• Home
• About Us
• Talent Management
• 360-degree
• Products
• Business Systems
• Privacy
• Support
• Contact Us
• Login to myWorkbench

Research Articles

• FREE Webinars
• Articles
• FAQs
• Partnering
• Multi-lingual
• Employment
• Find Us
• Site Map

Case Studies: Careful Implementation for Maximum Results: (3 Case Studies)

Note: One of the organisations concerned did not want their name made public so the three organizations will not be specifically named but referred to as Organisations A, B and C.

HOW EACH ORGANISATION IMPLEMENTED 360 DEGREE PROFILING FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES

ORGANISATION A

Organisation A is a public sector organisation that had a specific need to create a pool of potential Executives for the future. Their analysis of the strategic HR position revealed a large exit of senior people over coming years and identified a distinct lack of people internally who had the skills and depth of knowledge to fill these positions. They decided that an intensive executive development program be conducted over a twelve month period to provide a pool of potential executives. 360 Degree Profiling was used to give participants initial feedback on the perceptions of their behaviour from a variety of sources and to provide an accurate measurement system that would track changes in behaviour over the twelve month period.

ORGANISATION B

A private sector organisation that was running a Management/Leadership development program for people who had been identified as having potential. 360 Degree Profiling was used to give people INDIVIDUAL feedback on their current behaviour and to provide a platform for individual development goal setting. They also used the profiling for the development of workplace teams. A side benefit of the use of this technology was the validation of training outcomes.

ORGANISATION C

A private sector organisation that saw 360 Degree Profiling as a valuable addition to the Performance Appraisal/Management system that they currently had in place. 360 Degree Profiling was used to provide a multiplicity of views of performance so that these could be discussed at the performance review interview.

HOW ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE WAS AN IMPORTANT INGREDIENT IN DEFINING THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

An organisation's culture determines the acceptance level and quality of responses in any 360 Degree process.

Aspects of the culture to consider are:

• Is the culture seen as Punitive?
• Is the importance of being Individually Performance Driven recognised within the culture?
• Are Manager/Staff relationships open?
• What kind of activity level do the Unions exert (ie dependence on Unions as spokespersons)?
• What structure exists in the Organisation?
• Punitive Culture?

If the organisation has a punitive culture then most people will distrust the use of the 360 Degree tool. In this environment words will mean nothing - only actions. The only way to build acceptance of these types of processes in this culture is to pilot the process with small groups and gradually expand the use of the tool. In these situations you should use these processes for development related activities only.

You must pledge, and deliver, complete confidentiality of responses.

Individually Performance Driven?

In a high flying organisation where most people are self starters, highly motivated, and work at their own pace with minimal supervision, the 360 Degree process is seen as a welcome input into the "How am I going?" question. In this environment very little selling of the concept is required to get the process working.

Where people are not of this inclination then there is a great deal of selling needed to make sure that everyone understands, and feels comfortable with the process.

Manager/Staff Relationships?

This is a critical issue because it addresses the issue of TRUST. If people trust the intent of management they are usually prepared to give new things a "fair go". They will be prepared to try on the basis that they trust that the information will not be used for any ulterior motive, for example, culling staff numbers.

Where management has in the past been frank and open with staff, then 360 Degree processes will have every chance of success. Where management has created a situation of distrust then people will fear that 360 Degree profiling is a way of collecting weapons to be used against staff when the management so desires.

In this environment the best way to implement 360 Degree is by using an external bureau to do the processing with clear undertakings from that bureau that the results will only be provided to the person being profiled.

This limits the use of the profiling to development activities however, this is the proper place to start. As trust returns to the relationship the process can be brought in-house and the scope of application gradually expanded.

Activity Level of Unions?

Where unions feature significantly in the affairs of the staff of an organisation, it is both common sense and respectful, to involve them in the implementation planning stages.

Our experience is that Unions are very welcoming of this process when implemented correctly with the right motive driving the process.

If they are not involved at an early stage you risk the NON-TRUST issue raising its ugly head. If this happens your implementation of 360 Degree Profiling will either be delayed a great deal or watered down to where it becomes unusable.

Structure of Organisation?

This is critical as logistics create their own types of problems.

If the organisation is small and has one location 360 Degree profiling will become integrated into the organisation's culture relatively painlessly. Where an organisation is large and spread geographically, problems in communication may emerge and will therefore, by definition, be big problems.

In a large organisation it is highly recommended that processes are trialed on small groups before they are rolled out to the organisation at large. Consider that you have started the process and there is a problem with some material that you have distributed. If you have a small pilot group you can recall this information and rectify the problem both quickly and at low cost. If you have rolled the process out to the whole organisation and encounter a problem, then you now have a major, very costly problem.

Communicating with small groups of people at a time allows control and ensures that you have the best chance of success.

WHAT DID OUR THREE ORGANISATIONS LOOK LIKE?

ORGANISATION A had a tempered "sort of covert" punitive culture. Nothing was said publicly but people generally treated any new process with caution if not distrust. In this case the use of an external processing bureau, and external facilitators for the feedback sessions gave the project credibility and built a strong feeling of enthusiasm from the participants.

ORGANISATION B had a trusting environment, generally motivated people with good manager staff relationships. It is a very large organisation and so logistics were a problem. This organisation decided to use the process in small groups for both team development (teams up to 12 people were used) and individual development.

ORGANISATION C comprised all very highly motivated people. This organisation started the process big time by using it across the board for performance measurement the first time it was used. We don't normally recommend this but were surprised at how well it worked. The only major problem being that when a technical access problem occurred it inconvenienced a lot of highly motivated people.

HOW THE ISSUE OF CONFIDENTIALITY WAS ADDRESSED

ORGANISATION A dealt with the confidentiality aspect of the profiling by outsourcing the processing and assuring people that only the person being profiled would be privy to their own results and no-one else's.

ORGANISATION B dealt with the confidentiality aspect by centralising the processing at the T&D office with strict controls over access to anyone other than those working on the project.

ORGANISATION C dealt with the confidentiality issue by using a fully distributed LAN based computer system that has very stringent controls over responses (DIY.360Ô).

It should be noted that whatever level of confidentiality that you use, you must be able to deliver it. Consider the situation where you pledge confidentiality and then a person's manager's score is able to be shown on its own - this is hardly confidential. You must declare up front what will be seen and what won't be seen.

HOW FEEDBACK PROCESSES MUST BE SET UP TO ENSURE THE CONVERSION OF RESULTS INTO CHANGED WORKPLACE BEHAVIOURS

The realisation of tangible outcomes from the 360 Degree process depends to a large extent on what is done by the person being profiled once they receive the report.

To achieve the best result it is important that the first time through the 360 Degree process the person being profiled is given feedback on how to interpret the results and more specifically how to relate the scores on the page to things that happen at work. This feedback should be provided by someone trained specifically for the purpose and not just their manager.

The most common comment by people being profiled is that they think the feedback is useful, but they then ask "What do I do now?". The answer to this question is at the heart of having the individual own their own development. Creating this ownership is part of the feedback process.

All you have done when you deliver a report to a person is:

• told them that development may be needed, and
• indicated where this development may be most needed.

The best results will be achieved if:

• The person identifies through discussion "exactly what needs to change". Reports only give indications of the competence area that needs development. Only through discussing this with the people doing the rating will the person being profiled get the information they need to determine the "exact" behaviours that need changing.
• They accept that they need to change. No changes will take place unless the individual makes the decision to change. 360 Degree Profiling makes it clearer that change is needed, especially if people from several views give the same message.
• They are comfortable with the fact that the time is right to make those changes. The reports, and the knowledge that a retest will take place in approximately nine months is usually enough to create the right level of motivation to change.
• The report that they are given indicates the desired behaviour for the items that they score low on, so that they can see what is required of them. If the person being profiled doesn't know what is expected, how can they deliver?
• They develop a personal action plan to correct up to six behaviours including setting time frames for achievement. This is the most powerful thing a person can do. Setting what needs to change, what they are going to try, what programs they may need to do, and when they expect to realise results is the biggest step towards real development.
• There is a link between the development plan that they compile and the organisation's training resources. Many HR groups miss the opportunity to assist people by not linking resources to needs. The individual must be made aware of what types of resources (books, videos, programs both internal and external, secondments etc) that are suitable for the development areas they have identified.

THE OUTCOMES REALISED BY THE THREE ORGANISATIONS

ORGANISATION A Was a resounding success because each individual was profiled using 31 behaviours and developed a personal development plan covering each of the 31 items. They were given assistance with training programs and secondments to assist them to develop over a twelve-month period. The results were outstanding!! Charts One and Two (of the presentation) showed the achievements of ORGANISATION A. The changes in behaviour recorded by the group are impressive. Note that from a staff point of view the change for the group as a whole, over all 31 behaviours as an average, was 15.25 percentile points. This is a very significant statistic. Note also that from a Manager's point of view the growth was only 6.07%. This is very interesting - remember that these people were seen as high potential for Executive appointments in the future - their Managers weren't!

ORGANISATION B Used the Teamview 360Ô behaviours and provided personal feedback with a trained counsellor prior to each person developing an action plan. The development of these people is seen as a two-year exercise and again the results are outstanding. The T&D area are extremely active in the matching of training resources with a well catalogued library of books, journals and videos and will source external ancillary programs for individuals who have special needs. Charts Three to Ten (of the presentation) showed the behavioural change achieved by this organisation with their first group through the development process. The gains here are quite sound especially in the interpersonal area, the area of greatest need.

ORGANISATION C Has yet to develop the link between training resource and development need. The jury is out on what actual behavioural change will take place at this organisation other than with self motivated people involved, the chances of a good number of people taking their own initiative and developing their own course of action is very good. The only problem with this is that the people who need the development most are the least well equipped to get the development happening. The outcomes for this organisation are not measured in quantifiable terms at this stage. The re-tests are due in a few months time. The anecdotal evidence, however, suggests that good gains have been made and people are more aware of the need to focus on the way they come across to others around them - a most positive outcome.

PROBLEMS THAT WERE ENCOUNTERED AND THE RESOLUTIONS TO THOSE PROBLEMS

The following problems and the solutions listed refer to organisations we have dealt with as a whole. The list is not restricted to the three organisations used in this comparative case study.

Administrative

Validity