A Closer Look at Enhanced Feedback
Enhanced feedback goes beyond standard 360-degree feedback on two counts—in the amount and the type of data collected and in its emphasis on implementation.
There are four sources of data in enhanced feedback: numerical ratings plus verbatim comments; data from the workplace plus data from personal life; data on behavior plus data on motivation; and data on the present plus data on early history.
Numerical ratings plus verbatim comments. Numerical, scale-based ratings tend to leave recipients wondering what some of the numbers mean. This is even more true when, as is usually the case, the ratings come from an off-the-shelf instrument; often the person is unclear as to how the generic items apply to him or her in particular. Comments in their co-workers’ own words add an extra dimension. The two types of data used in tandem are potent because—if the results on each tell a similar story, and they usually do—the message comes through clearly.
Comments can be gathered using interviews or open-ended questions that co-workers respond to in writing. A drawback of using verbal comments is that, even when they are reported back anonymously, the recipient may be able to identify who said what.
Data from the workplace plus data from personal life. It is common for a person to exhibit similar behavior at home and at work—for instance, holding onto control or planning everything to the nth degree. When feedback indicates that this is the case, the person is less likely to deny a behavior. Of course, there are usually also differences in behavior, but these too are instructive.
The way to gather data on personal life is to, in addition to interviewing the executive, talk to family members and, perhaps, friends. This is unusual for a management-development activity and extreme care must be exercised.
Data on behavior plus data on motivation. We believe that if executives are to modify their behavior, they must consider what drives that behavior. This is where the psychological makeup of the person comes in. To be sure, one’s psychological makeup is not readily amenable to change—and that is a good thing—but neither is it completely immutable. At a minimum it helps the cause of development if the executive is able to factor in the personal, emotional, inner side of his or her leadership. How to do this? One way is to do a battery of psychological tests. Another way is to collect data on what other people feel is the individual’s motivation.
Data on the present plus data on early history. Another way to understand the executive’s psychological makeup is to look into his or her past. The principle here is simple: The child continues to live in the adult. One need only ask commonsense questions about an individual’s parents, siblings, family life, friends, performance in school, play, and so on, and the likely formative influences emerge fairly clearly. There is always more to learn about the connection between one’s past and the present, and the typical executive has not given this much thought. One way to gather information on childhood is to talk with the executive. It also helps to interview members of his or her original family and a childhood friend or two.
Choosing suitable sources. Not all the sources of data described above need to be used in every case. Taking basic 360-degree feedback as the given, the service provider, the HR representative, and the executive should choose carefully what supplementary data sources to add. This will depend on the needs of the executive and the organization and on available resources.
With respect to benefit and risk, the more high-quality data and the more different types of data, the greater the potential impact, in both a positive and a negative sense. Even a basic 360-degree-feedback instrument carries a risk. In general, the greater the impact and more issues potentially raised, the greater the responsibility the provider has to the recipient.
To highlight both the potential risks as well as the potential benefits of enhanced 360-degree feedback to executives, we are concentrating in this paper on the several data sources taken together. The power of such an intervention derives from how much data are fed back. One executive, who had received enhanced feedback and who, because he was in some difficulty organizationally, had received a higher proportion of negative feedback from his co-workers, remarked that the experience was “like having fifty performance appraisals at once.” The intervention’s impact also derives from the wide variety of data, which raises a range of basic issues—job and career, work and family, present and past, behavior and motivation. The effect is to virtually flood the executive with data. As another executive observed after getting his report, “If you collect enough data on any phenomenon, the basic patterns will pop out. In this work there is no need to hunt and peck for meaning.”
For any adult to change, that person must first “unfreeze” (Schein, 1968). These methods tend to loosen up old patterns so that they might be adapted. The data stir up executives, cognitively and emotionally, in the sense they cause them to reconsider their established view of themselves. To one degree or another, the data is unsettling. And in this unsettled state is contained the potential for growth and the potential for harm.
Enhanced feedback differs from standard 360-degree feedback not only in the type and amount of data it provides but also in its emphasis on follow-through. Follow-through serves as a safety measure because it keeps the executive from being left hanging. And it serves as a vital mechanism for helping him or her to translate insight into action.
We provide a detailed discussion on follow-through below (under the subhead “Tide the Executive Through” in the section on “Making Safe Use of Enhanced Feedback”).