Impact versus 360 - Cultura organizationala

Impact versus feedback 360

Leaders have a significant impact on the thinking, behavior and performance of those around them. Intentionally or unintentionally, directly or indirectly, leaders motivate or stimulate people to behave in certain ways. This impact, whether positive or negative, is usually strong enough to be perceptible and measurable.

Why is feedback important for leaders?

Managers and leaders have a vital role in their organizations: they allocate resources, lead teams, make key decisions. If they want to grow and develop themselves, they need relevant and honest feedback from the team. Usually this type of feedback is difficult to obtain.

If we want honesty, feedback must be confidential. This way we avoid the trap where the feedback is what the manager wants to hear, not what needs to be said

If we want relevance, it is useful to compare ourselves with others, not just with our own past results, to see where we are compared to the average

How should it be: 360° feedback or Impact feedback?

The most common feedback collected is the 360° type (from the manager, colleagues and subordinates), about the manager’s behaviors. What are the weaknesses of this type of feedback?

We cannot be sure whether a behavior is unrelated to, supports, or undermines performance. For example, both an extrovert who connects easily and an introvert who listens very carefully can be successful in sales. The risk is assuming there is only one way you can perform, and forcing people to fit into that template, when there might be other ways to perform.
We don't know for sure if a behavior is "true" or was misperceived by the respondent. The natural human tendency is to assume that others behave in a way that is disturbing to us because of their character, unrelated to the context. This is how we end up with long and difficult discussions, full of justifications, arguments and counter-arguments, debates about what is true and what is an assumption.

We propose the Instruments that measure the IMPACT of managers and leaders. Why are they a better alternative?

Because they are related to performance. The tools measure the performance of leaders and managers through the lens of tasks, relationships with people and reporting on their own work. In addition, they measure the impact on others, which we know is directly related to performance.
The questions completed by the manager himself are about the impact he _would like_ to have on others, while the people around him answer about the actual impact the leader has on them. Difference doesn't lead to tense discussions about blame and misperceptions, but to aspirational discussions about how you get from where you are to where you'd like to be
The instruments measure how they approach their leader/manager responsibilities, from their own and others' perspectives. We know that it is these approaches or strategies that drive impact. This way we can see the cause-and-effect relationships that lead to the performance of those who lead people, so that the participant can act "at the source" if they want to change something.

One organization at a time, we continue to make Romania a better place.

Do you know what impact you have in your organization?