T.E.D.

360 feedback & assessmentsfor senior executives

With an emphasis on

Trust

Executive gravitas

Drivers

What you get?

Assessment / Data:

• Trust toward him/her.

• Executive gravitas.

• Drivers.

• Trust towards the organization.

And also

• Character.

• Thinking style.

• Leadership style. Crowd/Change leadership.

• Coaching others/teams.

• Business development.

• Alignment

• Risks when stretched

Recommendations:

• Actions to go from good to great or to bridge gaps.

• Readiness for an assignment/role.

• Best fit to roles /career choices.

• Best type of support (mentoring, assignment, peer coaching, training, coaching, ...)

• Feedback that is candid and “So what” focused.

The process:

Pre-work:• 360 feedback about Trust and Executive gravitas – 30 min tel. call preceded by a short questionnaire.

• Self assessment of Drivers – 20 min questionnaire.

Interview based assessment with the consultant:• Interview based assessment -3 hours.

• Debrief of the 360 feedback and the sell assessment of drivers - 0.5 hours.

Report – according to your competency framework or our “output” structure.The organization gets:

The raw data of the 360 on Trust and Executive gravitas.Assessment report of a 3 h interview by the consultant.

The executives is the only one to see the Drivers ranking.

Debrief, “So what?” focused:• Call with stakeholders. The focus is, on the organizational context, as much as on the executive.• Call with the executive.

Benefits: enables to

• Propose a tool that can be used easily annually or whenever a boss wants to.

• Act, but avoid a “big” initiatives that require to convince a lot of stakeholders.

• Act, but avoid risks of defensiveness or a feeling of being a target of critic.

• Act, but avoid tor be disruptive or propose add-ons to an executive regular work.

• Act on the two abilities a leader cannot delegate: Trust and Executive gravitas.

• Make the most of the organizational structure rather than invest in designing the perfect one.

• Provide feedback that could be difficult to hear.

• Provide a 360 feedback tool relevant for executives.

• Know if something has changed, after a leadership development program.

• Prioritize, before attending a leadership development program.

• Identify, priority areas of the development of an executive.

• Prepare, the annual performance discussion and development plan.

• Enrich, views in the context of talent reviews, internal promotions.

• Assess the risks, of handing an assignments/role to a executive.

• Have an assessment of executives, that rely on more than on the view of one consultant.

• Enhance, the desire and awareness to grow or change in an executive.

• Enhance, self awareness/knowledge of an executive, in particular about his/her “drivers”.

• Use the same standards when hiring externally or internally.

• Scenario based interviews (thanks to the 360 feedback, the online business case and the 3h

interview.

• Focus on a selection of behaviors (e.g. good form great, ….).

And thus, avoid “competency based interviews”, that do not predict more than flipping a coin. Indeed, for leaders,

character and drivers are differentiators -competencies are price of admission. What matters is not competencies but

how/when/with who you use them. A bit like good intents, most people have competencies but do not always

implement them. Segmentation between competencies can only be subjective and irrelevant because competencies are

interlinked.

• By-pass the need for reference taking.

The latter does not predict more than flipping a coin, says about the references than about the executive, …

Benefits: avoid

• A lack of neutrality / interests in executive search.

• An un-necessarily deep psychological analysis or analysis mainly focused on past performances.

• A lack of concrete tips for development, on-boarding, support by the boss

• A focus elements that cannot be changed/developed. Put the executive in a box/personality type.

• An unclear link to the model of “leadership pipeline”, that underlies most talent/leadership

systems/trainings.

• A lack of opportunity to integrate the input from the resolution of a business case.

• A lot of people doing interviews /involved – instead few but in-depth ones.

• Avoid the use of “personality tests”.

Indeed, there is no proof that one personality type is the best for a job. Personality tests assume that people do not

changes and behave the same in different context, and, use models created for drug dosing purposes. Drivers define what

is the most tempting, and thus future behaviors. With a bit of self-knowledge or maturity we learn to manage and go

beyond our preferences. Social environment / assigned role /abilities compel and shape us, more, to behave in particular

ways, than personality and modify the latter (Milgram, Asch, Zimbardo, …)

How do we approach the topic of Trust?

It is a process:

1. Readiness to trust somebody.2. Desire to trust you, as a person.3. Confidence in entrusting you with doing a particular thing.4. Reinforce the trust given to you.5. Un-conditional trust

9 principles enable you to identify the 1 thing to do:

6. Trust is a linear process, sometimes best addressed in a non-linear manner.7. There is not a one-size-fits-all way to lose trust or rebuild it.8. The trust process is the same for all, but needs to be managed differently each time.9. Trust is about proof, but it is also about imagination.10. To be trustworthy, you do not need to be a perfect person.11. Behaviours that are required in the different steps of the trust process, can seem incompatible.12. Trust is only personal.13. Trust is contextual.

• Blame giving, critic of a person's abilities/character/moral/values, conflict, losing face.

• A disruptive add-on to your regular business activities or a need to review you current tools.

• Simplistic generalizations, by assuming that the solution is a laundry list of behaviours that is applicable to all situations or requires people to be close to perfect.

• Lack of focus, by having an approach that is not truly specific to generating trust but rather to leadership in general and/or is limited to the obvious (transparency, reliability, intimacy, …).

• Neglecting the importance of the receiver´s beliefs/assumptions, by omitting the fact that trust is given to you, and that you therefore might deserve to be trusted buy will not get it because of the others' perceptions / beliefs.

• Assuming that people´s choices only are rational, by omitting that trusting you is a choice and that’s as for any choice the person might make the choice to trust you but not have the sufficient desire or intent to translate it into reality.

• Lack of structure or possibility to be tactical/identify the right questions to ask yourself, by not seeing the achievement of a result such as a person trusting you, as a process.

• Past approaches that have not succeeded in to avoid today's widespread low trust levels.

*e.g. “Leading at the Speed of Trust” –F. Covey, “The trust equation” -Trusted Advisor associated, “The trust edge” -D. Horsager.

Our approach toward trust, avoids:

How do we approach the topic of Executive Gravitas

5 abilities

• Presence, that makes you and others stand out.Non verbal. Verbal.

• Inspiring a self-sustaining motivation in others.Pull the others into believing in themselves/their abilities, and into performing beyond normal. Create true and self-sustaining follower-ship.

• Self-confident humility.Patience and composure. Comfortable with own imperfections. Tribal chief: protective and inclusive, but a tactical manager of your power and the loyalty of others.

• Wise-ness and substance.Purposeful. Simple but not simplistic.

• Decisiveness.Take charge with a focus on action. Ability to stand alone.

How do we approach the topic of Drivers?

Drivers are, the way we handle, our assumptions, unsatisfied needs or fears. Drivers trigger your reality, filters, decisions and behaviours. Drivers define what is “tempting”.In particular for executives, drivers differentiate great vs. goods, fit to role, how and when abilities are used.

In the T.E.D. process, we first ask the executive to identify their drivers when facing different challenges, and then infer their relative ranking as a leader using “comparative analysis”.

We focus on drivers connected to organizational functioning, for example:

• Harmony or bonds.

• Intellectual stimulis or learn.

• Action, result, impact, power or achievement

• Influence or passion or be a change agent.

• Safety, maintain assets, or predictability.

• Success.

Optional: a business case -online

• Based on research on 180 000 executives.• Used by Korn Ferry

• Criteria,– Leadership style– Thinking style– Emotional style

• Benchmarks exist per executive role.Base on the “leadership pipeline” model

• “Styles” are:“how” and “in what sequence” capabilities are used

Our approach to on-boarding / performance plan

The process: 2 days and follow-up calls

• Day 1: Bridge gaps and define the “what” of 100 days plan.

• Day 1: Define the “how” of the 100 days plan

Our approach / value-added

• Mentor/ development advisor.

• Sounding-board and devil´s advocate.

• We assume you hold the solution.

• We do not aim to change you.

• We are co-responsible with you for the desire to act.

• No gloves taken: if we feel you are not on the right track we say so even if feelings.

get hurt or that is not what you want to hear.

• We do not assume your situation is similar to another one we have encountered

Contact:

TEDfeedbackandassessments@gmail.com

Apprendix.

Views about assessment centres

Note: Assessment centres, for current/future leaders:

• The goal: “So what?” developmental discussion –”As-is” data, is only a means.

• Assess and prioritize perceptions (not “realities”) of stakeholders.

• Things that differentiate a great solution

Can be used easily annually or whenever a boss wants to.

Provide feedback that could be difficult to hear.

Scenario based (thanks to the 360 feedback, online business case, “What if” interviews, …).

A solution that can be used both before the need for it (e.g. promotion) and as the need appears.

The value added of the consultant is less about the “As-is” and more about the “Could-be”, the related

risk management, and triggering of desire for growth.

Pre-work /data collection is done online /telephone.

The “So what” discussion is done by a neutral internal employee.

Non-obvious candidates are considered.

• Avoid things that will make the solution create more harm than good:

Assessments done in a “lab”. Labs do not focus on perception of stakeholders are not collected, focus on

fewer moments to infer data from than e.g. a 360 feedback, and are an non-representative context.

De-responsibilize N+1/HR/N. Do it to compensate for lacks in their abilities to assess/feedback.

Be an add-on that does not build on other tools (such as 360 degrees feedback) or that adds new concepts

or re-invents the wheel.

Focus elements that cannot be changed/developed. Put the executive in a box (personality, potential, …).

A lot of people doing interviews /involved – instead of a few but in-depth ones.

Nothing happens afterwards, no support once back to regular work, be a one-time-off event.

Ignore that the predictive validity of most assessment tools/methods is not more than at best flipping a

coin and usually less, and that adding them up does not enhance their predictability.

Ignore that certain abilities are better assessed by some actors (peers, N-1, N+1).

Ignore that some abilities are better assessed by observing real life, or by scenario-based interviews

(crowd leadership, public speaking, teamwork, priority setting, wisdom, …)

…..

…..

Not enough focus on drivers, since they are root-cause to ”shooting myself in the foot”/relapses, ensure

fit, facilitate the “So what” decisions, and define “what is tempting” and thus enables predicting future

choices.

Focus on generic competency libraries rather than on specific behaviors required for a role.

Assume that a 360 feedback cannot be done for external candidates.

See it as a location, rather than as a process/methodology.

• (e.g.) The process

Pre-work: 360 feedback about specific behaviors (KSF/KFF/Value added, good vs. great) of the target role.

(tel. call preceded by a short questionnaire). Self-assessment of Drivers (questionnaire). Eventually online

business cases.

Interview based Developmental assessment with the consultant: 2nd/additional input and feedback + “So

what?” (4 hours)

Debrief with stakeholders