360º feedback is an increasingly popular tool for executive and team development. In the process, an individual executive or team is evaluated along some predetermined quantitative and qualitative dimensions, providing numerical ratings for the quantitative items and comments for the qualitative ones. These ratings are collected from the individual executive or team members themselves, as well as from a selection of other relevant stakeholders. This feedback can then provide valuable input into the individual's or team's strengths and areas for further development.

Human Resources professionals are often tasked with finding a vendor to administer 360º feedback, which is often collected online and tabulated automatically. In addition to questions about cost, data privacy, and ease of use, HR often gets asked by the executives or managers who are going to be participating in the 360º process whether the particular items being asked about the individuals or teams who are participating have been "validated".

While some executive and managers may be hesitant to receive feedback, there is no need for them to be concerned about the "validity" of 360º assessments. The reason is that the traditional criteria for validation:

1. Extrapolating from a sample to an entire population (e.g. if a political poll is taken before an election, do the responses from the sample provide a valid reflection of how the entire population of voters will vote?)

and

2. Making predictions about the future (e.g. does this personality or intelligence test predict which job candidate will be successful?)

Are not applicable in a developmental 360, since developmental feedback is not intended to extrapolate from a sample to a population, or to make predictions about the future.

It does, however, make sense for HR to inquire about the relevance and utility of the 360º, considering questions such as:

- Have people who have received this kind of feedback been able to improve their leadership skills?

- Have teams who have taken a team 360º been able to build on strengths, overcome obstacles and become more aligned in meeting their objectives?

Whether or not statistical analysis has been conducted on items is much less important than whether those items can catalyze thought and action. The highly popular Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) for example, is also not traditionally valid, yet is still the most commonly used developmental assessment tool in the workplace. As long as it is used to catalyze constructive discussions, the validity of the MBTI is beside the point. Similarly, when receiving 360º feedback, most individuals and teams find the qualitative comments, particularly those that are detailed and specific, to be more useful for their development than any quantitative ratings.

In conclusion, 360º feedback should be a starting point for individuals and teams to reflect on their performance and consider ways to improve it. Whether or not a 360º has been used elsewhere in the past is much less important than whether the questions asked, and the way in which they are asked, are relevant to the user's needs. The only "valid" concern about a 360º is whether or not it can raise awareness and help individuals and teams gather the feedback and suggestions they need to improve their performance.

For sample 360º reports, which can be customized according to users' needs please click here:

• Individual Leader
• Team

Note: this article is adapted from a blog posting by Ben Dattner that originally appeared on psychologytoday.com

No one would argue that leadership development should focus on real development needs for the best payback. But what's the best way of identifying those needs? You might consider performance data, psychometrics, 360° or assessment center simulations. The first three are currently more in vogue than conventionally run assessment centers which are time consuming for executives who serve as assessors. Although using executives in this way fosters ownership, they may not be very skilled at assessment. Hence the risk of costly investment and low return.

But assessment center techniques used by highly skilled assessors can be a very powerful diagnostic tool for identifying leadership development needs.

Assessment center simulations serve a dual purpose: (1) identification of development needs and (2) opportunity to learn. Simulations actively engage participants in identifying their own development needs because they can see for themselves how they are doing. Further, when each simulation is followed by a discussion, coaching and feedback, both purposes are equally served. Asking participants questions about the rationale behind their approach generates a fuller assessment and, on the development side, such discussion prompts self-reflection and developmental insight in participants.

Consider, for example, the need to develop delegation skills. Psychometric or 360° feedback might suggest that an executive could delegate more but the question of exactly what the executive is doing or not doing is unclear. By contrast, a role play, in which an executive is required to delegate, makes actual leadership style visible, including choice of words, tone of voice and body language, hence generating a much more microscopic assessment. This level of specificity, not afforded by any other approach, facilitates follow up coaching much better than the vague suggestion that more delegation might be in order. For example, there is a world of difference between telling team members how to do a task and asking them how they would approach it.

Benefits for participants of using assessment center simulations

• Fuller engagement through having to tackle realistic business challenges.
• Combined identification of development needs and an opportunity to learn.
• A more active role in generating their own development plan.
• A precise focus on actual, modifiable behaviour.
• Fosters greater self-reflection and self-awareness, hence ownership.

A typical program
 

Case Study- This exercise offers a range of challenging leadership dilemmas. A whole organization or division is described with several strategic, commercial, operational and human resource issues. Participants develop their top 5 priorities to improve the business. Rather than assess written output, assessors engage them in a discussion of their priorities to probe their rationale. This exercise reveals a wide range of leadership styles and strengths. Strategic participants talk about looking externally and re-focusing the overall business. Those with an operational orientation major on fixing immediate problems. Results driven participants display a hard-hitting sense of urgency and set challenging timeframes, while those who value engagement call for dialogue with key stakeholders before taking concrete action. Team oriented participants call for better team work and cross-functional cooperation. They also recognize the need to fix the morale problems that are weighing the business down. Those with a strong commercial bias want to cut costs and seize new business opportunities. Those who are uncomfortable committing themselves without further analysis postpone action until they have dug into issues more deeply. Some call for greater accountability in key managers while others take too much personal ownership and do not empower anyone.

Role play with team member - The case study, just completed, makes reference to a problem team member, setting the stage for a role play. This is an essential exercise for exploring how executives handle performance issues, how they show leadership and motivate staff. Participants are faced with difficult choices, such as how to win the team member over to a key agenda while addressing performance issues. Many participants pursue one side of this challenge but ignore the other and some do both badly. This exercise is an excellent assessment tool as well as a learning experience. As with the case study, the participant's approach is probed and some initial feedback is offered. A participant's leadership style reveals itself clearly in this exercise. Some participants see themselves as supportive simply because they are not heavy-handed, but they still do most of the talking, telling the team member what to do differently. More skilled leaders know how to ask questions to draw solutions and commitment to change out of the team member. They have a talent for keeping the team member focused on solutions without dictating to them. Other participants are effective in using enthusiastic language to inspire the team member.

Role play with internal colleague/external client - As with the first role play, the case study sets this one up with a message from a colleague or client who is complaining about the team member of the first role play. Linking the exercises in this way makes them more realistic. When participants engage in the role plays they have formed some opinions about how to deal with the issues. The challenge in the second role play is to pacify the colleague/client while still defending the team member, also to build bridges with an important stakeholder. Effective performers show interest in the other party's needs and issues rather than focusing too exclusively on their own agendas. This exercise provokes weaker participants to go on the attack and defend their team member too strongly, or equally, to be overly deferential and give in to every demand made by the stakeholder. It is an excellent tool to assess influencing style, conflict resolution and relationship building skills. Again, probing, feedback and coaching follow the exercise immediately.

Taken together, the two role plays explore how participants deal with authority - down and up. Some challenge upwards while identifying too closely with their teams. Others are too deferential upwards and overly directive downwards.

Benefits for the organization of using assessment center simulations

• A much more precise assessment of leadership talent than can be afforded by other tools.
• More specific, behavioural feedback to help in grooming leadership skills.
• More ownership on the part of executives of their own development plans.
• A deeper understanding of the organization's underlying leadership model and how well it is likely to engage and empower employees, thereby retaining them and maximizing their potential.
• The use of professional, external assessors leaves executives free.
• The process has face validity thanks to business oriented exercises, the participative dimension and the dual benefit of assessment and development.

To achieve maximum focus on the organization's future leadership needs, simulations can be designed to mirror the actual challenges the business faces. A more cost effective approach uses off-the-shelf simulations that are just as powerful for revealing leadership style, strengths and development needs.

Great recessions can provide great opportunities especially for those who want to jump start their careers. Many might think this is heresy; after all in tough times, isn't it better to keep my head down and wait for good times again? This may work for some folks, but for those savvy managers seeking to effect positive change, and make good things happen, now is an opportune time to assert leadership.

The real strength and resilience, not to mention creativity and energy, of an organization lies with the people who make things work. These are often managers in the middle. So now is a time for those in middle management to consider ways to help their organizations succeed in these troubled times. We call this "leading up."

Leading up and from the middle requires two things: influence and action. Influence is necessary to open doors so you can be heard. Action is necessary to implement your plan. "Leading up," a term I borrowed from Wharton professor and author Michael Useem who pioneered the concept, is the process of leading your organization from the middle. That means you lead the organization from the perspective of a CEO but with the authority of a less senior leader. And it's the topic of my book, Lead Your Boss, The Subtle Art of Managing Up.

Leading from the middle requires a good balance of two distinct disciplines management and leadership. Managers provide administration and direction. Managing up is the process of handling things for your boss, that is, when he gets too busy. Leaders provide guidance and inspiration. Therefore, leading up is a proactive process, seeing the big picture and seeking to do something that benefits the entire organization.

Those who succeed at leading from the middle are artful and adept managers. They utilize their management skills to establish goals, plan projects, organize people, and execute projects on time and on budget. Three things essential to leading up are:

1. Make certain what you want to do complements the mission and strategies of your company.
2. Two, leverage your credibility as one who can get things done.
3. Three, act for the benefit of the company--not simply yourself.

The business case for leading from the middle is significant. A survey conducted in January 2007 (well before the recent recession) from the consulting firm, Watson Wyatt, revealed that only 49% of employees have "trust and confidence" in their senior managers, and just 53% believed that senior management made "the right changes to stay competitive." Worse, senior executives surveyed by Booz & Co. in December 2008 revealed that 46% doubted the ability of their CEOs' to execute a recovery plan.

To succeed, organizations will need to leverage the talents and abilities of their middle managers. Those who lead from the middle are problem solvers. They see things and they want to fix them. They seek to make positive change. And while they are not in charge of everything, the way a CEO is, they are in charge of some things. That is, they manage their teams and their resources.

For example, if you are in middle management and you believe that your company should introduce a new product, you find ways of making your case for it. You position yourself as speaking on behalf of customers and employees, rather than simply yourself.
Understand this: leading up is not mandatory. Not every boss can be lead or managed, especially ones who like to bully others. What's more, if you feel it safer to lie low, do so. Now may not be the right time for you to lead from the middle.

At the same time, understand there can be big rewards for those who lead up. By leading up you demonstrate initiative. You show that you have what it takes to get things done. And as a result you position yourself to assume greater levels of authority and responsibility. What you do as a leader in the middle positions you to one day become a leader at the very top.

A version of this article originally appeared on fastcompany.com