360 Degree Feedback Assignment. Robert M. Clarkson. Virginia Commonwealth University. EDLP 703 Understanding Self as Leader: Practical Applications

Transcription

1 Running head: 360 DEGREE FEEDBACK Degree Feedback Assignment Robert M. Clarkson Virginia Commonwealth University EDLP 703 Understanding Self as Leader: Practical Applications Commented [O1]: All requirements were met. Up until page 9, this paper was one of your best papers that I have read. It appeared that you started making more grammatical errors at that point and your sentences became more run on. That fact might be something to remind you to double proofread as your papers become longer. Your graphical representations were well done just needing a little more labeling, etc. -1 for graphical presentations; -1 for grammatical errors= 28 pts earned on this assignment

2 360 DEGREE FEEDBACK Degree Feedback The purpose of this research paper is to analyze results of a Virginia Commonwealth University (2015) s Leadership Skill Assessment: 360 degree feedback. For purposes of this paper, the assessment will be known as the survey. I provided this survey to my colleagues at work, including my direct supervisor, 3 peers and 2 direct reports, for a total of 6 respondents. The purpose was to assess my leadership skills. In addition, I took the survey to compare my responses to those of my colleagues. The survey was broken into 10 sections covering different leadership skills, with a total of fifty-eight questions posed to my colleagues who could provide a response from ineffective, rated a 1, to outstandingly effective, rated a 5. My colleagues also had to choose from a list of sources of evidence regarding their response to each question. All of my colleagues responded to the survey, which was anonymous. I did not take into consideration responses by role for analysis purposes in the paper. Once all the surveys were submitted, I aggregated the data, calculated measures of central tendency and charted my data. In the following two sections, I will provide an analysis of the data, a discussion as to what the data tells me regarding my leadership skills and a conclusion which describes the implications for me as a leader. The analysis component will include a description of each of the 10 sections (also known as factors), a graphical representation of the mean ratings of my colleagues compared to my self-ratings and a frequency distribution table of the sources of evidence. The discussion section will interpret the result found by each factor, explaining the difference between how I rated my leadership skills versus how my colleagues rated them. The discussion will also include the relevance of the sources of evidence. I will end this paper with a conclusion section which will address the implications of the findings regarding what I have learned about myself and how that will change my behavior as a leader. Commented [O2]: This beginning introduction is one of the best that I have ever read. Way to go Robert!

3 360 DEGREE FEEDBACK 3 Analysis Description of the 10 Factors There are 10 factors which are addressed in this survey. Factor 1, setting direction, addresses setting clear measurable goals, supporting high quality outcomes and seeking commitment to a course of action. Factor 2, teamwork, includes encouraging team members to share ideas, assisting in performing the operations tasks of the team, seeking input from team members and acting to maintain direction. Factor 3, sensitivity, covers the leadership skills of interacting professionally and tactfully with others, expressing written, verbal and/or non-verbal recognition of feelings, needs, or concerns in responding to others. Factor 4, judgment, includes acting with caution and analyzing information to determine the important elements of a situation and seeking to identify the cause of a problem and seeing relationships among issues. Factor 5, results orientation, comprises of taking action to move issues toward closure, determining the Commented [O3]: Reword, is comprised of criteria which indicates that a problem or issue is resolved, and making a decision on the basis of information. Factor 6, organizational ability, includes delegating responsibilities to others, monitoring progress, establishing timelines, schedules, or milestones, preparing for meetings, and using available resources. Factor 7, oral communication, implies using proper grammar, pronunciation, diction and syntax, tailoring messages to meet the needs of unique audiences, and clearly presenting thoughts and ideas. Factor 8, relates to demonstrating technical proficiency in writing and expressing ideas clearly. Factor 9, developing others, is sharing expertise gained through experience and encouraging others to change behaviors. Finally, factor 10, understanding one s own strengths and weaknesses, is comprised of two leadership skills, recognizing one s own strengths and recognizing one s own development needs.

4 Ratings 360 DEGREE FEEDBACK 4 Graphical Representation of Colleague s Responses versus My Responses The following graph, Figure 1, illustrates how I rated myself for each of the 10 factors for leadership skills versus how my colleagues rated me. I used mean as the measure for central tendency versus median. Since, there are only five possible answers and the differences in ratings are so close, only one interval, I consider there to be no outliers. Due to this interpretation, I believe that a mean calculation will provide the best indication of where central tendency falls in the spectrum of answers by averaging and including all of the ratings. For the purpose of my analysis, if a mean rating of 3.8 is calculated, for example, I will round that rating up to 4 when interpreting results, equating to an outcome of highly effective leadership skills, versus a rating of 3, which would be considered satisfactory. Figure I. 360 Survey Feedback Ratings. This figure illustrates how my colleagues rating my leaderships skills in 10 factors versus how I do, using mean ratings. Commented [O4]: What I would like to see in this chart also is a side key with Factor 1: Setting Direction, etc. so that the reader did not have to go back to the long paragraph to figure out the name of the factor Mean Feedback Ratings Factors Collaborator's Responses My Responses Overall, how I rated myself as a leader, with a mean of 3.8 for all 10 factors, was not that different compared to how my colleagues rated me, with a mean of 3.7. Both overall ratings, rounded up, equate to me being a highly effective leader. However, there were some meaningful Commented [O5]: Just an aside: I do not know if you averaged the averages of all the means to get your final mean; however, I wanted to let you know that you have to go back to all the raw data to get the total mean. You do NOT use the averages of averages. Just a thought as I was reading this sentence.

5 360 DEGREE FEEDBACK 5 differences in ratings when you look at the individual factors. My colleagues rated me a 4 for my judgment on resolving complex issues, factor 4, versus my self-rating of a five, outstandingly effective. Regarding factor 1, setting direction, I actually rated myself a 3 satisfactory, versus my colleagues, who rated me higher at a 4, highly effective. Regarding communication, factor 7, my colleagues again rated me higher at a 4, versus my self-rating of 3. An explanation of these differences, plus some others, will be covered in the discussion section. Frequency Distribution of Sources of Evidence The following table, table 1, displays the frequency of each source of evidence selected by the respondents by each factor. See below for related frequency table: Table 1 Commented [O6]: Again, somewhere the related names of the factors should be easy to find such as in a side key or table. Frequency Distribution of Sources of Evidence by Factor, noting number of questions Factor Personal Reports Documents Projects Other No Total # of questions Observations From others or Activities Sources Evidence One questions Two questions Three questions Four questions Five questions Six questions Seven questions Eight questions Nine questions Ten questions

6 360 DEGREE FEEDBACK 6 When analyzing which sources were predominantly used, personal observations, totaling 380 observations, is by far, the most frequently used source. Please note that the respondents could have selected multiple sources for each question but in many cases did not. I think it is also important to provide some background as to my department which may shine some light on the frequency of sources. I work in a small department and sit in close proximity to my team, Commented [O7]: semicolon therefore, I am not surprised that personal observations are almost half of all sources reported and the largest frequency of sources. Not surprisingly, reports from others, is second with a frequency of 90, as our team often discusses issues with each other. For the purpose of this paper, I describe personal observations and reports from others to be soft, although meaningful, sources due to the fact that everything is through word of mouth and nothing is written down. Following close behind is the source of no evidence with a frequency of 84. Although we are a small team, I mostly just share work with my manager and sometimes a peer of mine. Because of Commented [O8]: omit this closed working relationship, other colleagues may not have access to evidence as to why they rated me a certain way, instead relying on their gut. Or they have not worked with me long enough, since I have only been in the position a year, so they are making a guess. Since my manager and sometimes one other person only have access to projects or documents I work on, Commented [O9]: don t end a phrase in a preposition this fact explains why frequency of these sources is the lowest. I consider project and documents to be hard sources, as evidence is documented in some way. Discussion Factor 1 The leadership skill of setting direction, factor 1, had some divergence of opinion when comparing my self-rating versus that of my colleagues. My colleagues rated this skill the highest at a mean of 3.9. In comparison, I self-rated at a mean of 3.3, the second lowest self-rating for Commented [O10]: my

7 360 DEGREE FEEDBACK 7 me. These ratings are presented in Figure 1, as all other results following. Possible reasons for Commented [O11]: omit the difference is that I have significant experience with goal setting and therefore it probably stands out as a strength of mine with colleagues. In comparison, I do not see as many uses for goal setting in my current role versus other roles I have had. Regarding sources of evidence, as presented in Table 1, 63 of 79 total sources are from personal observations or reports from others, so I would consider the ratings meaningful. Factor 2 The leadership skill of teamwork, factor 2, has been rated quite similarly, when comparing my self-rating versus that of my colleagues. My colleagues rated this skill highest, tied with factor 1, at a mean of 3.9. In comparison, I self-rated teamwork at a mean of 4 only factor 4 averaged a higher rating. My explanation for a similar rating is the fact that in my department we have to work very closely as a team to accomplish projects. I like to work in teams and my colleagues obviously appreciate my talents in that area. Regarding sources of evidence, 57 of 69 total sources were from personal observations or reports from others, so I would consider the ratings meaningful. Factor 3 The leadership skill of sensitivity, factor 3, was self-rated slightly higher at a mean of 4, versus a rating of 3.8 by my colleagues. I do not see this rating difference as significant. Both my colleagues and I believe that I am highly effective at being sensitive as a leader. I can understand Commented [O12]: try to avoid using the term significant or significance in studies unless you are going to run a statistical study to show if there is a significant difference or not. why. A large percentage of my role is devoted to being attentive and responsive to each individual graduate student as they are working full-time, are quite intelligent, but have unique needs that I must customize my approach to meeting. As all of my colleagues have this shared responsibility towards all graduate students and were hired, myself included, with a skill-set to

8 360 DEGREE FEEDBACK 8 do this job, therefore it is not surprising that we are close to being on the same page regarding my skill is this area. Regarding sources of evidence, there was insignificant hard evidence of this skill, which makes sense, as sensitivity is more likely to be identified through personal observations and reports from others, accounting for 37 of the 46 sources identified. Factor 4 My colleagues rated me at a mean of 3.6, equating to highly effective, for my judgment skill, factor 4, versus my self-rating of 4.6, equating to outstandingly effective. This divergence of opinion probably comes from my self-confidence in judgment, a leadership skill I used quite frequently in prior positions. However, in my current role, this skill is not needed, so if I do not need to use it, I have learned that it is not rated highly. Regarding sources of evidence, while personal observations accounts for 50% of total sources, sources from hard evidence, documents or projects, is now greater than reports from others. A greater percentage of sources from hard evidence makes sense as that would be the best way to evaluate judgment. Although these sources are all considered meaningful in validating the assessment of this leadership skill-set, there is no evidence noted in 18% of the responses, which detracts slightly in the ability to validate the results. Factor 5 The leadership skill of being results oriented, factor 5, was self-rated slightly higher at a mean of 4, versus a rating of 3.7 by my colleagues. I do not see this rating difference as too significant. Both parties, my colleagues and I, believe that I am highly effective at being results oriented as a leader. Even though my department does not have specific goals around qualitative measures, such as the number of students admitted in each MBA class, I do get assessed in my Commented [O13]: Quantitative (numbers) Commented [O14]: omit ability to generate qualitative results such as improving the experience of the student. However, I

9 360 DEGREE FEEDBACK 9 find it hard to assess my results on these qualitative measures, which can be subjective, hence my explanation for the difference in ratings. Regarding sources of evidence, there is a good mixture of soft, which is in the majority, and hard evidence to validate that the survey feedback is meaningful. Factor 6 I self-rated the leadership skill of organizational ability, factor 6, at a mean of 4, versus a rating of 3.7 by my colleagues. I do not see this rating difference as too significant. Although I do perceive myself to be more effective at organization that my colleagues probably do, I am not Commented [O15]: omit used to the amount of administrative work in my job, so it will take me more time to become highly effective at this skill. Although I do believe that the ratings are meaningful and validated regarding sources of evidence, with hard and soft evidence accounting for 49 of the 65 sources, sources with no evidence account for the remainder, which is second highest for this category amongst factors. Factor 7 Commented [O16]: I follow this sentence, but it is runon with so many different ideas. The leadership skill of oral communication, factor 7, was rated a mean of 3.8 by my colleagues, equating to highly effective, as compared to a self-rating of 3.4, the third lowest rating I gave myself across factors, equating to satisfactory. A possible reason for the difference is that I believe I am not a strong orator, however, it appears that my colleagues think differently. Regarding sources of evidence, it is not surprising that a majority of the 44 total sources, 36, Commented [O17]: Semicolon denoting 2 separate sentences which are closely related represent personal observations and reports from others, as oral communication skills are being evaluated. With only two sources having no evidence, the results are meaningful.

10 360 DEGREE FEEDBACK 10 Factor 8 The leadership skill of written communication, factor 8, as evidenced by the mean ratings, is not my strength. My colleagues rated me lowest on average for this skill, with a mean of 3.3, compared to my only slightly higher self-rating of 3.5. As the nature of my role is mostly administrative, with a significant volume of written communications, most being via , I sometimes struggle with making minor grammatical and other minor unforced errors. I have started to make adjustments to double-check my work and make it right before I hit send. Not surprisingly, regarding sources of evidence, documents and projects account for one quarter of the sources. Surprisingly, soft evidence, accounts for almost two-thirds of the sources, so people must be observing this more I thought. Factor 9 Regarding factor 9, developing others, this was the lowest rated leadership skill of all factors on average. Both my colleagues and I were in close agreement of a satisfactory performance in this area, with a mean of 3.4 from my colleagues and 3.2 for a self-rating. I Commented [O18]: this what? more than I thought. (2 of my comments in a short space) Commented [O19]: omit Commented [O20]: omit Commented [O21]: on justify these lower ratings, compared to other factors, as I do not currently manage anyone or have the responsibility to develop others. Interestingly enough, developing others was seen as a significant strength in other positions I have held where I had to manage people, but apparently, if it is not widely used as a skill in my current position, it does not get considered or considered strongly at least. This is supported by the fact that the sources of no evidence for this factor totals 20, greater than any other source and almost half of all sources of evidence. This leads me to Commented [O22]: omit Commented [O23]: really long sentence Commented [O24]: This what??? believe that the ratings are not very meaningful, which allays my fears that my skill in developing others has waned.

11 360 DEGREE FEEDBACK 11 Factor 10 The leadership skill of recognizing one s own strengths and weaknesses, factor 10, was self-rated at a mean of 4, versus a rating of 3.7 by my colleagues, not a significant difference. Both parties essentially believe that I am highly effective in recognizing my own strengths and development needs as I have been quite verbal in asking for projects where I can solve complex problems using my strengths in this area, while delegating some of the more tedious administrative tasks to administrative assistants in my department. Regarding sources of evidence, personal observations and reports from others accounted for almost three-quarters of Commented [O25]: Too long a very confusing sentence. These sentences are becoming more frequent at the end of the paper. the sources of evidence, validating that the survey feedback is meaningful. Conclusion What has been learned from this 360 degree feedback is that I am a highly effective leader. I have discovered a lot in the process of analyzing and discussing this data. I have learned that setting goals is a more significant strength than I thought of mine, that teamwork is appreciated by my colleagues and that I must continue to balance sensitivity towards my students Commented [O26]: I think it sounds better to place of mine between strength and than with the need to be consistent in applying graduate school policies that maintain the integrity of the MBA program. I believe that if I can figure out how to utilize my strong leadership skill in judgment, it could elevate my overall value to the department. Regarding my personal practice, I must continue to be results oriented but figure out a way to better measure results that are more qualitatively in nature, perhaps by working with my manager to determine what to measure and Commented [O27]: omit how best to measure it. I now know that I must focus more on my organizational skills to master the job by keeping on top of details and paperwork. I can be more confident in my oral communication skill, figuring out more ways to practice this skill in my role and I must continue to be diligent in ensuring that my written communications are error-free. I do need to figure out Commented [O28]: omit

12 360 DEGREE FEEDBACK 12 how to utilize the skill-set of developing others in my role, even if they are not under my direct supervision. Finally, I must continue to be persistent in asking for work which utilizes my own strengths, while also figuring out where I can make improvements in certain areas, relying not just on delegating less desirable tasks. Commented [O29]: reword

13 360 DEGREE FEEDBACK 13 References Virginia Commonwealth University (2015). Leadership skill assessment: 360 degree feedback. [Measurement instrument]. Retrieved from: 3-O3tt08Aw/viewform