360 degree feedback (or multi-rater feedback) processes are very widely used in organisations (for example, estimated to be 90% of fortune 500 organisations in the USA). The strengths of 360 seem to be clear: they can heighten self-awareness by holding a mirror up to the individual. Self-awareness, as we know, is the cornerstone of personal development. It offers individuals the choice to change or not to change, and in particular ideas about the areas in which they need to change.However, engagement of the individual is key to the success of 360 and as a result, the potential value of 360 is frequently lost in my experience. Here are a number of reasons why:
• Questionnaires are too long, with a question for every single behavioural indicator in the competence framework. The consequence of this is that respondents put less effort into completion, getting frustrated about the length of time taken, and responding at speed without really considering what each item means. This can result in bland, middle of the road feedback. Better to carefully choose the items to be representative of the competencies in the framework. It should be possible to complete a 360 in about 10 minutes.
• Questions are too generic, poorly phrased and the rating scale has not been well thought through. Again, all of these can be an annoyance to respondents. Generic behaviours are difficult to apply to a specific role and the respondent can struggle to interpret them into something concrete that they can relate to. Poorly defined rating scales can result in 'middle of the road feedback', with no differentiation between effective and less effective performance. The net effect of all of these is that the recipient receives vanilla feedback that is of little use to them. Better to carefully write questions that have a clear relevance to the role and to use a well-defined rating scale that will allow you to genuinely differentiate between levels of performance – even in a group of high performing individuals.
• Reports are too long and detailed. The length of reports depends on the number of question items as well as the level of detail that is reported. (I've seen reports that are up to a daunting 40 pages in length!). For example, reports that provide feedback against every single question can appear to be very useful. However the law of diminishing returns is relevant – the more question items there are which are reported individually, the less valuable and less engaging the feedback can become. From experience, recipients of such reports can at times become overly hung up on the detail. This is unhelpful, particularly where items are badly worded. This problem can be exacerbated when feedback indicates the frequency of scores for every single item. In my experience, this can have one of two effects: the recipient either rationalises the feedback, e.g. "well, only one person said that, and I think I know who that might be, so I'll ignore it". Whilst this is useful data in terms of their approach to receiving feedback, and is in itself diagnostic, the result is that the recipient can disengage. Alternatively, a recipient may become overly concerned about the detail.
"I need to know who said that", thus focussing more on the specifics and what one person said rather than engaging with the overall message that the feedback provides.
If you want to get the most out a 360 process, therefore, focus on using fewer questions of higher quality (i.e. expressed in concrete terms that are relevant to the role), ensure that you use a well-defined rating scale and don’t over engineer the feedback report – just because data can be cut and sliced in a particular way does not mean it is better. Sometimes, less is more!
I read some genuinely fascinating research out this week about the impact of the names of hurricanes. As you'll probably know, hurricanes are alternately given either male or female names, which cycle through the alphabet. The research from the University of Illinois looked at the last 60 years’ worth of hurricane data and found that, even though they weren't any more severe, hurricanes with female names had, on average, higher death tolls than 'male' hurricanes.
When looking at why this might be, the researchers concluded that people's behaviour changed according to the name of the hurricane.
One of the researchers, Sharon Shavitt cites:
"In judging the intensity of a storm, people appear to be applying their beliefs about how men and women behave.
This makes a female-named hurricane, especially one with a very feminine name such as Belle or Cindy, seem gentler and less violent."
This was also tested in experiments, where male-named hurricanes were consistently rated as being more intense and risky than 'female' hurricanes.
These gender stereotypes are deeply engrained in our subconscious and this research found that people imagining female hurricanes were also less likely to seek out shelter. That's a risky strategy, given that this behavior is likely to be directed by our unconscious bias associating the hurricane with feminine stereotypes such as warmth and lower aggression, when hurricanes are in reality named arbitrarily. However, our brains do like to take short cuts and such stereotypes are a quick and easy way of processing information. This is not helpful for effective decision-making at the best of times, but this is an example of where these gender stereotypes can have serious consequences.
I'm sure by now most people have gotten the message from our work and our blogs that unconscious bias is bad for business.This latest research takes it even further and suggests that, for some, it could even be deadly.....
In the last week a major figure of authority, the Avon and Somerset Police Chief, has been suspended while “serious allegations” of inappropriate behaviour towards female colleagues are investigated. At this stage the exact details are unclear and there will be further enquiry before we know whether or not any inappropriate behaviour has occurred.
This, together with other recent high profile claims of harassment at work, causes me to question what else needs to be done to achieve any real reduction in inappropriate behaviour in the workplace. Research from several sources suggests that around 10-30% of workers are affected by workplace bullying (e.g. Acas, Unison, National Bullying Helpline). The fact that this latest allegation has occurred in the public sector gives it greater publicity in the media and reflects the finding that 80% of calls received by the National Bullying Helpline are from workers in the public sector.
More needs to be done to raise awareness of what inappropriate behaviour means and the fact that it still goes on in many organisations today. In this case, the claim is of “serious allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards female officers and staff” (BBC News), which leads us to believe that this is a case of alleged sexual harassment. More generally, inappropriate behaviour can fall along a spectrum with serious harassment and bullying at one end, to more subtle forms of inappropriate behaviour at the other end. It is these more subtle behaviours that are often overlooked but nevertheless have a big impact. For example, research suggests that inappropriate behaviour results in poor staff retention, reduced efficiency, increased sickness absence, lower employee engagement and can have a detrimental impact on the bottom line.
There is frequently confusion in organisations about how to eliminate inappropriate behaviour without being accused of being “the fun police”. Many organisations find that feedback in their staff survey suggests that bullying and harassment is a greater problem than they would have suspected because very few cases are reported to their HR departments.
So what can employers do about this problem? Here are some top tips to help organisations reduce the likelihood of inappropriate behaviour occurring in the workplace:· Clarify expectations – communicating a clear policy on bullying and harassment / dignity at work is a crucial first step. In addition, ensure managers are delivering consistent messages about what is or is not acceptable and focus on positive behaviours the organisation would like to see, e.g. being inclusive, valuing and respecting everyone’s contributions etc.
"You can't teach an old dog new tricks." A well-worn phrase that hints at a rather negative relationship between age and ability to learn. Some of the most interesting areas of our work in psychology relate to the way that people change their mindset, behaviour and learn to develop new habits. As a coach, for example, I am often struck that both the ability and motivation to learn are not actually age related, but instead linked to mindset and attitude.
Back in the 1970's many scientists argued that the brain stops developing around early adulthood and then starts to deteriorate in function. Indeed, the belief was so strong that my mother still, to this day, discourages me from playing football on the basis that every time I head the ball I will never be able to replace the lost brain cells.
Recent advances in neuroscience have challenged this perspective considerably. Of course the brain stops increasing in physical mass - otherwise space within the skull would be tight - but there appears to be some fairly strong and consistent evidence that the brain has a plasticity which enables structural changes through learning. The term neuroplasticity has been around for a few years, but only recently are studies beginning to illustrate the vital nature of the way that the brain continues to change. The use of magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), for example, now enables researchers to observe changes in the brain during and following a wide range of different activities, including sport, problem solving and music.
One area of focus in understanding such changes in the brain comes from studies of mindfulness or meditation. While there is a degree of scepticism levelled at the practice - often seen as somewhat too transcendental and intangible for the workplace - the reality is that a number of studies of the brain seem to have identified significant changes in activity in different regions of the brain following periods of 'mindful' activity. A frequently cited paper (Davidson, 2003) reports significant increases, following participation in an eight week course of mindfulness training, in left-sided anterior activation (the left frontal area of the brain) which is associated with positive emotion. Equally, there were corresponding decreases in right frontal lobe activation, associated with negative feelings such as anger and depression.
In a later paper, Holzel et al (2011) cited changes in grey and white matter concentration in the areas associated with self-regulation and perspective taking. A more recent study published in Nature by Zatorre et al (2012) further highlights the structural plasticity of both grey and white matter that specifically occurs with repeated learning.
As with many aspects of neuroscience, findings at this stage tend to be inconsistent and need further exploration, but if these changes are found to be replicable then the impact on activities such as coaching could be huge, not least because it provides us with a greater and more specific understanding of what is actually happening when we develop new skills and behaviours at work. Let's face it, as coaches we are fundamentally interested in working with individuals to achieve significant and lasting changes in motivation, behaviour and attitude. The use of cognitive-based activities, such as learning new habits, learning to manage stress or even learning to manage bias could become more 'conscious' coaching activities with very concrete - albeit unseen - changes taking place.
About ten years ago, in a previous job, I attended a conference in Harrogate. My role was to evaluate the quality of the research output and to write a report. The conference could be described as typical until the afternoon of day two, when the schedule was devoted to the question of devolution for Yorkshire. The culmination of the afternoon's activities was a vote amongst the conference attendees on the question of self-determination of England's largest county. Being a pragmatic realist I found that afternoon's fanciful programme to be a little frustrating, but at least I had time to start writing the assignment I had travelled to Harrogate for.
Scotland's referendum is very much a reality and a very important question for the Scottish people as well as those who live in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, I am beginning to feel that same sense of frustration I experienced in Harrogate. With just under 150 days before the vote, the seemingly ceaseless news coverage is reflecting the antipathy between the two camps. It is much like watching a couple in the throes of breaking-up arguing over who will keep the music collection and which friends they will be able to hang-out with. But in this case we are talking about oil, currency, the national debt, and the friends are Europe.
I don't know if I can take this level of bickering on a matter I can have no influence over for next 6 months. I thought that was what kids were for. But being pragmatic I realise that there is something to be done about this. The Implicit Association Test (IAT), devised by psychologists at Harvard University, is a tool that we at Pearn Kandola use to help people in organisations understand that they have unconscious bias and that these biases will impact on the quality and fairness of their decisions in a number of environments including selection, promotion and project allocation. It is a tool that has helped many organisations understand the unconscious factors that lead to low representation of people from minority groups and how individuals can take responsibility to manage their own biases.
This is not the only application of the IAT. In recent years the IAT has been applied in the following areas:· Mental Health - Including differentiating adolescents who were non-suicidal, suicide ideators and suicide attempters
But what has particularly piqued my interest in relation to Scotland's referendum is that the IAT has been shown to predict future voting behaviour of undecided voters, before they have consciously made a decision. Put simply, undecided voters do know who they are going to vote for, they just don't realise it! Maybe they like the attention, the endless debate or the ceaseless canvassing. The fact is I don't. If I get sufficient support for this idea I will construct an IAT that will help the undecided realise what their brains already know!
In the last couple of weeks it was reported that France was to ban work emails after 6pm. In fact, the law is intended as a general principal to allow workers to flick the off-switch on their communications devices and create protected non-work time. Few could argue against that. Communications technology, in the form of email, smart phones and video-conferencing can be a double-edged sword and it's easy to see it as a threat to the sanctity of family life. However, if we manage it to our own advantage then the flexibility it brings can also be the vehicle to greater work-life balance.
Technology increases the pace and efficiency at which we work. I'm old enough to remember those lazy days when we used to post a printed draft report to a client and wait for their posted response a few days later. Now we achieve in a few hours what would have previously taken a week. To compete, we all have to work smarter and faster, delivering much higher volumes of output for relatively little gain in pay. In addition, computers are no longer office based giants but can be slipped into a pocket. This creates pressure to work additional hours at home on top of the normal 8 hour day; particularly in jobs where availability to clients is critical or where leaner organisational structures leave managers overloaded with administrative tasks. In fact working 9-5 in a single location is, for many of us, a thing of the past as we are never fully "away" from the office. As a result, work ends up encroaching on our home life; and yes I have been guilty of taking my lap-top to the hotel pool and answering work emails from a windy campsite in Cornwall.
Rather than see this as a curse, we should remember to celebrate the flexibility that email and smart phones give us. If we make technology work for us, it can allow us to find a better inter-play between work and home commitments. We can be there for our son's rugby match whilst still being available to take an important call; we can use two hours travel time on the train as an effective part of our working day and still get home in time to go to the gym. Technology can create seamless transitions between these different spheres of our life. Rather than seeing our day as divided between 8 hour blocks of "work", "home" and "sleep" time; we can switch flexibly between spheres; working in a way that maximises our own effectiveness and well-being. Some people might work better at 2am; if that's the case then let them!
The right balance will be different for each individual. Some may prefer or need stronger boundaries where work is restricted between regular defined hours. However, given the rise of both men and women using flexible working it is clear that, for many of us, we welcome the blurring of boundaries between work and home life. It's up to us to have the courage to flick the off-switch when we've done our bit, and make sure we are not slaves to our smart phones. Where possible define the outputs for a job and not the specific hours in which it must be done.
Interesting article in the news today about fairness and racial bias in babies; a study conducted by researchers at the University of Washington shows that 15 month old babies show a strong preference for individuals who display fair behaviour, as measured by whether or not an experimenter equally distributes toys. That is unless the babies see that the experimenter unevenly distributed toys in a way that benefits a person of the same race as the infant. Where that was the case, they were more intolerant of the unfairness, suggesting an in-group bias from these babies.
We know that the in-group bias appears from an early age; research has demonstrated that three-to-five-year-old children systematically select same-race unfamiliar peers and adults as potential friends over those of another race (Katz and Kofkin, 1997; Kinzler and Spelke, 2011), however, this new research suggests that this bias appears even earlier.
This study has made news sites across the world, but even more interesting than the findings are the comments that accompany the articles. The majority opinion on one website I looked at was that this finding simply cannot be true. Some example comments I came across were:
“I found this whole thing disturbing and disgusting! Who the hell thinks up a study to show babies are racist and biased? Babies are innocent angels until taught by those around them. Babies are not born racist they are influenced by their parents, family and those around them.”
“People are not BORN racists/racially prejudiced, it's taught to them and to suggest that white people have some innate bias in them is just wrong (I am not white by the way).”
Of course, there are environmental influences that shape our thinking as we grow up, but the fundamental point is that actually yes, we are all biased, and the research suggests that in-group biases are there from very early on in our lives. Most importantly though, it’s what we do about them which matters. To suggest they don’t exist is more than just a fruitless exercise in denial, it is dangerous self-delusion – we know that bias has an impact on our behaviours and decisions, and if we don’t recognise this, how can we ever change it?
In an increasingly competitive world we have been accustomed to pushing ourselves further and harder to achieve our sense of worth. Accepting "OK" in ourselves just isn't good enough. There is a danger, however, in adopting an overly hard and self-critical attitude. What becomes more useful in the long run is the ability to be kind to oneself; "self-compassion". Rather than being a sign of complacency, being kind to yourself is actually the route to greater long term achievement and well-being, and a more stable self-esteem.
Within a work context, people who are hard on themselves can find it particularly difficult to accept and absorb performance feedback. To protect their self-esteem they may avoid seeking feedback, or reject the feedback they hear. Alternatively if the feedback becomes impossible to ignore they can experience a significant knock to their self-esteem and become demotivated. As a leadership development coach, these are patterns we often need to manage people through. Developing a leader's "self-compassion" could be key to achieving this.
The Buddhist construct of "Self-Compassion" is growing in recognition within therapeutic and business settings. Kristen Neff has done much to define and validate this quality, breaking it down into three elements:
Going beyond the philosophy, Neff and others have provided empirical evidence of the strength of self-compassion. Self-compassionate individuals experience less depression and anxiety and significantly more positive moods. It is associated with better coping strategies when experiencing personal difficulties or failure. Most critically for performance improvement, rather than breeding complacency, self-compassion is associated with a higher intrinsic interest in learning and more objective and honest self-evaluations. People high in self-compassion are more likely to take a balanced responsibility for their role in negative events rather than blame failure on others. As a result they are more likely to take positive action to address their own development.
So be kind to yourself. It's not self-indulgent. It's healthy, honest and will help you learn and grow.
Last month, Professor Binna Kandola and I presented our third seminar on cognitive neuropsychology and its impact in the workplace. This area of psychology looks at the structure and function of the brain and how this influences our behaviour, decisions and reactions.
It is a rapidly growing area of science, so much so that the US Government last year pledged over $3 billion to a project to ‘map’ the brain’s critical functions. In making the announcement, Barack Obama said "as humans we can identify galaxies light years away, we can study particles smaller than the atom, but we still haven't unlocked the mystery of the 3lb of matter that sits between our ears."
What is driving such a huge interest and investment in exploring the brain’s capabilities? The most straightforward answer is that there have been huge advances in recent years in the technologies that allow us to observe and record specific activity in the brain. Not too long ago, most of our understanding of brain activity was down to observing patients with brain injuries. Patients would perform a variety of different tasks and then any deficit in their performance would point to a link between the damaged region of the brain and its function. Now, the use of fMRI scans and advances in nanotechnologies is rapidly accelerating our understanding of the brain. Each week, headlines are made by new studies observing previously unknown aspects of the brain’s performance. At a glance, this week’s science publications are telling us that we now understand more about speech, reasoning skills and learning ability.
There are a few risks in interpreting these studies, however, simply because the brain is so vastly complex in its structure. It contains over 100 billion neurones, each connected to around 10,000 synapses (electrical transmitters), resulting in a number of possible pathways that any pocket calculator would struggle to cope with. New neural pathways are constantly formed throughout life, created through new experiences, dispelling the myth that the brain starts deteriorating in mid-life, but increasing the complexity of what we are trying to understand. In a world where we often look for big simple answers to complex questions, it can sometimes be too easy, and misleading, to over-generalise from one study of a specific area of brain activity to our behaviour.
Over the coming months, this blog will share what we consider to be the most informative and relevant research in neuropsychology. We will look at what the best journals are telling us about important workplace behaviours such as leadership, influence, communication, judgement and decision making. We will share thoughts on how learning and development specialists might use this information to develop new ways of developing managers, coaching leaders and growing potential.
So, if you’re interested in a regular update on what’s happening in the world of neuropsychology, watch this space. I’m tempted to say it’s a no-brainer, but that couldn’t be further from the truth.
The New Year brings the promise of a new start. The bad memories of last year's failings can be pushed away now that we feel more rested and calm: of course we will eat more healthily; of course we will be more sociable; of course we will exercise more! Unfortunately, as most of us will admit, it really isn't that simple.
Good goals should be specific and have an achievable and measurable outcome and it helps to make a public commitment. We are encouraged to identify something challenging but at the same time we are reminded that it is better to break goals down and focus on the actions needed to achieve it.
In focusing on our new exciting goals, it's easy to forget, however, the danger of lapsing into old bad habits. In two or three weeks' time life will be back to normal with the usual pressures and demands. Under pressure we default back to our old habits, eating whatever is at hand, working too late, and relaxing with an oversized glass of wine. To avoid this we must put the right ingredients in place:
Habits are "context-dependent" and are often triggered by a situation or cue. Such as when we find we have taken the wrong turn in the car following the route we would normally follow. With this in mind we have to train ourselves to respond differently to the same cues or put in place new cues and reminders. We might set up phone alerts to remind us that it's time to get up from the desk and stretch a little (don't laugh..... I can actually forget to move for several hours if uninterrupted!).
We need new simple easy-to-achieve routines. So when we walk in the door, we don't go straight to the fridge, but drink a glass of water and do ten minutes on the exercise bike. After supper, we don't go back on our emails, but sit down on the sofa with the kids and chat about the day. The overall goal might be challenging but the easier the new day to day routines, the more chance there is of you making them happen.
Finally, there needs to be a reward attached. Ideally, the new routine should bring its own rewards; a feeling of renewed energy, a freshness of mind, a closer bond with family. These rewards need to be brought to mind and visualised compared to the alternative feelings of sluggishness, boredom and isolation. And if you reach your ultimate goal, a personal treat or celebration will be deserved.
The more often you repeat these new behaviours the more they become your normal routines and habits. Aim to do a little and often rather than scare yourself off with a single 10 mile jog that there is always a reason to avoid.
|Subscribe to the Pearn Kandola blog feed.|