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. And those who are promoted rate and work/life balance. But bosses rate the same
36 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING tlve competencies as higher for the promoted as doesn't hurt them until later: When we look at well. This is nice for the promoted, and deadly what gets people fired, it's quite often interperson- tor the terminated, as they are the only relative al. And here is the only significant relationship strengths the bosses see in them. of self-rating with performance: The promoted We might expect the narrow technocrat with rate themselves significantly higher on people serious people problem.s who just can't make problems and overall stallers. The terminated lough calls. Bad enough to he seen this way by are as clueless as ever. others, but Ihey think they're pretty good at these The promoted save themselves with self-criti- competencies. cism and setting a higher bar. They are on the But what about selt-iniage? Couldn't all the lookout for potential problems with people. The groups be as deluded as the terminated? The tenninated don't expect problems. Their inflated answer is no. One simple method is to compare view of their conflict, interpersonal, degree of the absolute self-rating scores. The promoted trust, and hands-on management skills gets them are the lowest rater (or tied for low) for 48 of 67 run out the door. Their blind spots become fatal competencies. The tenninated are the lowest rater Haws. As many research studies have shown five times. (McCall, et al., 1988; Morrison, et al., 1992; Of the 67 comparisons, there are 15 statistical- Lombardo & Eichinger, 2002), what doesn't get ly significant differences; in all cases, the termi- you in trouble early (poor people skills) will get nated are the highest raters. Their inflated view of you later when the demands of the job change to self forms some strong patterns. They think they orchestrating change and building a productive are better than others think they are on: climate for high pertbrmance. 1. Problems with conflict Poor performers rare themselves higher on • Command skills conflict, operating skills, perspective, and honor. • Conflict management • Confronting direct reports What Might Some Best Practices Be? • Si/ing up people In summary, self-ratings and those by others • Hiring and staffing differ significantly most of the time. Self-ratings • Negotiating do not relate to pertbrmance or potential for pro- 2. Narrowness motion or whether a person gets promoted iti the future. Overraters fail and underraters succeed, • Perspective although both are inaccurate. And poor peribrmers • Business acumen rate themselves higher on conflict, operating skills, • Innovation management perspective, and honor. 3. Poor hands-on managers • Delegation What's the value of self-ratings? They are not • Directing others useful in determining what a person is like. They 4. Honor don't identify a person's real strengths and weak- • Integrity and trust nesses. They can't reveal if a person is qualified • Ethics and values for a development program. They tell us nothing about whether a person is qualified for a job. Finally, we verified whether any of the groups* self-ratings of competencies correlated with Summary performance. None did. Self-raters apparently Again, what's the value of self-ratings? There are rating something else: largely how they see is some evidence people's ratings become more themselves against an internal image of excellence. like those of others with repeated 360s and feed- The fired generally rate higher; the promoted. back; even if there were not, self-awareness can lower. Neither is accurate for performance. The be enhanced through more candid performance fired obviously have an inflated self view in some evaluations, 360 feedback and peer review. bad areas: hreudth of judgment, conflict skills, Continuing to overrate and rate inaccurately is people skills. They believe they are better hands- deadly and a clear sign of a non-leamer. So we on managers and think they are more trusted than need to collect self-ratings to find out whether other self-raters or any rater group (except direct people know themselves. reports in some case.s). If not self, who? Eocus on boss ratings. Because interpersonal skills usually do not While other groups (besides self) make some relate as much to performance as the more opera- contribution, boss ratings are the most accurate tional and strategic skills, their overrating there and the most differentiated by far:
HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 37 1. Bosses make sharper distinctions between Lombardo, M., & Bichinger. R. (2'M).1|- The LEADERSHIP ARCHI- TECT® Nimns and Validity Report. Minneapolis: Lominger, levels of performance and promotion/termi- Mabe. PA. & West, S.G. (19821. "Validity of Self-Evaluaiion of nation that other rater groups don't. Ability: A Review and Meta-Analysis." Journal of Applied 2. The difference in how boss and self rates is P'.ychohgy. 67: 2S0-29f,. a powerful predictor of who gets ahead and MeCall. M.. Lombardo. M, & Monison. A. (1988), The Lesson^ of Experience. Lexington. Mass.: Lexington Books. who gets shown the door. Morrison. A.. Wbite. R.. & Van Velsor, E. 11992). Bretikinn ihe Glas.\ 3. Bosses really hammer people who get termi- Ceilini;. Reading. Mass: Addison Wesley. nated later. For example, in career stallers, Shipper. F., & Dillarcl, J. (2(K)0l. "A Sludy of Impending Deruilmeni bosses rate defensiveness (again a non-learn- jnd Reeover> o( Middle Managers Across Career Slages." Human Resource MiiiiagemeiU. 39 |4|: 331-347. er) and political missteps as quite different Sione. Dan N. (1994, September). "Overcontidenee in Initial Sell- for the promoted and the terminated. Ettkiicy Judgments: Etfecis on Dei:ision Prtitesses and Pertbrmance." What should you be looking for? Watch out Omaniziilioniil Behavior & Human Decision Pnices.ses. 59(3): 452-474. Vonk. R. (1999). "Impression Formation and Impression Management: for blind spots. The fatal pattern in lack of self- Molives. Traits, and Likeabilily Inferred from Self-Promoling and awareness is relatively high self-ratings compared Self-Deprecating Hehavior." Social Cofi'iilion. 17: 390-412. with those of others, especially the boss. On most 360s, one point or more should be highly Should 360 Results be significant. Look for patterns of inflated strength assessment, especially in conflict, perspective, Confidential? honor, and managing. Ah. the good old days. Long ago and far away Once again, what is the real value of self-rat- (five years ago), best practice was clear and ings? Treat underrating differently. When one almost everyone agreed: 360 results and feedback underrates, we call these hidden strengths or a were confidential and anonymous, one copy only, lack of self-confidence or lack of self-knowledge. it went to the participant and that was that. It was While any of those is possible, multiple research for development. Armed with accurate data on studies indicate the person more likely has high strengths and needs, most ambitious people self-confidence, is highly self-critical, has high would address their needs on their own. The par- standards, and is a high performer. Lower self- ticipants were responsible for carrying the results ratings only have meaning once we add ihe forward to their bosses. Many did; some did not. information on how well the person performs. Development and performance appraisal needed Self-ratings don't really tell much about peo- to be .separate. Every professional conference had ple other than how successful they may be in the a panel on this topic. future^not because of what they say about their In recent years, a different trend has emerged. strengths and weaknesses as much as how their Shared 360 results. Boss gets it. HR gets it. it's ratings compare to the ratings of others, especially in the file. It's used for performance appraisal bosses. Self-ratings are collected to judge self- and succession planning. Why? It was probably awareness, which in turn may indicate a lot about spurred by comments from bosses like: "Why do a person's future. we do this if I can't see it?" "I need to see it if I'm held responsible for developing my people." References "What's the ROI?" "If 1 don't know what my Alwaler. L. E., Ostroff, C, Yammarino. R J., & Fleenor. J. W. (1998). people need, how can I develop them?" "We "'Self-Other Rating Agreement: Di>es ll Really Mutler," Pi'rsoiwt't Psychology. 5]: 57b-S')7. have an open culture here, so people don't mind Conwuy, J.M. & Huffcuti. A.I. (1997|. ••Psychometric Priiperlics of if I see their reports." "I need to know when peo- Muitisiiuree Performance Ratings: A Meta-Analysis of Subordinate, ple under me are causing people problems below Supervisor, Pi;cr. and SelfRatings." Hiirmm Peiformame. 10: 331-361). them so I can prevent legal issues." "If we use Clark. K, E., Clark, M- B-. & Campbell, D. P (1992], Imiutci of Leadership. Greensboro. NC: Center ior Creaiive Leadership. 360 feedback for performance assessment, I have Fleenor, J.W.. McCauley. CD.. &. Bruius. S. (1996). "Self Other to sec the results." AgrcemenI and Leader Effectiveness." The Leadership Quarterly. The trend bas become widespread. In a receni 7(4): 487-506, survey (Rogers. 2000). almost half the bosses had Goleman, D. (1998). "What Makes a Ixader?" Hcirx-ard Bnsint'ss Review (November-Deeember). access to full 360 reports and about one-third of Harris. M.M, & SehaubrDeck. J. | I9K8). -A Meta-Analysis of Self- HR groups did. The most recent survey we have Supervisor. Self-Peer and Peer-Supervisor Ratings." Personnel seen on using 360 for performance appraisals Psychoh^y.Al: 43-62, showed about 50 percent of the firms had tried it, Kclky. R. I \99H fiow lo Be a Star at Work. New York: Times Books. although the majority had stopped the practice Lombardo. M.. & Eichinger, R. {2()O2). The Leadership Mtirhine. Minneapolis: Lominger, (Lepsinger & Lucia, 1997).
38 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING Why Not? identifiable. The 360 process we use (VOICES®) Like many emerging practices, this one is allows each rater to select the level of confiden- well-intentioned and the reasons sound persua- tiality. The rater can choose to have the learner sive. The problem is unintended, overwhelming see their results directly (no anonymity), only consequences. Publicly sharing 360 results is a with one other rater (some anonymity), or only well-meaning but flawed practice. with two other raters (a group of three raters, maximum anonymity). When raters said they What Happens When 360 Results Are don't care if the learner sees their individual Shared? ratings, the correlation with independent ratings of performance was .09 and not significant. When The Scores Go Up they selected "my rating will be combined with • Antonioni's study (1994) of upward feedback one other rater, " the correlation was .27 and (ratings of the supervisor by direct reports significant with performance ratings. When they only) found that direct reports whose ratings selected "see my ratings only in groups of three" were not anonymous rated their managers (the maximum anonymity), the correlation was significantly higher than direct reports whose .30. Accuracy increased with confidentiality. ratings were anonymous. When raters thought their ratings might be • When raters didn't mind whether the learner revealed, they were high, bland, and meaningless. saw their ratings, the average .scores went up, and the variance (spread of ratings over the Fear of Retribution scale) decreased. When ratings are made pub- Chappehtw (1998) argues that when raters' lic, they bland out and go up - the scores of responses aren't anonymous, or if individuals 43 of our 67 competencies increased signifi- don't feel enough safeguards have been put in cantly. The themes are clear: When people place to protect their anonymity, raters may fear rate under total anonymity, those rated (the retribtition and be less than candid in their learners) take a significant hit on most ratings, responses or not respond at all. Bracken, et al. particularly caring, motivating, managing (2001) had similar findings. They found that diversity, general interpersonal skills, and giving feedback providers (raters) a guarantee of self-knowledge: how they come across. They anonymity (or the perception of anonymity) max- also get lower ratings on intelligence, vision, developing others, composure, conflict skills, imizes honesty, candor, and response rates. They and, perhaps most important, ethics and val- note that the perception of rater anonymity can be ues (Lominger & Eichinger, 2003). as important as the guarantee of actual anonymity and can affect feedback honesty. • In a study of 58.000 performance appraisals, scores went up significantly in public There Can Be Rating Coalitions appraisal processes (Jawahar & Williams. Especially in the case of 360 u.sed for perfor- 1997). The title of the article was, "When mance appraisal, people informally agree to rate All the Children Are Above Average."" each other highly. It's just standard coalition Scores on typical 360s are inflated under the formation and group protection against threat. best of circumstances (probably around .5 on a five-point scale). Sharing results inflates them Rater Misidentiflcation even more. in most 360 processes, the raters indicate the rater group (boss. peer, customer, direct report) Variance Decreases to which they belong. Throughout the 20-year The spread of the scores decreases. People history of this practice, some raters misidcntifled are less willing to use especially low scale points. themselves. In anecdotal examination of this The range is restricted even under the best of phenomenon over the years, 50 percent of the circumstances. Sharing makes it worse. misidentification is caused by administrative incompetence—not reading the instructions prop- Accuracy Vanishes erly—and 50 percent is caused by purposeful In [he only study we've located on the subject deceit. Why? Probably fear of retribution and (Lombardo & Eichinger, 2003), accuracy disap- fear of later questioning by the learner, who pears when the ratings become more public and might ask: "Why did you rate me so low on ...?"'
HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 39 In another common event, a person assembles because it is difficult for peers, direct reports. his or her staff after a particularly brutal 360 managers, and executives to engage in straight feedback, usually in the inteipersonal and listen- talk about weaknesses. Giving critical feedback to ing skills areas, and asks, with possibly good direct reports face to face is ranked 63rd out of 67 intentions: "Why did you all rate me down'.'" No (5th from the bottom) for the typical supervi.sor. one admits to the low ratings. manager, and executive (Lombardo & Eichinger, Some organizations have abandoned 360 feed- 2002). That's why most performance appraisals— back for performance assessment because of some even anonymous 360s—are inflated. of the preceding problems. Raters make deals Important Questions to Consider and scores go up. One company reported that the I. /,v this truly confidential'.^ Be sure to describe average score on an item on its 360 was 4.5 on a the process in a straightforward fashion. five-point scale. This is obviously useless for any Some people won't trust that feedback is purpose. For an excellent discussion of the use of contldential, but the more said the better. A 360 feedback for performance assessment, see typical policy for developmental feedback is Lepsinger and Lucia (1997). ^^^^^^ that the actual report is confidential. Most 360 instruments are now Common Sense The main reason processed electronically. Think about similar processes, so no one in the organization sees 360 feedback for example, an anonymous tip line them. There is one copy, which the for citizens to report bad people and arose is because it facilitator hands to the person at the crimes. The tip line gets 100 calls a feedback session. day. Now announce that caller ID is difficult for 2. How can development plans be will be used to record callers' phone peers, direct numbers. What will happen to the constructed if only the recipient call rate and accuracy of the reports'? reports, man- has a copy? The covenant we recommend goes like this: "We're There is currently a system to agers, and execu- investing in your development report tax cheats anonymously and tives to engage in through our 360 feedback for get a percentage of whal the IRS col- development system. The actual lects. Again, say that there are 100 straight talk about results (the numbers, ratings, and reports a day. The law changes and weaknesses. comments) are private. The sum- the person who reports the tax cheat mary of your strengths and must now be identified. What will happen to the weaknesses should be discussed in some form call rate? And the whistleblower must testify with your boss. HR, or your mentor. Your job why he or she thinks the person is cheating on is to improve continuously and ours is to help his/her taxes. What happens to the call rate now? you. Your direct boss will help with your Your company provides as a wonderful benefit short-term development (for performance) and an annual physical paid for by the company. top management and human resources will Ninety percent take advantage of the prt>gram. help witb long-term development (projects, One small change: The doctor will forward his or next job, anything outside the present scope of her notes about the physical and what was talked your responsibilities)." about to your boss. What happens to the partici- pation rate? All participants (learner, raters, bosses) need Rater exposure to risk and conflict decreases to know about the rules before tbey fill out the participation and hone,sty. The same is true for 360. surveys. If data is going to be shared, partially or fully, everyone involved needs to know. Don't Best Practices collect data under one .set of rules (confidential We can't have everything from one application. and anonymous) and then apply another set of 360 works best for development. As typically rules after the fact. This has negatively affected written, the items are not finely grained enough many 360 programs. or tied to work objectives for pertormance pur- So best practice is private, confidential, and poses. Public processes don't work as well. From anonymous. Worst practice is shared. The middle our research, the data aj-e near worthless. So our ground is mandatory sharing after the feedback. answer is to use it as intended. Even mandatory sharing will have negative The main reason 360 feedback arose is consequences.
40 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING References gating how balanced the skill sets of executives Anlunuini. I). (I W4l. "The Effects of Feedback Accounlability on are. Kaplan found that only about 5 to 10 percent UpwarJ Appraisal Ralmgs." Personnel Psychology. 47; ,149-356. could be described that way: 35 to 40 percent Bracken, D.W., Timrjireck, C.W. & Church, A,H. (Hds.|. Tlie Handbook ol Multisiiune Feedhiuk: The Comprehensive Resource for Designing overuse forceful and operating skills behaviors and Implementing MSF Processes. .San Franci.sco; Jossey-Bass. and 10 to 15 percent overuse enabling behaviors Chuppelow, C. (1998). "MO-Degree Feedhack in Individual (Kaiser & Kaplan. 2000). In our data on about Development." In C-D. McCauley, R, Moxicy. & E. Van Velsiir (Eds.). The Center for Creative Leadership's Handbook of Leadership 100,000 competency ratings, we ask. "To what Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. extent does this person overdo this strength (asked Jijwahar, I.M.. & Williams. C.R. (1997), "When All ihe Children Are only if the competency was rated as a strength)?" Ahove Average; The Perlbrmantre Appraisal Purpost Ellect." Personnel Psychology. 51) (4): 905-925. The average overuse of any competency is 17 per- Lepsinger. R., & Lucia, A.D. (1
HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 41 minds, or couldn't make the transition to a dif- unchanged, and some were terminated. One key ferent job or way of behaving. They relied on finding: The higher the .self-ruting coinpiired with what had gotten them to where they were, those of other rater groups, the more likely a per- ironically becoming victimized by their past son is to he terminated. Those who are terminated successes. They got locked into standard ways rate themselves higher (as do their direct reports). of thinking and acting that didn't really meet Bosses and peers rated them much lower {a full the new demands. They also underestimated the standard deviation on average). Those who are newness of the demands, seeing them as just unchanged rate more similarly to their rater another version of what they had done before. groups, but still rate themselves higher. And those who are promoted rate themselves lower than do In contrast, successful executives had a strong any rater group. and similar pattern of learning from key job assignments. In all major studies of success and The same trend holds for career stallers. Those derailment, learning to do something different in terminated rate themselves lower {more favor- order to make key transitions has figured promi- ably) on career-stall ing behaviors; those promoted nently in the results: Successful people do and tbe rate themselves higher (less favorably) less successful do not. (Lombardo & Eichinger. 2003). The magnitude of these differences is consid- Strengths Can Lead to Low Self- erable. Out of 86 competency and career-staller Knowledge and Overrating Oneself ratings, the terminated rated themselves signitl- This is ihe proverbial smoking ^^^^^ ^^^^^^ cantly higher than any other rater gun of derailment. Among different group 40 times; the unchanged were groups of raters, self-ratings tend higher 28 times; the promoted, once. Focusing on to be the highest on 360 feedback While this lack of self awareness instruments (Harris & Schaubroeck, strengths alone and a tendency to overrate oneself 1988) and do not relate to perfor- leads to repeat- have been found to be crippling, in mance or potential. They do not contrast, successful people learned correlate with actual performance, ing the san^e more new behavior, were more self- for example, while boss ratings do behaviors in new aware (see Spreitzer, et al.. 1997; (Mabe & West, 1982; Lombardo & Lombardo & Eichinger. 2000; Eichinger, 2003). It is now becoming situations. Shipper & Dillard, 2000; Lombardo clear tbat primarily the worst per- & Eichinger, 2003), formers overrate, (See Fleenor, et al,, 1996, The terminated obviously have an Inflated Atwater. et al.. 1998, for additional findings,) self-view in some bad areas: breadth of judgment, Shipper and Dillard (2(X)0) found. "The fatal conflict skills, people skills, a belief they are better flaw shown by this research is a lack of self hands-on managers and more trusted than other awareness. All three groups of impending derailers self-raters or any rater group (except direct reports (early career, mid-career and late-career) overesti- in some cases). It is at least arguable they saw little mated tbeir overall skills profile in comparison to need to add any strengths beyond the ones they their successful cohorts," The managers most thought they had: If they rated themselves unrea- likely to derail usually had too high an opinion sonably high, what is left to develop? of their own skills and abilities compared to man- Interpersonal skills usually do not relate as agers who underestimated their abilities. They much to pertbrmance as the more operational and note that, "those rating themselves high often strategic skills, so their overrating doesn't hurt demonstrate traits such as lack of self-awareness them until later. What gets people fired is often and arrogance, usually associated with ineffective interpersonal. And here is where we found the management." In contrast, "Fast trackers signifi- only significant relationships of self-ratings with cantly more accurately estimate or underestimate performance: The promoted rate themselves sig- their ability on tbe overall profile and on both the nificantly higher on people problems and overall upfront and follow-up skills profiles." stallers. The terminated are as clueless as ever. Underestimators were able to bounce back from The promoted save themselves with self-criti- career derailment regardless of level. cism and setting a higher bar. They are on the In our last round of studies we looked at three lookout for potential problems with people. The groups of people across on average a two-year terminated get blindsided. not expecting problems. period. Some were promoted, most were It's a fair conclusion that their inflated view of
41 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING their conflict, interpersonal, degree of trust, and selected for the so-called core competencies hands-on management skills eventually gets them is often no( backed up by research. This is an run out the door. Their blind spols become fatal example of simplicity gone awry: A good goal, flaws. Many research studies have shown becoming simplistic—producing a bad result. All (McCall, et al., 1988: Morrison, et al., 1992; aspects of human endeavor matter across a career Lombardo & Eichinger, 2002) that what does not unless nothing ever changes. People get fired for get you in trouble early (poor people skills) will reasons that have nothing to do with their previous get you later, when the demands of the job change success. Many competencies related to termina- lo orchestrating change and building a productive tion (approachability. for example) rarely relate climate for high performance. You have to be able to current performance. The lack of these seldom- to work the people side of the organization. included competencies accumulates over time. People make transitions and the work environment Common Sense: How Long Will Five changes. Lack of skill development in corollary Strengths Last? areas and lack of feedback lead to all the ills Who among us really believes a single set of noted previously—poor self-knowledge, narrow a few strengths will carry us throughout a career? view of a job. failure to grow and change, and Who believes they have not developed a significant overestimating one's skills. Full bandwidth new skill or neutralized a weak one? What is the assessment and feedback is a must. Whether half-life of a strength these days? How many of approachability is seen as important this minute, us do not change our work orientation as we age? it will be in future minutes. Focusing only on your strengths, while appeal- ing, is short sighted at best. Focus on Strengths, with Caution and Perspective What Are Some Best Practices? Is it a good idea to focus on and leverage strengths? Of course. That's what accounts for Adapt, Grow, and Know much of our success. We should focus on what Your best bet is to adjust your portfolio of we've been given, leverage it. and use our strengths throughout your career as the require- strengths. But, weaknesses sometimes matter. ments of roles, situations, and jobs change and Each person should make a list of the corollary career aspirations shift. Knowing yourself is still weaknesses that typically accompany specitlc the best option^—strengths, averages, weaknesses, strengths (Lombardo & Eichinger. 2002). Get and untested areas. Successful people do not have feedback on those specific weaknesses over time all possible skills but they do not have blind and attempt to neutralize the ones that begin to spots. Their edge is in fully knowing them- matter. See Exhibit 2 for examples of how overde- selve.s—developing where they can, enhancing pendence t)n one skill can become a weakness or average areas that become more important, and result in a negative outcome for executives. neutralizing weak areas where they will never be strong. No one suggests a truly conflict-averse Watch Out During Transitions person can become a conflict master: however, Those who focus only on their strengths face that person can learn to deal in a straightforward the most risk during and after stark transitions. fashion with conflict situations (e.g., understand- Changing jobs. Changing organizations. Changing ing ihe other side, asking more questions, making roles. Life changes. Location and culture changes. clear, unemotional statements). Remain open to People with a limited portfolio of strengths who feedback, criticism, and corrective suggestions. are not self-aware and overestimate what they can Learn from new jobs, other people, and transitions. do have a high chance of crashing before they can Be fully self aware. Monitor your weaknesses. Do get the wheels down. Ask someone knowledge- not get obsessed with tbem but make sure they able in the new context about the requirements for are not causing too much noise. success. Have a mentor or trusted peer observe you to catch any weaknesses early. Expand the Success Profile The Mae West adage that "too much of a good An increasingly common poor practice is to thing can be wonderful" may have been true for assess and give feedback on only a few (7 to 12) the sultry 1920s star, but that advice is fraught core competencies that arc "believed" to be critical with peril for today's rising executives. Over- for success. We say "believed" because what gets reliance on the management skills and personal
HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 43 strengths that gained them promotions and Biographical Sketches increa.sed responsibilities may lead lo derailment Robert W. Eichinger is CEO and cofoimder of if new skills are not identified and developed and Loniini^er Limited. Inc. and cocreator of The weaknesses neutralized. LEADERSHIP ARCHITECT® Suite of manage- The bottom line is that each of us needs to ment, executive, and organizational development know ourselves completely—the good, the bad tools. During his 4O'yectr career, he has worked and the ugly. Then we can choose what to do inside companies such as PepsiCo and Pillsbiwy. about it. Those who decide to .stick with their and as a consultant in Fortune 500 companies in strengths can be successful but will be limited. the United States. Europe. Japan. Canada, and Those who decide to enhance their strengths, be Australia. Boh lectures extensively on the topic of aware of their weaknesses, and work on them^—or executive and management development and has around them—will be more successful. served on the Board of the Human Resource References Planning Society. He has worked as a coach with Aiuaicr. I. K., Ostrolt. C. Yumniarino. F.J.. & Fleenor. J.W. 11W8). more than 1,000 managers and executives. Bobs "Self-Other Ruling Agrt-emeni: Docs It Really Matter." Pfrsoiim-I latest book, a collaboration with Mike Lombardo, Psyrhiilii^y.^]. 576-597. Flccmir, J,W.. McCauicy. CD., & Brutus. S. (199ft). ".Self Other is The Leadership Machine. // outlines the steps agreemeni and Leader Effccliveness," The t-eudership Qiitinerh. necessary to develop effective and successful 7(4): 487-3()fi. leaders and managers. Harris, M.M.& Schaubrneck. J. (I98K). -'A Meta-Analysis of Self- Supervisor, Self-Peer and Peer-Supervisor Ratings." Pcrsomii'l Michael M. Lombardo is cofounder and director Psychit^igy. il: iT'-bl. of research and product creation at Lominger Kai.'ier, R.B.. & Kaplan. R.E. (20(K)l. "Geltjng Al Leadership Limited, Inc. and cocreator of The LEADERSHIP Versatility: The Ca.'ie nf the Foreefiil and Enabling Polarity" /5;/i Annuiil Cunfvreiuf iifilw Society (I'r liulu.Mrial unil Orf-iini^iiiiamil ARCHITECT® Suite. He was director of research Psychology. New Orh-an.t (April). in leadership development at the Center for Lombiirdo. M,. & Eichinger. R. (2(XI()). "High Potentials as High Creative Leadership for 15 years, where he coau- Learners." Humiin Resource Xfatuiai'ineni. 39l4|: 32l-3.H),a thored The Lessons of Experience, a study ofe.xec- Lombardo. M.. & Eiehinger, R. (2002). The Leudei.ship Miwliine. Minneapolis: Lnminger. utive success and derailment that detailed which Lombardo. M., & Eichinger, R. (2003). The LEADERSHtPARCHI- learnings from e.xperience can teach the competen- TECT Norms and Vaiidiiy Report. Minneapolis: Lominger. cies needed to be successful. While at CCL Mike Mabe, P.A. & West S.G, (1982). "Valicliiy of Self-Evalualion of also coauthored BENCHMARKS®, a 360-degree Abiliiy: A Review and Meta-Analysis." Jiiurniit of Applied feedback instrument: coauthored the research on P\ychology. 67: 2R0-296. executive derailment revealing how personal flaws McCall, M.. Lombardo. M. & Morrison, A. (1988). The Lessons of Experience, Lexington, Ma.ss.: Lexington Books, and overdone strengths caused otherwise effective Morrison. A., While. R., & Van Velsor, E. (1992). tireiiking ihe Class e.xecutives to get into career trouble: and the Ceiling. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. LOOKING GLASS® simulation. During his career, Shipper, F.. & Dillard. J. (2()(H)). "A Study of Impending Derailmeni Mike has authored over 50 publications dealing and Recovery of Middle Managers Across Career Stages," tiuman Re\ource MaiMfU'meni, 39(4): 331-347. with various issues of development and has won Spreii/er, G.M., MeCall, M.W. & Mahoney. J.D. (1997). -Early four national awards for re.search on managerial Identification of Intemational Executive Potential."' Journal of Applied cmd executive development. Psychohfiy. S2( I): 6-29.
Overdependence
Strengths Weaknesses Highly social; interacts effectively with May be viewed as people-pleaser; too nice employees and clients cannot face tough issues; wastes time Decisive; takes charge; makes decisions Dictatorial; does not seek or listen to input tinder pressure, even with incomplete information from others; may appear impulsive and impatient Delegates well, finds best person for the job; Hands off work; does not contribute individually; shares responsibility an(d accountability with others does not add to strength of department: is not involved Composed, mature, handles stress well; calm May seem cold and uncaring; easily in crisis misinterpreted
44 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING