Knowledge Summary Series: 360-Degree Assessment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Knowledge Summary Series: 360-Degree Assessment Robert W. Eichinger, Michael M. Lombardo, Lominger Limited, Inc. he common thread of the three short pieces tions, its deficiencies—and how to overcome them— that make up this article is assessment. We should be well-understood. In a cautionary mode, assess ourselves. We ask others to give us the second piece explores whether sharing 360 their assessments. And we welcome {or at assessments is good practice. Next comes assess- Tleast tolerate) boss assessments. All for the purpose ments of strengths and weaknesses, and where to of perfortnance improvement, development, and focus development efforts. Much has been written getting ahead. about concentrating on strengths. Here, the dangers The research presented here first looks into whether of overemphasizing strengths are exposed and an self-assessment is accurate or even important. argument made for balance: enhancing strengths but Because self-rating is commonly used in organiza- working on or around weaknesses. 34 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING The Dynamics and Value of Do Self-Ratings Relate to Anything of Self-Ratings Importance? Who Is Right? The question here is who is most right? Self-rating is a common HR practice. Almost Whether self-ratings agree with those of others all 36(}s. many performance appraisal processes, (they do not) begs the question of who is more and some competency sy.stems include a self-rat- accurate. Self-ratings might relate to performance ing component. Many development programs or promotion better than those of others. Shouldn't allow people to self-insert based upon self-evalua- the self know the self best? tion. Few would argue .self-ratings should not be Self-ratings ordinarily relate to nothing of included in these applications. People should com- importance (Mabe & West, 1982). In our last piire their own viewpoints with what bosses, direct round of studies, the overall correlation between reports, peers, and customers have to say about self-ratings and performance was .00, with the them, but probably not for the expected reasons. boss being the most accurate rater by far in pre- The dynamics of self-rating must be understood dicting long-term performance and promotion in order to use it better: to know the ways in (Lombardo & Eichinger, 2003). On average, we which it is useful, useless, or even harmful. collected competency data about two years before To look at the dynamics and value of self-rat- collecting measures of performance and if the ings, the existing research is summarized by the person was terminated, status unchanged, following questions: or promoted. Peers and direct reports provided 1. Do self-ratings agree with ratings by other some value as well, with at least some of their people? competency ratings correlating with the criterion 2. Do self-ratings relate to anything of impor- measures. But the boss was the best rater. tance? Who is right? Other than for public relations purposes, why 3. Does it make any difference that self-ratings include self-ratings at all when they are likely to are not very accurate? (This makes perhaps be different from everyone else and wrong. the biggest difference of all: A person with Self-ratings do tiot relate to performance or inaccurate .self-ratings might end up getting potential for promotion or whether a person gets fired.) promoted in the future. 4. What are the typical patterns of inaccurate Does It Make Any Difference that Self- rating? (On what areas are those who get Ratings Are Not Very Accurate? fired overrated?) 5. Summing up, what might some best prac- The inaccuracy of self-ratings is understand- tices be',* able. People often overestimate their strengths as part of a positive self-image or false self-esteem. Do Self-Ratings Agree with Ratings by Research by Stone (1994) indicates people tend Other People? to overestimate their facility at more complex No. Not closely. Many studies show low rela- tasks. Similarly, Vonk (1999) found people tionships between self-ratings and those by other engaged in more bragging and self-promoting pet)ple (Conway & Hunnicut, 1997; Clark, et al., behavior when they thought that a claim could 1992: Harris & Schaubroeck, 1991; Mabe & not be verified, that statements were more a mat- West. 1982). There is much higher agreement ter of opinion. That self-ratings tend to be higher between all of the other rater groups (boss, peers, than those of others is fairly well-established and direct reports) than between any of these (Harris & Schaubroeck. 1988). groups and self-raters. The norm is for self and This finding requires important qualification other ratings to be different; so one use of self- when we look more deeply at research data. ratings is to look at differences. Differences Thrown together so tar are low performers and between self and others of typically a scale point high, people with little interest or possibility of or tnore are usually called either blind spots or promotion, and people on the fast track upward. hidden strengths. In blind spots, one rates oneself When we split data by performance, we find higher tban others. In hidden strengths, one rates the overestimators {who rate themselves higher oneself lower than others do. As discussed later. than others do) are the poorest perfoniiers. only one of these is a likely problem. The other Research by Fleenor. et al. (1996) concludes may be a blessing. those who overrate them.selves are perceived as Self-ratings and ratings by others differ signif- lower in effectiveness by others, noting that the icantly most of the time. evidence is clear that "self-ratings (alone) tell us HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 35 little about leader etfectiveness" and that there is EXHIBIT I a kitid of manager who routinely over evaluates his or her performance, and that tendency is asso- ciated with poor leadership. Atwater. et al. (1998) Self Rates Significantly More came to a similar conclusion. Favorably Than Other Rater Groups Research findings differ on whether higher Measures Terminated Unchanged Promoted pertbrmers agree more with others and are presum- Rated higher 30 22 1 ably more self-aware, seeing themselves more as on 67 others see them, or underestimate their ratings in competencies comparison with those of others. Some researchers (Kelley. 1998; Boyatzis. 1982; Atwater, et al... Rated lower 10 6 0 1998) find them to be more in agreement. Others on 19 career ftnd they are just underestimators (they rate them- stall ers selves lower than others do). On 36()-degree Total (out of 40 28 1 competency assessments, average pertbrmers typi- 86) Self-rated cally overe.stimate their strengths, whereas star more favorably pertbrmers rarely do. If anything, the stars tended to underestimate their abilities, possibly an indica- themselves lower than does any rater group. The tor of higher internal standards (Goleman. 1998). same trend holds for career derailers or stallers. Lombardo and Eichinger (2003), in predicting Those terminated rate themselves lower (more performance two years out. al.so found the more positive) on career-stalling behaviors; those effective people to be underestimators. promoted rate themselves higher (less positive) (Lombardo & Eichinger. 2003). Lcwking at the flip side, at what gets people in To get an idea of how difterently those who career trouble, the evidence is similar. Shipper and get fired rate, we looked at our 86 measures (67 Dillard (2000) found that derailers (people who competencies and 19 career-stall ing patterns). fail or stumble after being successful for some Exhibit 1 shows the significant differences. period of time) are "managers who overestimate their own abihties, are often ineffective and fail to Overraters fail and underraters succeed. learn from management development programs." What Are the Typical Patterns of They note: "those rating themselves high often demonstrate traits such as lack of self-aware ness Inaccurate Rating? On What Areas Do and arrogance, usually associated with ineffective Those Who Get Fired Overrate? management." The tnanagers most likely to They are generally self-deluded, but in particu- derail are usually those who have too high an lar they think they are better at creating something opinion of their own skills and abilities compared new and different, keeping on point, making to managers who underestimate their abilities. accurate people calls, energy and drive, managing Underestimators were more able to bounce back diverse relationships, inspiring others, and honor. from career derailment regardless of level. The most accurate rater by far in our studies is In our last round of studies we looked at three the immediate boss (many more boss ratings are groups of people across on average a two-year related to long-term performance and whether period. Some were promoted, most were promotcd/terminated/unchanged). Bosses rate unchanged, and some were terminated. In terms of significantly lower than the fired do 41 times out actual promotion (as well as peiformance). of 67. Thirteen of the differences are large (more the higher the .self rating compared with those than a standard deviation). Bosses describe the of other groups, the more likely a person is to be terminated as less able to deal with conflict, make terminated. Those who are terminated rate them- tough choices, or think things through broadly. selves higher (as do their direct reports). Direct There is also a large interpersonal theme: lack of reports tend to rate fairly highly and undifterenti- interpersonal savvy, poor at managing diversity, atedly in most cases. Some may have worried or failure to build teams. Finally, as other research about retribution from a marginal boss. Bosses has shown, lower self-knowledge (see Shipper & and peers rated them much lower (a full standard Dillard, 2000). deviation on average). Bosses do rate them higher than they rate them- Those who were unchanged rate more similarly selves on a few things such as functional/technical to their rater groups, but still rate themselves skills, technical learning, intellect, career ambition more highly.