What About 360 Feedback?

Most leadership performance and development processes now include some type of 360 degree feedback instrument. These tools are important. However, 360s have a limited scope and only tell part of the story. They describe what and how performance behaviors are observed – citing external perceptions from performance stakeholders. Frequently, feedback from 360s alone creates confusion or disconnects for the recipient. The difference between a leader’s intent and impact on others can be substantial.

The CDR 3-Dimensional Assessment Suite®, especially the CDR Risk Assessment developmental feedback, digs beyond 360° feedback and reveals the "whys" behind performance behaviors. The CDR 3-D Suite cuts to the chase by identifying individual character traits, inherent personality-based risks, and motivational needs that trigger performance behaviors. This helps leader feedback recipient to understand the root causes of their behaviors and why these behaviors manifest in the ways they do in various situations. The mysteries, gaps, and confusion created by 360 feedback are cleared up by the CDR 3-D Suite. Developmental paths are clearly revealed when an individual understands their own inherent risks, strengths, acumen, and motivational needs.

For example, consider a leader who receives a “needs improvement” rating for innovation. Given this feedback, developmental plans may be made to send this leader to a “creativity” class or to participate in a “think tank” or the like. However, in digging into the Risk Assessment results, we often find a myriad of explanations that would make the prescribed creativity training the wrong course of action – wasting time and money while resulting in further frustration.

By measuring one’s risk factors, we are able to determine the root cause behind one’s reluctance or inability to innovate. Perhaps there is a high risk of “Worrier” where an individual has a fear of failure and over-processes or overworks all issues and decisions. Or, frequently, we find that leaders who are Cynics tend to shoot down or prevent ideas from taking root by virtue of their constant negativity, doubting, and nay saying. By identifying these types of characteristics (and most people have several combinations of risks) we can narrow the focus of development, action, and determination of the most effective tactics to improve and minimize the risks from interfering with individual and team performance.

When equipped with the essential, robust, and accurate insights about one’s own inherent tendencies, leaders are able to focus on their strengths, understand and manage their risks more productively, and re-fortify relationships. Leaders can then concentrate on building a more positive and productive work environment, designing developmental action plans that are accurate and productive, and on concentrating on those aspects of work they find most rewarding and fulfilling.

~ Nancy & Kim

Leadership Development ROI is not Greek to me: Let us revisit

Leader rating and development programs are among the hardest to sell with ROI. A dollar spent on assessment may save three dollars in retention. A dollar invested in training may lower recruiting costs by five times that amount. The good news is that better-developed leaders produce superior results, thus increasing compensation, and lowering turnover. Word gets out, and top talent begins pursuing the company rather than the other way around.

Top Management will generally be committed to implementing the strategic changes to transform the enterprise and increase shareholder value. Jay Cross of the Internet Group reminds us that the top-line can be just as important as the bottom-line. Top-line = sales, revenues, out-surviving the competition, increasing market share, building brand, staying in the game and holding on long enough to score, reinventing the business. Executives focus on two things: strategy and outfoxing the competition.

The Saratoga Institute found that the key factors separating high-performing companies from those that try to compete are:

• Balanced Values—a mix of human and financial goals
• Commitment—organizational stick-to-it-iveness, and
• Culture—defined by the ability to attract, retain, and motivate talent.

Leadership development programs are valuable because they impact all of the above.

Questions to Answer

Prior to implementation, specific issues should be addressed to prepare an organization for ROI justifications post-implementation. These a priori issues include the following:

• What problem areas were identified? What are you trying to improve on? Do they relate to high turnover, origination expansion, etc.—once determined, value can be assigned.
• What behaviors/attitudes/skills are being targeted for change?
• Why is the change required—what difference would it make if the program were not done at all?What would be the contributions made to the business by these changes? (such as—improved productivity, better communication, improved morale, increased sales, decreased turnover)
• Establish a baseline measure of current performance and clearly indicate how performance will be tracked and reported on.
• Determine what will pass as persuasive evidence that the program produced the desired results.

We can extrapolate behavior changes into measurable business once the above are codified. Look for significant differences in performance ratings—from Time 1 to Time 2. These differences might be in new product development, new clients/business, teams working together in more productive ways, increased client satisfaction and retention, etc. All of the aforementioned are potentially value-laden and will assist in making the Business Case.

Next Steps

Once the questions bulleted above are answered, an ROI research plan can be designed for determining the business value of the leadership development program.

It is easy to put a dollar-figure on a hard benefit (e.g., new clients) but difficult for a “soft” benefit (e.g., improved morale). If an item simply can’t be quantified, it can be included in a nonfinancial analysis and ranked among the financial impacts. Further, two similar departments, one that participates in the program and one that does not, can be compared on relevant variables. A customer survey might also be advised to capture perceived differences.

~Kim

myLADR Webinar Invitation Reminder

This is a reminder that our clients and colleagues have been invited to an online tour on February 4, 2009 at 11:00 am CST introducing myLADR which is a one-of-a-kind advanced personalization front-end for any Learning Management System.

MyLADR begins with comprehensive individual assessment and coaching feedback. This is a custom micro-to-macro system that carves out individual learning plans linked to business needs and competency requirements. The system makes suggestions, provides for interaction and choices and approvals, produces management reports and budgets and tracks individual, department and organization development activities. Also included in the system are required learning segments such as orientation, ethics, harassment, etc.

The system, offered by CDR and partner companies, is ideally suited to provide reports for succession planning, training needs analysis, and development activities. Private industry and government organizations will benefit from this unmatched system that offers a wide array of standard or customization and branding features.

Please call us 1-888-406-0100 or email ilenoir@cdrassessmentgroup.com to register or if you have any questions! We hope you can arrange to join us for this exceptional tour and demo session.

Selection testing and “faking”: Is this still being debated in your organization?

Well, it shouldn’t be.

A rather seasoned debate has existed, for about fifty years now, concerning job applicants and their propensity to intentionally “fake” personality assessments used in selection screening. Many have tried to answer the question of frequency of faking. Most of the research has used either scales designed to measure response distortion embedded within the assessment or comparisons of applicant to non-applicant samples on assessment results.

I’ve always felt the concerns about applicant faking were a bit over-blown primarily because the base rate for cheating in general is fairly low. It did occur to me a few years ago that a better way to estimate faking frequency would be to re-test people who were assessed as part of a selection process. I’ve had this on my list of research to do ever since. Thank goodness some outstanding scientist-practitioners have finally accomplished just this study.

In a study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, Ellingson* et. al., identified over seven hundred individuals who had completed the California Psychological Inventory for both selection and development purposes. So to put it more simply: A group of people who took the CPI as part of an employment screening process then again sometime later for professional development purposes.

After working the statistical magic needed to analyze the data, the researchers show that there is indeed very little faking going on in the selection context. The bottom-line? Applicant response distortion amounts to an increase in personality scale means of approximately .075 standard deviation units—or a score change of 14.3 to 14.6 on a Flexibility scale. In short, the difference is not at all practically significant.

I encourage those so inclined to read the entire research paper, it is a fine piece of work. I hope that others will follow with similar studies using different personality instruments. In the meantime, it really may be time to put to rest this “faking” issue once and for all.


~Kim

________________________________________
*: Ellingson, J. E., Sackett, P. R., & Connelly, B. S. (2007) Personality assessment across selection and development contexts: Insights into response distortion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 386-395.

2009 Coaching Survey Results

2009 Sherpa Executive Coaching Survey

Survey results from their fourth annual survey based on 1,500 respondents. To download the complete survey go to:

http://www.sherpacoaching.com/surveyfp.html

In addition to a wide variation in the US and Canada on the question of certification I would like to hear you thoughts on their definition of executive coaching, and what executive coaches “as a general rule do not” do (bolded below). Quoting from page 4 of the survey:

“Executive coaching means: regular meetings between a business leader and a trained

facilitator, designed to produce positive changes in business behavior in a limited time frame.”

This definition clarifies:

- who coaches are—trained facilitators (not consultants, counselors, trainers or mentors.)

- what coaches do—produce positive changes in business behavior.

- when things happen—on a set schedule with a limited time frame.

In 2007, the European Foundation for Management Development adopted this definition in communication with its members in seventy countries.

Executive coaches, as a general rule,

- do not share their own experience (as do mentors),

- do not give advice (as do consultants),

- do not impart specific knowledge (as trainers do) and

- avoid personal issues. (the role of a counselor or therapist or life coach)

I disagree with most of these “general rules” especially when we are using an assessment like the CDR and feedback.

In the Sherpa Executive Coaching Survey, I disagree with their position that “in person” coaching was better than by telephone. Personally have had great results using the telephone when using CDR —what are your thoughts?

Matt M. Starcevich, Ph.D.

Matt –

Thanks for submitting this link to the survey and for sharing your insights.

I also disagree with most of the 2007 European Foundation for Management Development’s Executive Coaching Guidelines you sited.

Specifically, executive coaches may share experiences – while this needs to be limited – sometimes real world stories can be useful. Next, when using assessments and having clear insights regarding a persons strengths, risks, vulnerabilities, challenges and gathering information about their performance, it is the role of the coach to explore and sometimes offer ideas and potential advice when appropriate. Last, knowledge can be shared though the coach certainly does not want to become a talking head so to speak.

I do agree that executive coaches need to stay away from personal issues and if a client is obviously having significant emotional or personal problems, it is time to suggest they talk to a counselor/therapist or EAP advisor.

Again Matt – thanks for sharing!

Nancy

Welcome -- What Are Your Hot Issues?

Welcome to our Assessment Advisor Blog. We invite you to ask questions, provide suggestions, share interesting assessment cases and use this blog to support your consulting, coaching and talent development initiatives.

To get things moving, topics you might find of interest:

1. Interventions -- leaders who don't fit their roles --and what to do about it
2. Telephone feedback -- why and how it works as well as in person coaching
3. Profile examinations: "High Likeability Floaters", "Fakers (Spinners)", Egotist/Pleaser Leaders, etc.
4. Upward Selection Screening-- Assessing your "would be" boss/executive before taking a new postion
5. Benefits of Using Assessments During Down Economy

Hopefully, the above nuggets will spark your interest in participating in this blog by discussing your issues, questions and sharing your success stories as well. We welcome (CDR) certified coaches, other executive coaches, leaders and those with a professional interest or calling in talent and leader development.

Have a great day!

Nancy

Gender Differences in Leadership

What do you think?

Despite expertise and education, women are simply not gaining access to top corporate positions in numbers that correlate to readiness. Consider:

· Under 2 percent of the top five earners at Fortune 500 and 1000 companies are women
· 97.5% of CEOs of large corporations are men
· The majority of college graduates are women

Contrary to popular beliefs and politically correct assumptions, IMPORTANT gender differences do exist. When comparing men and women leaders’ inherent personality traits and risk factors for derailment with validated psychometric assessment instruments*, the averaged results reveal differences that matter.

Women tend to be warmer, compassionate, supportive, and better at building and maintaining relationships. Unfortunately, they have more significant risks as “Worriers” which translates to being cautious, slow decision makers who tend to over-analyze because of the fear of failure.

Men, on the other hand, tend to be more candid and direct and may be more strategic than operationally inclined. Men have more significant risk factors as Egotists, Rule Breakers, and Upstagers. This means men are more outspoken, bold, arrogant, prankish, willing to challenge, stubborn, limelight seeking, and tend to fight (and succeed) more intensely on the corporate ladders.

So, it turns out that under stress or when the heat is on, men tend to be more aggressive, outspoken, and argumentative. Men tend to "move against" the "opposition" or those in their way. On the other hand, (many) women -- under the same tension or conflict will go back and re-study or over-analyze rather than fight for turf or power. With women where there is a greater instance of "worrier" profiles, they will move away from the conflict or stress point.

These "tendancies" are based on averages on the leader profiles of the research group. (Women N=120; Men N=111)

How does this mesh with your experience? Your thoughts?