Picture
A Study of Differences in the 360 degree feedback of Star and Average performers using RSDQ Model
Raju Rao

Summary

This study compared the 360 degree assessments of the star performers and 26 average performers drawn from 6 organizations. Star and average performances ere identified from among a number of senior managers with the help of the assessments made by the CEO and the HR Directors. Anthe 360 tool assessed the effective performance of nine roles and 55 activities under these roles, the leadership styles, delegation and other qualities of the candidates. In all the 360a assessments were done by 447 assessors for the 51 star performers and 289 for the 26 average performers. The data revealed that the star performers tend to show significantly higher scores in the 360 degree feedback on the roles and activities part of the questionnaire. The leadership styles did not differentiate. Some of the qualities differentiated star performers from the average performers. The study recommends focusing on activities and roles in developing leadership capabilities through 360 degree feedback.

Introduction

One of the most popular management and leadership development tools of recent times is 360 Degree Feedback. It is said that almost every fortune 500 organization uses 360 Degree.

That ‘360 Degree Feedback is a cliche, is a cliché’, and probably quite deserving of it, owing to the multiple purposes for which the instrument has been used in companies, Institutes, NGO’s and even Schools! Vast has been its reach and coverage. Many organizations and most “Not for Profit” organizations have been found using 360DF as a leadership development tool. While on one hand, India can boast about using the instrument across a range of companies and institutions; on the other, empirical research into the subject has been, if anything, very scanty, barely noticed or read about. Not very surprising, since India has primarily never been much into research implementing or publishing, both of which are done on a massive scale in the U.S as well as in Europe. While 360DF’s reach across India is no small matter, we are still only a decade old … though slowly but surely, maturing. Comforting news, that!

Objectives

The current study is an attempt

1.      To put RSDQ model of 360DF under the scanner (so to speak), and thereon

2.      To find if the 360Degree Feedback can correctly identify star performers, differentiating them from other average and low performers, and

3.      To authenticate 360DF’s results opposed to some other method of identifying performers or stars, i.e. through the common Performance Appraisal system; and finally,

4.      To document a conceptual framework, outlining integration of research findings with practical application and providing possible direction for future value adding utility.

Target Population who will find the study and outcomes useful are all Managers, Executives, Consultants, Institutes and any type of organisation members. There is the hope that such type of study will influence researchers and managers to delve more deeply into the area of 360 Degree Feedback. Charting an unexplored ocean, if you will!!

Focus of this study has been on organisations, but as a tool, 360DF has been implemented in institutions, be they commercial or otherwise, and even schools. As a consultant, the most comforting and redeeming part of the exercise has been the experience of working with schools i.e. school teachers, Principals, their trustees and other such staff who have gone through the feedback process. We have also successfully managed to apply the same to PG students doing their MBA. It is quite fascinating to see one common instrument, the 360DF, being sculpted to suit various audiences needs. The process essentially remains the same. What changes is the Questionnaire, its dimensions and variables on which feedback is sought.

Any study always has certain assumptions kept in mind while creating the tool/instrument. This study is no different, the assumption here being that Performance Appraisal method is correct and valid, providing correct results (Performance based Pay, Rewarding those deserving)

Need for the Study

The theme has the element of 360Degrfee Feedback, a concept which is, relatively speaking, new in our country. Similarly, the very idea of identifying individuals and putting them on a fast track (system and process catering to identifying future leaders and grooming them for future roles) is itself less than a decade old (India). Both these concepts and tools are recently being used by a multitude of organizations. While the nuances of 360DF and Fast Track Performers will vary from company to company, the fundamental concepts, purpose for using them and the result will essentially be the common thread providing the linkage of one with another.

The latest need on the block is ‘Retention’, or rather, prevention of high employee attrition which most companies today face. Given the rate of Globalisation and change, companies are extending efforts to give performers better incentives by inflating their egos and hooking them into a very well laid out scheduled career path that is full of royal treatment along the way to becoming king! Needless to say, such schemes or plans, if left in between, will mean the individual having to start from scratch establishing his credentials and performance potency. Which in turn implies lost time that the HR manager hope will not be worth the change for the intending candidate? [‘ And that’s how current retention programs are in the limelight.

A brief Review of 360 Degree Feedback

"The (360 degree) feedback process...involves collecting perceptions about a person’s behavior and the impact of that behavior from the person’s boss or bosses, direct reports, colleagues, fellow members of project teams, internal and external customers, and suppliers. Other names for 360 degree feedback are multi-rater feedback, multi-source feedback, full-circle appraisal, and group performance review" (Lepsinger, 1997, p. 6).

Ward (1997, p. 4) describes 360 Degree feedback as “the systematic collection and feedback of performance data on an individual or group, derived from a number of the stakeholders in their performance”. Assessment through 360 Degree feedback is normally via a questionnaire completed by a “stakeholder” in the individual’s performance: those who work closely enough with the manager to respond to questions about their behavior and its impact. The data is then fed back to the participant, in a way that is intended to result in acceptance of the information and the formulation of a development plan (Ward, 1997).

The 360 Degree feedback seems to be so powerful that even the cabinet secretariat of the U.K. has introduced 360 degree Feedback to increase self awareness of Civil servants (Cabinet Office, 1999). The underpinning assumption for this development was that a key criterion for good leadership is self-awareness (Cabinet Office) and that “if done well, it is a very powerful tool of management and a very good way of helping people improve their own performance” (Wilson, cited in Moore, 2000, p. 15)

DeNisi and Kluger (2000) stressed that unless the effectiveness of 360 Degree feedback is studied, evidence of how it can be used to improve performance will not be available.

Perhaps the most notable work on perceptions of managers to 360 Degree feedback in a UK context was a study by Mabey (2001). He examined managers’ reactions at the Open University during 360 Degree feedback process implementation. This study established that many managers perceived that they had not developed a particularly different understanding of themselves, but the process had reinforced the direction of their development. Interestingly, as Mabey (2001) notes, in contrast to assumptions made by other commentators, some participants suggested the process would gain more if results were not private as their accountability to act might be increased. Yet the availability of individual results might increase what McCauley and Moxley (1996, p. 17-8) call the “approach avoidance reaction to feedback”, meaning that managers may wish to understand the perceptions of those around them, yet may be concerned about hearing their weaknesses and try to control the possibility of negative feedback.

Despite numerous positive descriptions of the potential benefits of 360 Degree feedback, some studies give reason to question whether any real development actually occurs, or whether the process is as positive an experience as suggested (Atwater et al., 2002).

However, in terms of growing commitment to the system Waldman and Bowen (1998) indicate this is more likely to improve with time. This is because managers become more assured of senior management commitment and their intentions surrounding the process become clearer

Methodology

Definition and Tool used

360 DEGREE FEEDBACK INSTUMENT (360DF)

In any organization, every individual’s performance is an outcome of transactions with others, internal or external to company, and can be broadly categorized into five main sections:

1.  Interaction the individual  has with himself i.e. working independently

2.  Interaction with various functional managers, but a one on one interaction

3.  Interaction with groups or more than two individuals; where the individual may be interacting with a whole team, department or even unit

4.  Individuals interact with the organization at the level of policy changes, systems 

5.  Lastly, the external environment and even economy of a country can cause or affect individuals through the organizations.

360DF is a systematic and anonymous collection of feed back on a particular individual’s performance, behaviour, potential and promise etc.from other employees who have expectations from him and interact with him in order to get work done. The tool or instrument used is referred to as the 360DF Tool and RSDQ ™ model is developed by TVRLS. The instrument by itself is scientifically developed and includes areas which are critical for successful performance of the individual(s) and the organization.

The model for Indian Top and Senior Management in terms of managerial and leadership competencies needed which is termed as the RSDQ model (Roles, Styles, Delegation and Qualities). This model of leadership and managerial effectiveness views effective management and leadership as a combination of four sets of variables (Pareek and Rao, T. V, 2003). These are:

a) ROLES: The extent to which the individual plays various leadership and managerial roles and activities. There are a number of roles, which have to be played by every manager in order to be effective as managers. These are both transformation roles (leadership roles) and transnational roles (managerial) some of these are:

1.      Articulating and communicating  vision and values

2.      Formulating long term policies and strategies

3.      Introducing and managing new technology and systems

4.      Inspiring, developing and motivating juniors

5.      Culture building

6.      Internal customer management

7.      External customer management

8.      Boss Management

9.      Team work and team building

10.  Managing unions and associations.

b) STYLES: While effective managers recognize all the leadership roles and perform them well, it is not only the roles or activities that determine the effectiveness but also the way in which they are played. The model envisages that managers may play most roles well, devote time and effort but could be insensitive to the style with which they carry out these activities. The leadership styles have been classified on the basis of the earlier research at the Indian Institute of Management by T V Rao earlier into the following:

§   A Benevolent or Paternalistic leadership style in which the top level manager believes that all his employees should be constantly guided treated with affection like a parent treats his children, is relationship oriented, assigns tasks on the basis of his own likes and dislikes, constantly guides them and protects them, understands their needs, salvages the situations of crisis by active involvement of himself, distributes rewards to those who are loyal and obedient, shares information with those who are close to him, etc.

§   A Critical leadership style is characterised as closer to Theory X belief pattern where the manager believes that employees should be closely and constantly supervised, directed and reminded of their duties and responsibilities, is short term goal oriented, cannot tolerate mistakes or conflicts among employees, personal power dominated, keeps all information to himself, works strictly according to norms and rules and regulations and is highly discipline oriented.

§   A Developmental leadership style is characterised as an empowering style, where the top manager believes in developing the competencies of his staff, treats them as mature adults, leaves them on their own most of the times, is long term goal oriented, shares information with all to build their competencies, facilitates the resolution of conflicts and mistakes by the employees themselves with minimal involvement from him.

It has been found that the developmental style is the most desired organisation building style. However some individuals and some situations require at times benevolent and critical styles. It has also been found in research that some managers are not aware of the predominant style they tend to use and the effects their style is producing on their employees.

c) DELEGATION: The RSDQ model considers level of delegation as an important part of a senior executive's effectiveness. This dimension has been included because most senior managers seem to have difficulties delegating, especially those effective managers who get promotions fast in their career. In view of these experiences, delegation has been isolated as an important variable of leadership. Those who delegate release their time to perform higher level tasks and those who don't continue to do lower level tasks and suppress their leadership qualities and managerial effectiveness.

d) QUALITIES: The model envisages that managers should exhibit qualities of leaders and world class managers (e.g. proaction, listening, communication, positive approach, participative nature, quality orientation etc.). Such qualities not only affect effectiveness with which top level managers perform various roles but also have an impact on the leadership style and hence are very critical.

The TVRLS instrument for 360 degree feedback for managerial and leadership development is based on the RSDQ model. In case of managerial roles, there are about 55 activities identified under each of the roles mentioned above. An instrument consisting of 55 items (originally 75items) for top level managers was developed to assess these, measures the extent to which the manager is perceived as performing these roles. In the case of leadership styles, a 38 (originally 51-items) instrument assesses the extent to which the above mentioned styles are exhibited across 10 different situations or activities and the impact the person makes on his subordinates in terms of eight variables viz. feelings of dependence, incompetence, independence, interdependence, resentment, job satisfaction, work commitment, morale and extent of learning by the subordinates. Through this instrument the participant gets to know his styles as benevolent, critical or developmental (dominant and back up) as well as their impact. Delegation questionnaire assesses the extent to which the participant is delegating and releasing his own time for higher level roles and tasks. There is a ten-item questionnaire that measures the various symptoms of delegation or non-delegation. In the case of behavioural qualities, 25 qualities are included at present using a semantic differential technique.  Three open-ended questions at the end try to find out most dominant strengths and weaknesses of the respondent along with suggestions for improvement.

The instruments developed on the basis of RSDQ model are updated periodically depending on dimensions important to top management roles and positions with changes in the business environment.

Star Performers: are basically those individuals who had a high performance record in a consistent manner over the years, (usually 2 or 3), and as such demonstrate potential to take on more responsibility and thus keep growing. These star performers show promise for the future in the respective area’s of work or where ever they may be so placed. They are on the fast track of growth.

Organizations have their own definitions and eligibility criterion for identifying star performers. While such criterion may be varied for various companies, there are always a few components basic to all e.g. Performance appraisal system, Performance records of previous subsequent years, tenure of service in current organization to be at least a minimum of one year...  And so on.

In this study star performers were identified by the CEO of the company along with the HR Chief and provided information to the researcher. The assessment is based on the performance appraisal reports including the actual performance of the candidate as assessed by the CEO. Each CEO was requested to classify the performers into three categories A, B and C category performers. Only the A and C category of performers were taken up and B category were left out. It is fair to call A as star performers, B as Above Average performers and C and average performers as most CEOs deny that they have any “poor performers” in the Top Management. Only in the case of the PSU the star and weak performers were identified on the basis of their performance appraisal reports as the top management did not want to differentiate the managers but supplied their three year average of performance appraisal ratings.

Research Process and coverage

360 Degree Feedback profiles were prepared for the senior management teams of six organizations. All senior managers were included for 360 Feedback profiles as the exercise was accepted as a development initiative or exercise. The exercise was initiated as a voluntary leadership development activity on the part of the organization. Taking part in the intervention was a choice left to the individual only. Accordingly, the following organizations were included in the study:

1.   Automobile manufacturing Company

2.   Logistics company

3.   Cigarette making company

4.   Pharmaceutical company

5.   Very large Public Sector Unit

6.   Multi divisional family owned company

All the above organizations are professionally managed though most of them started as family owned businesses (except in the Pharmaceutical Company and the PSU).

The participants and their respective assessors were oriented through an initial interaction session. Anonymous feedback was obtained based on RSDQ model of leadership.

Sample: Across the 6 organizations, there were a total of 97 participants who were assessed by close to a thousand manager-assessors. Anonymous feedback was received directly through mail and converted to digital data in order to generate each individual’s feedback profile. Post completion of profile distribution, HR chief of each company was requested, along with the CEO or MD, to divide the batch into three sets of groups or rather; to identify the star or fast track performers. The remaining participants would be assumed to be Above Average and Average performers. At this point, the Above Average performers were dropped from further development or consideration. The study aimed at finding out the difference between the group of star performers and average performers.

 

Hypotheses

1. Star Performers perform better than poor performers on each of the managerial and leadership roles and activities

2.   Star Performers demonstrate more of Developmental Leadership Style as against the rest (average performers)

3.  Star Performers exhibit more positive leadership & managerial qualities than average performers

 

Sample population

Results are based on the assessment made by:

§ 447 Assessments of 51 Star Performers

§ 289 Assessments of 26 Average Performers

Item-wise mean differences were found out on each of the scales used in RSDQ model.

 

Findings and Implications

 

Summary of significant findings

Results indicate the following:

1.      In four of the six organizations, star performers were rated as performing a number of managerial and leadership roles better or higher  than the rest

2.      In the PSU star performers and average performers were not very distinctly/clearly differentiated through ratings in Roles or otherwise

3.      In one organization only, very specific roles differentiated the star performers from the rest. One estimate is that the culture of such an organisation has a very strong influence on its members which is why only specific dimensions bring out the differences in Roles Section.

4.      There was no difference between Leadership Styles of Star Performers and Average Performers in any of the organizations. The three Leadership Styles were found to be equally distributed amongst the Star and Average Performers.

5.      However Star Performers were found to create higher degrees of job satisfaction and learning than average performers in three of the organizations studied for the purpose.

6.      Where delegation is concerned, surprisingly, Star and Average performers, both were found to be delegating more or less equally. In few cases, contrary to expectations, average and low performers outperformed the stars in delegation.  A result or inference like this can be rationalized by the following two options :

 i.      Tendency of Passing the buck – explains high scores for average and low performer
 ii.      Responsibility taking & attitude of ‘If you want anything done right, do it yourself’’- explains why Star performers at times would prefer doing things themselves rather than passing it on and staying in doubt of quality result.

7.      The following qualities differentiated Star performers from average performers in 3 of the organizations:

i.      Generally takes a positive approach
ii.      Organized and systematic
iii.      Creates development opportunities for others

Open Ended Feedback revealed similar strengths and weaknesses among star and average performers. However, it was observed that the star performers, without exception, had more positive statements or strengths in their favour than their counterparts – low and average performers.

Another essential trend to be noted in the open ended feedback has to do with statements in suggestions, which indicate that the person is ready for the next level, or that more responsibilities need to be showered on him/her, or more exposure required, and others of the kind. These give clear indication that the individual holding the role is perceived to have capacity for higher level jobs and may be given the opportunity. Low and average performers, on the whole, were not attributed such feedback and even where statements to the effect existed, they were singular and not shared commonly with others.

Conclusions

  • Star Performers have been rated as performing various managerial and leadership activities significantly more effectively than the average performers.
Table 1 reveals clearly that in most organizations star performers perform managerial and leadership roles better than the average performers. The table also indicates an exception to this rule. For example in company no. 2 (the public sector company) there is no difference. In fact in many cases the average performers seem to score higher than the star performers. This case is exceptional. The reasons may be: That performance appraisals are not valid as most often they are based on seniority; Star performers may not be popular people and on the other hand average performers may be liked by many as they do not set high standards and create tension among the staff; Public sector employees may give high ratings to all others in 360 feedback that it is difficult to differentiate.

  • Star Performers and Average performers were found to use similar leadership styles and even exhibit similar strengths and weaknesses (see Table 2). In sum there were fifty possible times when star performers showed higher or lower across all the ten items (10 items multiplied by six firms). Of which only 8 times star performers scored significantly higher than the weak performers in terms of developmental style and in one case even critical style scored higher for star performers. It may be concluded that while the star performers tend to be developmental in approach in general more than the Average performers they also use the style situationally. The results lend support to the hypothesis that the style differences of star and Average performers vary from company to company and situation to situation though the generally exhibited style is developmental. In five cases benevolent style seem to be significantly lower for star performers as compared to weak performers. The results are in expected direction but seem to lend support more to the hypothesis that the leadership impact is situational.
  • Star Performers seem to have created a higher level of learning culture and job satisfaction amongst their juniors
  • Leadership style does not bring out much difference and should not be used independently, but in combination with other tools, depending on the purpose. in Managerial Roles, Impact of Leadership Style on Subordinates and impact on role set members
  • While low and average performers use the same leadership style, they are not able to sustain or develop an atmosphere congenial to learning and experimentation.  Usually, these individuals have a larger area demonstration of Benevolent and Critical leadership Styles.
  • Star performers tend to focus more on creating loyalty for the organisation through personal loyalty for them. … More evidence of Developmental leadership style and long term thinking.
  • On qualities the study indicated that star performers may have somewhat similar qualities as average performers and qualities alone may not be able to distinguish high and low performers. However though statistically not significant and significant only in some of the companies than the others the following qualities seem to be more perceived among the star performers than the average performers:
 

Proactive
Innovativeness
Quality consciousness
 Involves people
 Encouraging
Has an open mind
Change oriented
Encouraging
Organised
Clear and persuasive communicator
Creates development opportunities for his people

Impatience and irritability I a variable to watch. Star performers seem to have somewhat more of this than others. Also star performers seem to have more number of strengths while the nature of qualities themselves distinguishes a star performer from a low performer. It is perhaps the combination that does the magic than the quality itself. 

  • 360 Feedback is effective in differentiating Individuals based on Performance and, can clearly indicate high flyers or fast track individuals from the rest of the group. The differences are clearly brought out through the Role assessment questionnaire of the RSDQ model.

Future thoughts and directions for research
  • 360 Degree feedback seems to be a good indicator of managerial and leadership performance of managers.
  • The feedback to each individual on how well he or she is performing the 55 managerial and leadership activities may help the individual to make improvement plans or development plans.
  • This tool can be used as a training tool.
  • The organizational culture and other variables which have not been studied here seem to influence the differences between the star and average performers. Some companies minimise the differences while others may promote sharp differences.
  • More research is needed to delineate the other variables affecting the lack of differentiation among star and average performers in public sector.
The results are not in expected direction as far as the styles are concerned and null hypothesis seems to be retained in most cases. It may be concluded from this study hat leadership styles is not a differentiating factor always. In a few companies by exceptions development style seems to characterise star performers. However on the whole it can be said that star performer’s use as much of benevolent, critical and developmental styles as are average performers.

It is often said that when employees leave they leave managers than companies and largely it is due to the managerial styles of their bosses. However it looks that managers are required to use all types of styles depending on the situation. However the climate crated is a positive one by star performers.

Implications for Life After 360 Degree feedback

The findings here have significant implications for the activities to be undertaken after a 360 degree feedback:

a)      Use the feedback to identify poorly performed leadership and managerial roles and their constituent activities. Focusing on enhancing the effectiveness of leadership and managerial activities may make the candidate a star performer after the feedback.

b)       Become sensitive to your style and focus on the climate your style is creating. There is no one style that seems to be universally and uniformly effective. Keep finding out the impact of your style on the emotional climate you are creating by using periodically a simple eight item tool that measures the climate dimensions mentioned above: dependency, resentment, tension, learning, job satisfaction, morale, empowerment etc.

c)      Focus on cultivating leadership qualities like openness, innovativeness, change orientation, positive approach and communication for a better impact.



 
Picture

T.V. RAO AND RAJU RAO

Assessment takes many forms. Assessment is a tool. It paves the way for growth. It is not an end. During the course of studies as a student, one goes through a number of tests and assessments. Each time, it helps the individual know where he stands in relation to certain standards, as well as in relation to others.

360 Degree Feedback, Assessment centers and Psychometric tests are three of the most commonly used methods that have become popular in the recent past. In this essay, we share an experience of assessment, using 360 Degree Feedback at the Indian School of Business. This paper is meant to argue the significance of other forms of assessment as a development tool in formative years; i.e., during the student days.

360 Degree Feedback has become quite familiar in the corporate world today. A lot has been written on how it has helped individuals as well as organizations in the process of change and leadership- However, the flexibility of this tool has not been explored beyond the corporate world. This paper talks about one such exploration beyond the corporate world and demonstrates its utility for other populations as well.

THE ISB EXPERIENCE , METHODOLOGY

As part of the course work, a student at any management school may be involved in as many as 15 to 20 projects wherein he/she works with different groups. His behavior if observed and assessed by his colleagues, in relation to his team work and taken with other characteristics, may reveal essential information and traits, critical for not only present effectiveness and impact, but also for the future, foe main intention being, to initiate development at early stages, relevant to for present as well as being of use in foe future. It is with this view an experience was provided to collect peer feedback on group behavior.

ORIENTATION

As a part of foe Talent Management course for Global Excellence, for students were introduced to 360 degree feedback and how corporations were using the same for top grading as well as managing change and leadership, amongst many other objectives.

INSTRUMENTATION

■ Post orientation, the students were divided into groups. Each group developed a 360 Degree Feedback questionnaire for use by them to collect feedback. There were 14 different groups and hence, 14 questionnaires.

■  The students were then asked to form into a representative group to develop a common questionnaire, ensuring that all main components in 14 questionnaires were represented

■  An open ended portion was included in the final questionnaire

■ Using this questionnaire as inputs, the Instructor finalized the 360 DF tool to be used.

ASSESSORS IDENTIFICATION AND CRITERIA

■   Choice of assessors was left to the, Assessee, i.e., the individual student, with certain conditions of eligibility.

■  Each student was then asked to choose a group of other students representing various groups in which he/she had worked in the last few months.

■  Minimum number of assessors was decided to be kept at 6.

DISTRIBUTION AND COLLECTION

■  The questionnaires were duplicated and handed over to the students along with a letter explaining Peer Feedback process, instructions on the exercise, and anonymity.

■   A drop box was kept at the Instructor's office and the candidates assessing the student were requested to drop their anonymous assessments in the box.

In all, 58 students were assessed by more than 900 assessors, i.e., each individual was assessed, on an average, by 15 assessors. The data were tabulated and feedback given to each student.An illustrative profile of one student is appended with this note. The amount, type and variety of data generated through such an exercise is a clear indication that self development can begin even at such an early stage, as can self awareness and knowledge of how an individual is perceived or the impact created.

               The data is valuable in the sense that it could be used for I subsequent career development, and ensure that a correct fit is made between the organization and individual to be employed therein.



Sample copy of Questionnaire and Report Generated of 360 Degree Feedback at ISB 360 Degree Feedback report of Mr. Rajnik (name changed) , an analysis of the open-ended data collected profiles the individual as well as the strengths and areas needing development.

Areas of Strength

■          Enthusiasm, passion, drive and motivated (mentioned by 12 individuals)
■          Friendly and helpful nature, approachable (11)
■          Commitment (8)
■          Dependable, reliable, integrity (7)
■          Initiative (6)
■         Ability to put self interest on hold for others (6)
■          Hard worker (5)
■           Interpersonal skills (4)
■          Team orientation (3)
■          Trusting, trustworthy (3)
■           Some other mentioned strengths: self starter, strong values, ethical, experimenting

Areas Needing Improvement

■         Sensitivity to others, sharp judgement, being perceptive (8)
■         Communication skills, verbal, presentation skills (6)
■         Assertiveness, decisive, forceful (6)
■         Listening skills (4)
■         Time management (3)
■         Clarity of Thought (3)
■         Idealistic (2)
■         Appreciate viewpoint of others (1)



An action plan for such an individual would be based on utilizing his strengths, leveraging on them to minimize areas needing improvement. Accordingly, three main areas the individual needs to focus attention on are:

1.  Interpersonal sensitivity
2.  Listening skills
3.   Communication skills

Interpersonal sensitivity: a deeper and detailed enquiry into the open ended portion of feedback points to the fact that the individual is not very receptive to other, moods, feelings, state of mind or their expectations. He is either weak in recognizing such cues or interprets them incorrectly. At times, he is not able to gauge correctly when people are not interested in the discourse/ conversation nor is he able to judge their levels of enthusiasm at a particular moment

Listening skills and communication: can be read in line with the above explanation. There are clear indications that the subject, not being strong at sensing cues, continues as before, thereby giving less space for others to contribute or share their opinions. There are other comments in the open ended feedback indicating lack of openness to accepting or listening to others' opinions and ideas, as well as on communication.

Listening is an essential part of communication. The subject is not very open to others' ideas and at times bulldozes his opinions.

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

■ Always be conscious about the fact that others may want to express their ideas and opinions. At the end of every group interaction, ask yourself if all members have been heard or not.
■  Make efforts to invite others to share their views and ideas in every interaction.
■  Ask for feedback from some team members on moments when you overlooked others' ideas or were too forceful.
■  Remind your close peers to give you a hint when you miss out on opportunities to listen or fail to be sensitive to cues of others.
■ Improve on being sensitive to others, behavior, attitudes, etc. by being observant and verifying your feelings with either some close friends or the third parties themselves.
■   Public Speaking course would help improve communicating skills.
■  Use your strengths (of being approachable, enthusiasm, initiative taking) to work on the areas needing improvement. Integrity and dependability being some of your main strengths, harnessing support from others will be easy. 

Needless to say, the students found the feedback as well as the recommendations very useful, and the experience a novel one. The exercise helped them know and realize the impact they were having on each other, as well as provide specific behavior to be focused on, which could enhance their effectiveness. Most appreciated part was the fact that such sensitive and essential data was able to be elicited in a most non-threatening manner, one that facilitated learning in the process.





    Author

    Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.

    Archives

    August 2013

    Categories

    All