 23).

Safety Climate:  “the surface features of the underlying safety culture [and] assesses workforce perceptions of procedures and behaviours in their work environment that indicate the priority given to safety relative to other organisational goals” (Flin et al., 2006, p. 109). Research indicates that safety behaviour and safety related outcomes (e.g. accidents) can be predicted by safety climate (Huang et al., 2007).

Core features of safety climate (Cooper, 1995)

- Management Commitment

- Management Actions

- Personal Commitment to Safety

- Perceived risk levels

- The effects of the required work pace

- Beliefs about accident causation

- The effects of job induced stress

- The Effectiveness of Safety Communications within the Organisation

- The Effectiveness of Emergency Procedures

- Safety Training

- The Status of Safety People and Safety Committees within an Organisation

References:

Cooper, D. (1995). Measurement of safety culture: a component analysis. Institute of  Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) Meeting.

Flin, R., Burns, C., Mearns, K., Yule, S., Robertson, E.M., 2006. Measuring safety climate in health care. Quality & Safety in Health Care 15, 109–115.

Huang, Y.H., Chen, J.C., DeArmond, S., Cigularov, K., Chen, P.Y., 2007. Roles of safety climate and shift work on perceived injury risk: amulti-level analysis. Accident Analysis & Prevention 39, 1088–1096.

IAEA, 1991. Safety Culture (International Safety Advisory Group, Safety-Series 75-INSAG-4). International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.

Author: Robyn Thomas (Organisational Psychologist)

For more information about safety climate or health and safety in organisations contact Added Insight. Ph: (09) 3530954

• Reliable assessment of management behaviour and performance
• Facilitate candid and honest discussions around development
• Facilitate management learning, skill development, and goal setting
• Improves the culture of organisations and the performance of managers

Smither, London and Reilly (2005) conducted a meta-analysis which suggested that improvements in managers where small to modest in size. However, other authors have suggested that such limited improvements may be due to true changes being overlooked once raters have formed an impression of the manager (often while completing a 360° survey), or because improvements may not occur immediately but could take place over several years (Walker & Smither, 1999).

The research seems to indicate that it is unrealistic to expect large and wide-spread performance improvement after 360° feedback. Like any other training or development intervention, not all participants will benefit equally and some will be more likely to improve than others.

Suggestions for practitioners

Smither et al. (2005) offers some suggestions to facilitate improvement after 360° feedback:

• Emphasise a learning orientation and focus on attaining positive outcomes (e.g. acquiring new skills) rather than on how feedback recipients are performing relative to each other
• Encourage participants to set specific development goals
• Encourage those who receive positive feedback to set even more challenging goals
• Encourage participants to talk to each other to clarify feedback
• Encourage participants to engage in formal and informal development activities

References

Atwater, L. & Waldman, D. (1998). Accountability in 360 degree feedback. HR Magazine, 43, 96-104.

London, M. & Beatty, R.W. (1993). 360-degree feedback and performance appraisal. Human Resource Management, 32, 352-373.

Morgeson, F.P., Mumford, T.V., Campion, M.A. (2005). Coming full circle: Using research and practice to address 27 questions about 360-degree feedback programs. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57(3), 196-209.

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, 33-66.

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

Author: Anika Harper (Consulting Psychologist)

Organisations are inherently political arenas in which individuals are often competing for advancement and resources. In such environments, the exercise of power and influence can characterise the way things get done (Bing et al., 2011). As such, it makes intuitive sense that political skill (the ability to understand others at work, and use this information to influence others to enhance one’s personal or organisational goals) is predictive of job performance.

Political skill has been found to be predictive of job performance over and above GMA and personality, and more so than self-monitoring, emotional intelligence, and leadership self-efficacy (Blickle et al., 2011, Bing et al., 2011, Semadar, Robins, & Ferris, 2006). It has been found to be most predictive of job performance for jobs with higher levels of social demands and therefore may be most relevant for roles with high levels of social demands such as leadership/managerial roles (Bing et al., 2o11, Ferris, Perrewé & Davidson, 2006, Semadar,Robins & Ferris, 2006).

Practical Implications

• Given that political skill is a relatively newly articulated construct; there has not been much research on using training to enhance political skills. Some researchers suggest the use of role playing and executive coaching, however, if implementing an intervention or training programme in this area I would recommend taking data and evaluating its effectiveness to inform future decisions and programmes.
• There is also some argument that political skill may be more trait like and as such it may be easier and more cost effective to select for politically savvy leaders than to train them. Currently, there is not much available in regards to assessing political skill for selection, but research indicates that the Political Skill Inventory (PSI) has potential for use in selection contexts (Blickle, von Below & Johannsen, 2011).
• Added Insight are looking more closely at the research around political skill and investigating the use of political skill measures for personnel selection purposes.

Author: Robyn Thomas (Intern Psychologist)

Today’s fast paced business environment often leads to knee-jerk decision making, fad following and guess work (Rousseau, 2011). Managers are often in the tough position of having to make difficult decisions under intense pressure with incomplete information; the good news is that evidence exists to help inform these decisions, the bad news is that managers rarely use this evidence (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006).

According to Rousseau (2011) becoming an evidence based HR practitioner can be achieved by adhering to the following 4 steps:

1.  Use the scientific evidence from peer-reviewed sources to make decisions (e.g. Human Resource Management Journal, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology etc.). This could be quite expensive, however, so it might pay to subscribe to one or two of your favourite journals.
2. Systematic gathering of information from your organisation such as organisational facts, indicators and metrics to better inform your decision about acting on the evidence (e.g. comparing engagement data, management style etc. with job performance, turnover and absenteeism data, looking at the stats/themes in exit interviews to see what has a relationship with turnover e.g. job satisfaction, pay etc., and looking at whether your recruitment practices are predicting job performance, turnover etc.).
3. Practitioner judgement assisted by procedures, practices and frameworks that reduce bias, improve decision quality and create more valid learning over time. Evidence is not answers, you need to consider whether the practice suggested by research is applicable to your organisation and suitable for dealing with your particular problem. It may be useful to put systems and frameworks in place to guide decision making, encouraging the practitioner to consider all important aspects. Allow the appropriate time to think through the options and make a decision.
4. Ethical Consideration. HR practitioners need to weigh the short and long term impacts of decisions on stakeholders and society. Consider how your decision will impact not only the people directly targeted by your intervention, but other important stakeholders within and outside the organisation.

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Evidence Based Management, Harvard Business Review.

Rousseau, D. M., & Barends, E. G. R. (2011). Becoming an evidence based HR practitioner, Human Resource Management Journal, 21 (3), 221-235. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2011.00173.x

Author: Robyn Thomas (Intern Psychologist)