Report on 360-Degree Feedback for EDLP...

Running head: Report on 360-degree feedback 1

Report on 360-Degree Feedback for EDLP 703

Philip W. Holmes

Virginia Commonwealth University – EdD (Leadership) Cohort 4

Report on 360-degree feedback 2

Survey Process

This assignment requires 360-degree feedback from eight participants: the author, the

author’s manager, three peers, and three direct reports. The author’s current position entails

project-specific leadership but no actual direct reports, so participation from three direct reports

was impossible. The author therefore compensated by doubling the number of his peer raters

from three to six.

Of the original group of six peers whose participation was requested, only three were able

to submit feedback. So, three additional “extended team” peers were then asked to participate.

These peers are colleagues who do not report to the author’s manager, but who perform the same

job as the author and have worked with the author in the past. All three of these “extended team”

peers were able to submit surveys.

The author was concerned that a survey instrument like REDCap would not get past his

employer’s internet firewall, so he sent the survey to his respondents as a Word document. Their

responses were then transferred to an Excel spreadsheet for compilation and analysis.

One of the author’s peers did not indicate responses for seven items in the survey: one

item in the Sensitivity segment, one item in the Judgment segment, four items in the

Organizational Ability segment, and one item in the Written Communication segment. The

respondent did not indicate why these items were skipped, so the author cannot determine if they

were skipped in error or if perhaps the respondent for some other reason did not feel qualified to

respond to them.

Finally, the author’s manager noted more than one source of evidence for ten items. No

other respondent noted more than one source of evidence for any one item.


Analysis Process

The author is the lead learning consultant on several learning projects for various lines of

business, and frequently partners with his manager to ensure completion of deliverables. His

peers have concomitant responsibilities for similar projects that do not overlap with the author’s

projects. As these peers do not often interact with the author, it was appropriate to aggregate

their responses. For the purposes of this report, responses were therefore analyzed by role: the

author’s own responses, his manager’s responses, and his peers’ aggregated responses.

Summary Overview of Median Responses

Respondents were asked to give feedback on items on ten different factors, grouped

within four segments: Leadership in My Field (Setting Direction, Teamwork, and Sensitivity),

Resolving Complex Problems (Judgment, Results Orientation, and Organizational Ability),

Communication (Oral Communication and Written Communication), and Developing Self and

Others (Developing Others and Understanding My Own Strengths and Weaknesses). The survey

instrument used a Likert scale with the following gradations: 1 (Ineffective), 2 (Minimally

Effective), 3 (Satisfactory), 4 (Highly Effective), and 5 (Outstandingly Effective).

No definitions were provided to help the author or his respondents determine the

differences between these ratings; however, in the author’s case, the medians of all responses

ranged between 3 (Satisfactory) and 5 (Outstandingly Effective), as is discussed below. In

general, the author’s self-rating responses aligned with the responses of his peers and with his

manager. For nine of the ten factors in the survey, the medians of the author’s self-responses

were at or just one point below the medians of the responses of his manager and the aggregated

responses of his peers. In only one case – the category of Written Communications – was the

author’s median self-ratings higher than the medians of the ratings of either his peers or his


manager. For this factor, the perceptions of the author and his peers aligned (both the author and

his peers rated the author’s performance as four points out of five); however, his manager rated

the author as three and a half (3.5) out of five.

Comparison of Self Responses and All Other Responses

Figure 1 compares the medians of the author’s self-responses, his manager’s responses,

and the aggregated responses from his six peers. In every case, the discrepancy between the

author’s self-assessment and the assessment of either his manager or his peers is one point or less

on a five-point Likert scale. In three cases (Sensitivity, Organizational Ability, and Developing

Others), the median responses exactly agree.

Figure 1. Summary of All Ten 360-Degree Factors.

Setting

Dire

ction

Teamwork

Sensit

ivity

Judgm

ent

Results

Orie

ntatio

n

Organiz

ation

al Abil

ity

Oral C

ommun

icatio

n

Written

Com

munica

tion

Develo

ping O

thers

Unders

tandin

g Stre

ngths

/Weak

nesses

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

4 4 4 4 4

3

5

4 44.5

3.54 4

3 3 3

4 4 4 44

5

4 4 4

3

43.5

4

5

S u mmary of a l l ten 360 -d egree fac tors

Peers Self Manager

The results for Setting Direction, Judgment, Results Orientation, and Understanding

Strengths/Weaknesses – where the medians of the author’s self-ratings are lower than the


medians of the ratings of his peers and/or his manager – may reflect what the author’s Human

Resources team at Bank of America would call “hidden strengths.” That is, abilities that the

author does not discern (and therefore may not use as often as he could), but which are discerned

by his manager and by his colleagues.

Comparison of Sources of Evidence

Figure 2 shows the frequency of the sources of evidence used by the author. Personal

Observation and Reports from Others were clearly preferred, and were tied at 23 of 58 points

each. Enterprise Projects and Enterprise Documents were far less often used as the basis for

rating evidence, and were also essentially tied at seven and five points, respectively.

The author has historically received above average performance ratings for job activities

related to building, sustaining, and leveraging relationships with peers in his client groups and

within the Global Learning Organization. His strong relationship building skills may account for

the preponderance of “personal” (i.e., non-documented, non-project-related) sources of evidence

reflected in the figure below.

Figure 2. Evidence Sources – Self Ratings.

Reports from Others

Personal Observation

Enterprise Documents

Enterprise Projects

Other Sources

No Evidence

0 5 10 15 20 25

EVIDENCE SOURCES - SELF RATINGS


Figure 3 shows the sources of evidence used by the author’s manager. Note the

overwhelming preponderance of evidence from Personal Observation (53 points out of a

possible 58). While it should not be surprising to see a supervisor use Personal Observation to

determine a direct report’s performance (observation being a key component of effective

supervision), this is still a very strong bias in favor of this method.

Recall as well that the author’s manager provided more than one source of evidence for

ten items (thus, the item total below is 65, rather than the expected 58). In all cases of multiple

citation, one of the sources cited was Personal Observation.

Figure 3. Evidence Sources – Supervisor.

Reports from Others

Personal Observation

Enterprise Documents

Enterprise Projects

Other Sources

No Evidence

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

EVIDENCE SOURCES - SUPERVISOR

Examination of Corroborations Within Each Factor

The author examined each of the ten factors to determine key areas where the author’s

self-report rating was either confirmed or not confirmed by the ratings of his manager or his

peers. Given the general alignment of the author’s self-report ratings with all other ratings, the


results of this analysis were less meaningful on an item-by-item basis than they would have been

had there been wider disparity among the ratings across all three roles.

Because respondents were given no descriptions of the ratings, subjectivity may be an

issue. We should not assume, for example, that what rater X intended to mean by Satisfactory is

the same thing as what rater Y intended with that same rating, given that neither had a clear

description of Satisfactory to guide them. Thus, one should be careful here when making

assumptions about whether respondents confirm or do not confirm each other’s perceptions.

The author has reviewed many 360-degree feedback reports with his own clients, and

takes the stance that individual ratings are small and unpredictable data points; in fact, the entire

360-degree report is just one data point, representing a set of perceptions at one point in time.

Leadership in My Field: Setting Direction

Figure 4 shows the items for the Leadership in My Field: Setting Direction category, the

individual item ratings from each peer (and the median across all items and peers), the author’s

self-ratings (and median response across all items), and the manager’s ratings (and median

response across all items). When median responses only are examined (the boxes in grey),

confirmation is obtained for this category; the author’s self-rating of 3.5 is only half of a point

below the ratings from his aggregated peers (4) and his manager (4).

Given the alignment of the median responses, one is not surprised to see a general

alignment of the individual items; however, there were some disagreements among raters,

ranging from slight (one point) to possibly significant (two points or more).

For this figure and all figures going forward, ratings in green agree with the author’s

ratings exactly. Ratings in orange differ from the author’s ratings by one point in either

direction. Ratings in red differ by two points or more. Given the previously noted lack of


descriptions for the five ratings, the author is not comfortable making broad statements about

whether a particular rating confirms or does not confirm his self-rating; however, potentially

fruitful areas for discussion lie within the items in red, where discrepancies of two points or more

can be found.

Figure 4. Ratings and Medians for Leadership in My Field: Setting Direction.

Peer

1

Peer

2

Peer

3

Peer

4

Peer

5

Peer

6

Peer

Med

ian

Self

Self

Med

ian

Man

ager

Mgr

Med

ian

Q # Question Description Category P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 Self Mgr

1I articulate a vis ion related to my profess iona l fi eld

Leadership in My Field: Setti ng Direction 5 5 2 3 3 4 4 4 3.5 5 4

2I articulate high performance expectations for mysel f

Leadership in My Field: Setti ng Direction 5 5 4 4 3 3

peer median 3

self median 4

mgr median

3I encourage improvement in my profess ional fi eld

Leadership in My Field: Setti ng Direction 5 5 3 5 3 4 4 4

4 I set clear measurable objectivesLeadership in My Field: Setti ng Direction 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 5

5 I generate enthus iasm toward common goalsLeadership in My Field: Setti ng Direction 5 4 5 3 4 5 5 4

6

I seek to develop al l iances outs ide my immediate work environment to support high qua l ity outcomes


7I acknowledge achievement or accompl ishments


8 I seek commitment to a course of actionLeadership in My Field: Setti ng Direction 4 3 5 3 3 3 3 4

Effectiveness RatingEffectiveness

RatingEffectiveness

Rating

Leadership in My Field: Teamwork

Figure 5 shows the items for the Leadership in My Field: Teamwork category, with the

same breakdown as in Figure 4. When median responses only are examined (the boxes in grey),

confirmation is obtained for this category; the author’s self-rating of four aligns exactly with his

peers and is only one point below the rating of his manager.

When the author’s self-report ratings are viewed in relation to his manager’s ratings at the

individual item level, there is confirmation of only one item in the category (item 14, I act to

maintain direction or focus to achieve the team’s goals).

Potentially fruitful areas for discussion lie within the items in red, where discrepancies of

two points or more can be found.


Figure 5. Ratings and Medians for Leadership in My Field: Teamwork.

Peer

1

Peer

2

Peer

3

Peer

4

Peer

5

Peer

6

Peer

Med

ian

Self

Self

Med

ian

Man

ager

Mgr

Med

ian


9 I support the ideas of team members Leadership in My Field: Teamwork 4 5 5 4 3 4 4 3 4 5 5

10 I encourage team members to share ideas Leadership in My Field: Teamwork 5 5 4 3 3 4peer

median 4self

median 5mgr

median

11I contribute ideas toward accompl ishing the team’s goals Leadership in My Field: Teamwork 3 5 5 5 4 4 4 5

12I ass ist in performing the operational tasks of the team Leadership in My Field: Teamwork 3 5 3 4 4 3 4 5

13 I seek input from team members Leadership in My Field: Teamwork 1 5 5 3 3 4 4 5

14I act to mainta in di rection or focus to achieve the team’s goa ls Leadership in My Field: Teamwork 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4

15 I seek consensus among team members Leadership in My Field: Teamwork 3 4 5 5 3 3 3 4


RatingEffectiveness

Rating

Leadership in My Field: Sensitivity

Figure 6 shows the items for the Leadership in My Field: Sensitivity category, with the

same breakdown as has been noted for the previous categories. When median responses only are

examined, confirmation is obtained for this category; the author’s median self-rating is the same

as the median ratings of his peers and manager. When the author’s self-report ratings are

compared with all other ratings at the item level, discrepancies emerge; however, nearly all of

these discrepancies are slight (one point only). Note that the cell in black denotes an item that

was skipped by one of the peer raters.

Figure 6. Ratings and Medians for Leadership in My Field: Sensitivity.

Peer

1

Peer

2

Peer

3

Peer

4

Peer

5

Peer

6

Peer

Med

ian

Self

Self

Med

ian

Man

ager

Mgr

Med

ian


16I intera ct profes s ional ly and tactful ly with others Leadership in My Field: Sens itivi ty 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4

45 4

17I el ici t percepti ons , fee l ings , or concerns of others Leadership in My Field: Sens itivi ty 4 4 5 4 3 3

peer median 4

self median 4

mgr median

18I voice disagreement wi thout creating unnecessary confl ict Leadership in My Field: Sens itivi ty 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4

19I communicate necessary information to appropriate persons in a timely manner Leadership in My Field: Sens itivi ty 4 4 4 3 3 3 5

20

I express written, verba l , and/or nonverbal recogni tion of feel ings , needs , or concerns in responding to others Leadership in My Field: Sens itivi ty 3 5 5 4 3 4 4 4


RatingEffectiveness

Rating


Resolving Complex Problems: Judgment

Figure 7 shows the items for the Resolving Complex Problems: Judgment category, with

the same breakdown as has been noted for the previous categories. When median responses only

are examined, confirmation is obtained; the author’s median self-rating is equal to his peers’

median rating, and is just one point lower than the median rating of his manager. Potentially

fruitful areas for discussion lie within the items in red, where discrepancies of two points or more

can be found.

Figure 7. Ratings and Medians for Resolving Complex Problems: Judgment.

Peer

1

Peer

2

Peer

3

Peer

4

Peer

5

Peer

6

Peer

Med

ian

Self

Self

Med

ian

Man

ager

Mgr

Med

ian


21 I support the ideas of team membersResolving Complex Problems: Judgment 4 5 5 4 3 4 4 3

45 5

22 I encourage team members to share ideasResolving Complex Problems: Judgment 5 5 4 3 3 4

peer median 4

self median 5

mgr median

23I contribute ideas toward accompl ishing the team’s goals

Resolving Complex Problems: Judgment 3 5 5 5 4 4 4 5

24 I communicate a clear rationale for a decis ionResolving Complex Problems: Judgment 5 4 5 4 4 3 3 3

25 I seek additional informationResolving Complex Problems: Judgment 2 5 4 3 3 4 3 4

26I use information sources that are relevant to an i ssue


27I ask fol low-up questions to cla rify information


28 I seek to identify the cause of a problemResolving Complex Problems: Judgment 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4

29 I see relationships among issuesResolving Complex Problems: Judgment 3 3 5 4 4 4 4


RatingEffectiveness

Rating

Resolving Complex Problems: Results Orientation

Figure 8 shows the items for the Resolving Complex Problems: Results Orientation

category, with the same breakdown as has been noted for the previous categories. When median

responses only are examined, confirmation is obtained; the author’s median self-rating is just one

point lower than the median ratings of his peers and manager. Potential areas of exploration lie

within the items in red, where rating discrepancies of two points or more are found.


Figure 8. Ratings and Medians for Resolving Complex Problems: Results Orientation.

Peer

1

Peer

2

Peer

3

Peer

4

Peer

5

Peer

6

Peer

Med

ian

Self

Self

Med

ian

Man

ager

Mgr

Med

ian


30 I take action to move issues toward closureResolving Complex Problems: Resul ts Orientation 5 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 4

31 I initiate action for improvementResolving Complex Problems: Resul ts Orientation 5 3 4 3 4 4

peer median 4

self median 4

mgr median

32I determine the cri teria that indicate a problem or i ssue is resolved

Resolving Complex Problems: Resul ts Orientation 3 3 5 3 4 3 3 3

33I cons ider the impl ications of a decis ion before taking action

Resolving Complex Problems: Resul ts Orientation 5 4 3 5 4 4 3 4

34 I make decis ions on the bas is of informationResolving Complex Problems: Resul ts Orientation 2 4 4 3 4 3 3 4

35 I relate individual i s sues to the larger pictureResolving Complex Problems: Resul ts Orientation 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 3


RatingEffectiveness

Rating

Resolving Complex Problems: Organizational Ability

Figure 9 shows the items for the Resolving Complex Problems: Organizational Ability

category, with the same breakdown as has been noted. When median responses are examined,

confirmation is obtained for this category; the author’s median self-rating is the same as the

median ratings of his peers and manager. Potential areas of exploration lie within the items in

red, where rating discrepancies of two points or more are found. Black items were skipped.

Figure 9. Ratings and Medians for Resolving Complex Problems: Organizational Ability.

Peer

1

Peer

2

Peer

3

Peer

4

Peer

5

Peer

6

Peer

Med

ian

Self

Self

Med

ian

Man

ager

Mgr

Med

ian


36 I delegate respons ibi l ities to othersResolving Complex Problems: Organizationa l Abi l i ty 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3

37 I plan to monitor delegated respons ibi l itiesResolving Complex Problems: Organizationa l Abi l i ty 3 4 3 3 3

peer median 3

self median 3

mgr median

38 I develop action plansResolving Complex Problems: Organizationa l Abi l i ty 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 4

39 I monitor progressResolving Complex Problems: Organizationa l Abi l i ty 3 5 3 4 3 3 4

40I establ i sh timel ines, schedules , or mi lestones

Resolving Complex Problems: Organizationa l Abi l i ty 3 5 3 4 3 3 3

41 I prepare for meetingsResolving Complex Problems: Organizationa l Abi l i ty 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3

42 I use ava i lable resourcesResolving Complex Problems: Organizationa l Abi l i ty 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4


RatingEffectiveness

Rating


Communication: Oral Communication

Figure 10 shows the items for the Communication: Oral Communication category, with

the same breakdown as has been noted for the previous categories. When median responses only

are examined, confirmation is obtained for this category; the author’s median self-rating is the

same as the median rating of his manager, and is one point below the median rating of his peers.

This is clearly the author’s strongest category: the median response from his peers is five on a

five point Likert scale.

Figure 10. Ratings and Medians for Communication: Oral Communication.

Peer

1

Peer

2

Peer

3

Peer

4

Peer

5

Peer

6

Peer

Med

ian

Self

Self

Med

ian

Man

ager

Mgr

Med

ian


43 I demonstrate effective presentation ski l l sCommunication: Oral Communication 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 4

44 I speak articulatelyCommunication: Oral Communication 5 4 5 4 4 4

peer median 4

self median 3

mgr median

45I use proper grammar, pronunciation, diction, and syntax

Communication: Oral Communication 5 4 5 5 4 5 4 5

46I ta i lor messages to meet the needs of unique audiences


47

I clearly present thoughts and ideas in one-on-one, smal l group, and formal presentation setti ngs



RatingEffectiveness

Rating

Communication: Written Communication

Figure 11 shows the items for the Communication: Written Communication category,

with the same breakdown as has been noted for the previous categories. When median responses

only are examined, confirmation is obtained for this category; the author’s median self-rating is

the same as the median rating of his peers, and is only a half-point below the median rating of his

manager.

The individual item ratings here are among the highest in the 360-degree feedback report.

This is clearly another strong and consistent leadership category across all raters for the author.


Figure 11. Ratings and Medians for Communication: Written Communication.

Peer

1

Peer

2

Peer

3

Peer

4

Peer

5

Peer

6

Peer

Med

ian

Self

Self

Med

ian

Man

ager

Mgr

Med

ian


48 I wri te conciselyCommunication: Written Communication 4 4 5 4 3 4 4 4 3 3.5

49 I demonstrate technica l profi ciency in writingCommunication: Written Communication 5 4 5 4 4 4

peer median 4

self median 4

mgr median

50 I express ideas clearly in writingCommunication: Written Communication 3 4 4 5 4 4 4 4

51 I wri te appropriately for different audiencesCommunication: Written Communication 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3


RatingEffectiveness

Rating

Developing Self and Others: Developing Others

Figure 12 shows the items for the Developing Self and Others: Developing Others

category, with the same breakdown as has been noted for the previous categories. When median

responses only are examined, confirmation is obtained for this category; the author’s median

self-rating is the same as the median rating of his peers and his manager.

Individual item ratings are closely aligned across all raters. There are no discrepancies

greater than one point in either direction in the manager’s ratings or in the aggregated ratings

from the author’s peers.

Figure 12. Ratings and Medians for Developing Self and Others: Developing Others.

Peer

1

Peer

2

Peer

3

Peer

4

Peer

5

Peer

6

Peer

Med

ian

Self

Self

Med

ian

Man

ager

Mgr

Med

ian


52 I share expertise gained through experienceDeveloping Sel f and Others: Developing Others 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4

53I encourage others to change behaviors that inhibi t profess ional growth

Developing Sel f and Others: Developing Others 4 5 3 4 3 4

peer median 4

self median 4

mgr median

54I recommend specifi c developmental s trategies

Developing Sel f and Others: Developing Others 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 5

55I ask others for their perceptions of their profess iona l development needs


56I seek agreement on specifi c actions to be taken for developmental growth



RatingEffectiveness

Rating


Developing Self and Others: Understanding My Own Strengths and Weaknesses

Figure 13 shows the items for the final Developing Self and Others: Understanding My

Own Strengths and Weaknesses category, with the same breakdown as has been noted for the

previous categories. When median responses only are examined, confirmation is obtained for

this category; the author’s median self-rating is one half-point below the median rating from his

peers and one point below the rating from his manager.

Individual item ratings are closely aligned across all raters. There are no discrepancies

greater than one point in either direction in the manager’s ratings or in the aggregated ratings

from the author’s peers. This is clearly another strong and consistent category for the author.

Figure 13. Ratings and Medians for Developing Self and Others: Understanding My Own

Strengths and Weaknesses.Pe

er 1

Peer

2

Peer

3

Peer

4

Peer

5

Peer

6

Peer

Med

ian

Self

Self

Med

ian

Man

ager

Mgr

Med

ian


57 I recognize my own strengths

Developing Sel f and Others: Understanding My Own Strengths and Weaknesses 5 5 5 3 4 4 4.5 4 4 5 5

58 I recognize my own developmental needs

Developing Sel f and Others: Understanding My Own Strengths and Weaknesses 5 5 5 3 4 4

peer median 4

self median 5

mgr median


RatingEffectiveness

Rating

Conclusion

The author received 360-degree feedback on ten different leadership factors, grouped

within four segments, from six peers and his direct manager. Responses were analyzed by role:

the author’s own responses, his manager’s responses, and his peers’ aggregated responses.

Overall, there is much in this 360-degree feedback report to celebrate. Ratings were

generally consistent and aligned, with no median ratings below three on the five-point Likert

scale (thus, all of the author’s median ratings were either Satisfactory, Highly Effective, or


Outstandingly Effective). As these rating categories were not otherwise defined, rater

subjectivity is an issue; however, the author concluded that individual items where the author’s

self-rating differed two points or more from the ratings of his peers or his manager were likely

candidates for fruitful exploration, and those items were noted throughout this report. The author

and his manager relied primarily on Personal Observation or Reports from Others as sources of

evidence for their ratings.

The author consistently rated himself at or below the ratings of his peers and his manager,

which suggests that in some cases the author may undervalue or underestimate his strengths.

Analysis of median ratings from all raters, and across all ten factors, indicated that the author’s

clearest strengths are found in Teamwork, Oral Communication, and Understanding My Own

Strengths and Weaknesses. The author’s clearest opportunities for development are all found in

the Resolving Complex Problems leadership category: Judgment, Results Orientation, and

Organizational Ability.

Report on 360-Degree Feedback for EDLP...

Documents

Transcript of Report on 360-Degree Feedback for EDLP...