What's Missing with Most 360 Feedback Processes?

I should put my perspective about 360's, and feedback processes, on the line to start off with.

I don't use them. I don't recommend them. And, for the most part, in my view, they are an insufficiently useful tool to support executives in validating or changing their behavior...

Most people read feedback results through a pre-existing filter that I label "our self-protection mechanisms". They include background conversations like: I agree/disagree; I like/don't like; that's right/that's wrong... (You will even notice that mechanism at work as you read my post).

Mostly, when we are presented with "facts" that support our point of view we love them and think the person who brings them to us is a savvy person. However, when confronted with "facts" contrary to our own point of view, or our reality, we operate from one of a range of responses - firstly, denial, resistance, justification and explanations - some variant of: I am right and you/they are wrong and I can prove it; I know how things are, and you/they just got it wrong. They just don't get it - me, my situation, what I am dealing with, ...

In this self-protection condition there is no other available response but argument and counter-argument… There is no possibility of an altered state, a transformation of reality or behavior in this paradigm. Worse, the prevailing paradigm is strengthened and reinforced by the exchanges of opinions and perceptions.

If? If the person getting feedback gets to acceptance - and I don't mean submission - a significant step up, then a secondary problem with most 360 feedback processes is that they provide no, or insufficient, pathway or support for the changes that the originators of the feedback surveys want. Especially true in instances where the feedback tells more about an executive's behavior problems than contributions.

I have a recent instance where a CEO got feedback about his "behavior problems" and he defaulted to two typical reactions: 1) who said that? - clearly so as to invalidate the "unreliable" source 2) to get a "PR" campaign going - corporate communications is not getting their job done explaining me. Understandable responses when we default to victim vs. being responsible - I am right and they are wrong.

Such negative feedback that executives do acknowledge as valid, for the most part, makes no difference. Sure they have others' opinions, but that "information" does not, in most cases, give them any access to alter their behavior. ... very few peoples' actions are changed as a result of this kind of "knowing". And, if the organization also has psychological profiling as part of their repertoire of tools and techniques we will likely hear, "I am not a bully, I don't dominate people, I just have a type A personality, I am an E, we shouldn't hire so many of these timid I's. That's the problem."

My principle objections to 360's are:

• They are anonymous
• They are not specific, what happened, when did it happen, who was involved or observed or can validate - because that usually blows the anonymity
• People opine, but with no shared context to make the opinions mean anything beyond their personal point of view. For example, they are not assessments about how well, or not, someone is performing or behaving against some pre-agreed set of values, principles or standards
• Such information that is useful is put into the hands of the very person who is least able to do anything useful with it - the person with either some set of problem behaviors and/or some set of qualities and attributes that others would benefit from emulating. By "useful" I mean, transform themselves. We can't. That is why a coach is so indispensable. We can't see ourselves as others see us - there's the rub!
  

Here are my recommendations about soliciting feedback and giving feedback. The first level is the easiest to implement. The third level requires more maturity and a supportive environment.

The first level:

1. The person about whom (for whom) feedback is being sought asks for it from a defined group of people. And says in the request for information how come they want it - as in what set of values, commitments and objectives they are working to forward that would be helped by some honest, straight, feedback. Feedback about what to stop because it thwarts the stated intentions. What to keep doing because it is consistent with intentions. What to start doing that would accelerate or enhance intentions. And, what to do differently so as to be more effective.
   
2. That person says they want frank direct feedback, with specifics: what happened? When? How did you feel? What was your experience? Again in the context of #1.
3. The requester asks that the feedback not be anonymous. Recognizing that that might be perceived as risky he/she asks that it be sent to a trusted third party - trusted because that person can be relied on to keep confidences and protect the source of the feedback. Equally, they can be counted on not dilute the delivery of key messages in passing feedback on.
4. The trusted third party may seek amplification and clarification from those providing feedback, then distills the messages ready to present to the requester. The trusted third party then works with the requester in two key areas: a) Make sure they "get" the communications without argument or resistance - these are messages from people intent on making a contribution, don't argue with or discount what is being offered, and, b) Make sure there is some coaching with the messages - what to do - as in what structure of support to put in place, how to do it, how to change ones behavior and the perceptions of colleagues.
   

The second level:

In addition to the first level the "trusted third party" engage those providing feedback in an inquiry to uncover how come they have been/are unwilling/reluctant to give the feedback directly to the executive who is seeking it. For leaders committed to transforming the culture to one of open, direct, honest, supportive, real-time feedback, there is a mine of useful insight about current barriers to open communication uncovered in this inquiry

The "trusted third party" gently probes with those giving feedback to see if they are willing to repeat their observations directly to the executive seeking feedback. If they are, request (lightly) that they do, with a by when. If not, ask if they would be willing to share how come? What the reticence is?

The third level:

At this level feedback is given in real-time, all the time. It is as natural as saying, "the picnic was great, and here's how come" or, "... and here's how we can improve it for next time..." In this model, half-year and year-end reviews are, for the most part, memorializations of highlights from feedback given throughout the year: acknowledging changes, identifying work in progress, and raising the bar for even more learning, growth and development.

In my view, we have designed our current anonymous 360 feedback process so as to avoid the more difficult challenge of creating a culture of openness, trust, mutual support, contribution, learning, growth and sharing. A culture in which teamwork, collaboration, win-win is lived and breathed.

Maybe, our current model of 360's were designed to be the first step - an acclimatization if you will - to giving feedback on the way to real-time-all-the-time direct feedback. The problem is, in most organizations, we have not taken any further steps. Worse, the 360 process, as usually administered, has devolved in to a perfunctory, time-consuming, check-off-the-box thing to do that frustrates most and adds value to very few.