1
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
Effective Integration of
360 Performance Feedback
into the Coaching Process
Dr Rainer Kurz, Saville Consulting [email protected]
Dr Almuth McDowall, Surrey University [email protected]
2
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
Overview for the session:
• Quick recap of feedback theory and
practice
• An introduction to multi-source feedback
– Advantages but also potential pitfalls
– Its place in coaching
• Practical case studies using Saville
Consulting Wave ® Performance 360
• Reflection and close
3
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
“That’s great feedback”
• One of the most overused catch phrases
in organisations ?
– Do we understand feedback?
– Do we want it?
– Do we do anything different as a result?
4
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
The Feedback Process:
Feedback message:
what the sender conveys to
the recipient; usually related
to the effectiveness of the
recipient’s behaviour
Feedback Sender:
Coach, manager, but also the task and the
self
Feedback recipient:
The person who receives the feedback, in
coaching usually the coachee
What does the coach need to
understand about each of
these parties to implement
best feedback practice?
Source: McDowall (2008)
5
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
Aims and purposes of feedback
• Communication
• Information
• Affect behaviour change: doing things differently,
motivation, more insightful behaviour
• But: dissatisfaction with many traditional
processes in organisations, such as appraisal
6
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
360 Degree feedback:
7
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
Purported Benefits:
Individual
Insight into strengths and weaknesses
Realise potential
Identify plan for future action
Impact on career exploration
Organisational:
Culture change
Identifying potential
Create better leaders
Maximise performance
Legally defensible
Group/Team
Empowerment
Enhanced Communication
Better understanding
8
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
360 and self awareness
• Greater self awareness linked to positive
outcomes: better workplace performance
• Lack of self awareness:
– ‘over-raters’ are immune to information from
others
– ‘under-raters’ lack confidence
9
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
Key rationale for 360:
• Feedback processes should affect self-
awareness in a positive way
• Bring ‘blind spots’ into open arena
• Learning through discrepant feedback
from various sources that is compared
with self-assessment
10
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
10
What does the jury say?
• Can be efficient (if accompanied by specific training) to change specific workplace behaviours (e.g. Maurer et al, 2002),
• Participation in 360 degree feedback has effect on development ratings (Bailey & Fletcher, 2001) but not necessarily linked to follow up activity (Hazucha et al, 1993)
• Feedback from different sources attended to differently (e.g. Baldry & Fletcher, 2001), contrary to empirical model
• More effective if linked in with executive coaching – e.g. more specific goals set, more targeted behaviour change (Smither et al, 2003)
11
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
What could account for
inconsistent effects:
• Format differences
• Content differences
• Measurement differences
• Multi-rater perspective more dynamic than
psychometric self-report
• Job, environment and culture differences
12
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
How 360 tools differ
• Model content
• Rating scales
• Depth
• Reporting
• Comparison groups
• Nomination process & anonymity
• Job importance profiling
13
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
Model Content
• Off the shelf, generic measures: same tool
applied in different contexts
• Bespoke, context specific measures:
based on competencies, or specific
leadership model
• Adaptable instruments: existing items/
scales, can be adapted to fit context
• Personality vs. Competency Continuum
14
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
15
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
Rating Scales
• Likert ‘Agree-Disagree’
• ‘Not like me’ vs. ‘Very much like me’
• Frequency
• Effectiveness
• Usually Normative but occasionally
Ipsative ranking added
• Free text boxes increasingly popular
16
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
17
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
18
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
Depth
• Lengths varies from a dozen to 180 items
• Item centric
• Scale centric
• Multi-level
19
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
20
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
Reporting
• Horizontal bar charts
• Vertical bar charts
• Other bar charts
• Occasionally score markers
• Free Text
21
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
22
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
Comparison Groups
• Average score display – no semantic
meaning
• Anchoring to rating scale gives meaning
• Often Norm Group mean displayed
• Ratings usually in a very narrow range
• Occasionally Sten score profiling used to
pull apart ratings
23
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
24
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
Nomination Process & Anonymity
• Nominations prescribed by Management
• Self-nomination by Focal Person
• Mixed approach ‘Core + More’
• Results usually averaged by rater category
• 3 or more raters in group required if
protection of anonymity desired
• Single rater reports for feedback on dyadic
relationships to address discrepancies
25
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
26
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
Importance Profiling
• Most instruments assume relevance of
scales
• Some tools allow for importance profiling
• 180 or 360 importance profiling
27
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
Job Profiler
28
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
29
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
Identifying Potential
• Psychometric measurement of attributes
– Ability tests e.g. Swift Analysis Aptitude
– Self-report questionnaires e.g. Focus Styles
• Prediction of Potential
– Should be based on empirical validation
– Should be broad and robust
– Ideally ‘Matched Model’ of predictors and criteria
30
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
Matched Aptitude –
Ability Model
31
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
Matched
Model
Styles -
Behaviour
32
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
Competency Potential Equations
Business Opportunity Oriented (Styles Facet) * 21
+ Leadership Oriented (Styles Facet) * 4
+ Responsibility Seeking (Styles Facet) * 3
+ Action Oriented (Styles Facet) * 2
+ Visionary (Styles Facet) * 1
Identifying Business Opportunities (Competency Potential Facet) =
Five Styles Predictor Facets are used to provide a broad,
robust and validated prediction of Competency Potential e.g.:
33
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
Development Planning
How to deal with weaknesses:
• Development Tips
• Managing Limitations
How to deploy strengths
• Building Strengths
• Overplayed Strenghts
34
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
35
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
Performance Culture Framework TM
36
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
Jo Rossiter Case Study
• Jo is Project Manager at High Tech company ‘Upstream’
• Coaching to enhance performance & realise potential
• Tools: – Job Profiler
– Performance 360
– Saville Consulting Wave ® Focus Styles
– Swift Comprehension Aptitude
– Swift Technical Aptitude
– Development Report
• Task: – Importance vs. Effectiveness Gap Analysis
– Potential vs. Effectiveness Gap Analysis
– Development Planning
37
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
Jo Rossiter Case Study
• Role requires task management rather than leadership role
• Low performance on Generating Ideas & Seizing Opportunities not an issue in current role
• Fairly high potential for generating ideas so in different roles may perform better in this area
• Very high critical reasoning scores – high potential
• Potential development issues: – Interpersonal sensitivity
38
17/12/2007
Rainer Kurz & Almuth McDowall
Thank You!
Further reading: • MacIver, R., Saville, P., Kurz, R., Mitchener, A., Mariscal, K., Parry, G.,
Becker, S., Saville, W. O’Connor, K., Patterson, R. & Oxley, H. (2006).Making Waves – Saville Consulting Wave Styles questionnaires. Selection & Development Review, 22(2), 17–23.
• McDowall, A. & Kurz, R. (2007). Making the most of psychometric profiles – effective integration into the coaching process. International Coaching Psychology Review, Vol. 2, No. 3, December 2007
• McDowall (2008). Using feedback in coaching. In: Psychometrics in Coaching. Ed: Passmore, J.; Kogan Page: London.
• Kurz, R, MacIver, R. & Saville, P. (2008). Coaching with Saville Consulting Wave. In: Psychometrics in Coaching. Ed: Passmore, J.; Kogan Page: London.
Stay in touch: – [email protected]
