Leaders have always been with us since the creation of the universe and can be found in any industry you find yourself. In fact, where ever there is a gathering of living beings, there exist some form of leadership. How then do we do self-assessment is the question for discussion in this edition of the Director’s Diary.

Variety of tools are available to help promote self-awareness in the context of leadership. One of the most powerful of these is 360° feedback. The term is derived from a full-circle (360°) view of an individual’s leadership behaviours as perceived by peers, subordinates, and supervisor(s). Many types of 360° instruments are on the market, ranging from superficial to highly complex measures of management and leadership practices.

In an ideal world, this type of intervention would be unnecessary, as we would routinely know how others perceived us. The giving and receiving of feed­back would be an everyday occurrence orga. It is highly uncommon for communication inside nizations to be so open that perceptions are regularly exchanged. It is one of those fascinating human traits that we all want constant feedback to know how we are doing and yet we are all so reluctant to give it.

Many companies utilize 360° feedback as a part of their human resource development initiatives. If used wisely, it can strongly enhance leadership behaviours. If done poorly, the use of 360° feed­back can backfire and cause significant damage. I have seen both best and worst practices in the implementation of 360s. An illustration of a best practice is seen in an insurance company that built the 360° instrument rollout into a five-day leadership development program. A significant amount of training was provided both to the individuals who would receive the feedback and to all the feed-back providers so that their input could be as meaningful as possible. The feed-back recipients were given a good deal of time, with coaching, to analyze the information they received. Then, these same managers participated in a program that integrated the 360° competencies into the course content. In this way, the managers could focus on building their capabilities in a supportive classroom environment. As a pretest-posttest measurement, the managers were given the opportunity to get another round of 360° feed-back six to eight months later in order to assess their progress. In all ways, the use of the 360° instrument was viewed as a developmental tool, not an evaluative performance appraisal device.

Which brings me to a worst-practice, example a major corporation that paid seven figures for a tailored 360° instrument from a major private consulting firm. The company spent all its resources on the instrument and did not build a developmental experience around the feed-back. Training provided to feed-back providers was haphazardly done, so there was a minimal amount of consistency in the data collected. And the profiles were used for performance reviews rather than as developmental tools. Therefore, the recipients selected those feed-back providers who would make them look good, not those who would give good constructive criticism. Most importantly, the company was not ready for 360° feed­back because it had a culture that fostered covert communications and was highly political. The implementation was an unmitigated disaster and cost a number of people their reputations and for a few, it resulted in their terminations. Fortunately, the company realized how bad the situation had become, and it stopped using the 360° instrument until it could find a way to do it more effectively. The sad part is that it will take quite some time before the people in that company will trust a feed-back-based instrument again and they need it the most!

There are a variety of other self-assessment instruments that can provide additional insight for understanding leadership behaviours and styles. The Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is probably the most widely used personality indicator. FIRO-B is another popular instrument that was often used by the Center for Creative Leadership. Among my favorites are the Birkman and the Learning Styles Inventory, each of which offers a unique perspective for self-assessment. It is important to take some care in selecting the instrument(s) that would add the most value in this process. Look for:

  • a well-validated instrument-sufficiently tested and utilized
  • a tool that measures factors important to you and your job responsibilities
  • an instrument that is neither too superficial nor too complex to be useful

In high-quality leadership programs conducted by reputable institutions, it is common for participants to undergo an array of assessment tests. In most of the programs that I have designed, we employ at least three tools, including the 360° feed-back instrument. Each one provides unique information that can be helpful in the self-assessment process. But no one tool is perfect. All these measurements are “slippery” at best in that they involve human behaviour, perception, and highly intangible variables. Thus, the use of multiple instruments, coupled with the individual’s introspective capabilities, enables the best opportunity for a comprehensive assessment of oneself and his/her competencies.

About the Author
Dr. Asare Bediako Adams, FCILG. The author is the Director of Africa Operations for Chartered Institute of Leadership and Governance. He is also the Executive Director of PMRIG Group of Companies and Bedoak Global Ltd and its affiliates. He also serve as a board member of several companies.

Reprint Policy: You may reprint/publish the above article. All we ask is that you keep all links active, make no changes to article and include the author’s bio. Article Resource: CILG Ghana

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *