The View
from Below: Upward Feedback as an Aid
in the Development of Team Leadership Skills
By: Don Dunoon
Publication: Training and Development in Australia
Date:
September 1993 Pages: 5-7
Organisations commonly stress the importance of their people in the
realisation of the corporate vision. Yet, the readiness of people to commit to
a vision depends partly on the quality of their managers' leadership and
interpersonal skills. In the Australian context, some evidence suggests that
many managers are failing to provide the level of leadership and people management competence
that employees want and need (James
1992).
Many companies in the
US, and some in Australia, have recognised the need to create a management
culture which emphasises leading and facilitating rather than directing and
controlling; a culture in which managers add value by assisting and supporting
their people, while also maintaining accountability. Some of these companies,
including Advance Bank and BP in Australia, have found upward feedback a useful
tool in encouraging the development of team leadership skills.
As
the name implies, upward feedback involves the systematic collection of
feedback from a manager's subordinates, some processing of the information and
then reporting to the manager. The identity of the raters is usually disguised,
to ensure honest responses and to remove any perceived risk of recrimination.
Upward
feedback systems provide managers with detailed, constructive information that
they are unlikely to receive otherwise. Without a specific system in place, the
power differential between managers and their team members acts to discourage
the provision of open feedback up the line.
The
purpose of this article is to describe the rationale and advantages of upward
feedback, to discuss some of the issues arising, and to propose some guidelines
for the application of upward feedback systems.
In
descriptions of these systems, other terms are sometimes used in place of
upward, e.g. "reverse" or "subordinate" feedback. Also,
some systems refer to "assessment" or "appraisal" rather
than feedback. These various names tend to be used loosely, however, and often
describe similar processes.
UPWARD
FEEDBACK MODELS
A variety of upward
feedback systems and approaches exist, including various packages offered by
consultants and home-grown systems developed by individual (usually American)
companies (Buhalo 1991, Santora 1992).
Most
systems use a standardised questionnaire completed by direct reports, with a
parallel self-report questionnaire completed by the manager. The questionnaires
generally involve respondents rating the manager on particular behaviours or
competencies associated with team leadership, e.g. clarifying a vision for the
team, giving direct feedback, or assisting people to solve problems.
One
exception to the practice of standardised questionnaires is a system described
by Harvard academic and consultant, Harry Levinson (1987). Levinson and his
associates interview all the people who report to the manager concerned, then
summarise the findings and report these back to the manager in a narrative
format.
Some
organisations utilise upward feedback as an ongoing developmental process for
all managers, in much the same way as most organisations apply performance
appraisal systems. Advance Bank takes this approach. In other organisations,
upward feedback is used in a more ad-hoc manner by individual business units,
or in conjunction with management development programs.
WHY
UPWARD FEEDBACK?
The benefits claimed
for upward feedback can be grouped into three (somewhat inter-related)
categories.
First,
upward feedback promotes managerial effectiveness by encouraging managers to
become more aware of their strengths and weaknesses.
The
process of developing team leadership skills (or, for that matter, any
management skills), requires a manager to reflect on his or her experience,
identify other possible modes of action, and test these out of practice. When
reflecting on their own experience, managers - like other people - usually try to
protect their self-image; they overlook or down-play the less satisfying
aspects of their style. We all have blind spots and can never really see
ourselves as we are seen by others.
A
manager's subordinates are well placed to observe his or her performance in a
wide range of situations.
They
can recognise behaviours that the manager is blind to. Moreover, they may see
aspects of the manager's behaviour, which he/she does not reveal to peers or
higher level managers. From the feedback obtained, the manager gains a more
complete picture from which to identify areas and options for change.
Second,
upward feedback systems encourage managers to be more responsive to their
teams. In most organisations, appraisal and reward systems encourage managers
to manage upwards, to "impress the boss". Rarely are there built-in
incentives to encourage managing downwards as well. An upward feedback system
creates this stimulus. The net result is a better balance of accountability
systems.
The
third benefit is that upward feedback can reinforce efforts to modify the
organisation's culture, by signalling to people at all levels the kinds of
interpersonal behaviours expected. The feedback process demonstrates that the
organisation places real value on these behaviours. Further, a well-designed
upward feedback system helps managers - and aspiring managers - to see what
good team leadership "Iooks like".
SOME ISSUES
Appraisal or
development emphasis? The first concern for managers is likely to be, "How
will the feedback be used?" Many
may fear the prospect of negative applications, such as senior management using
the information to deny a promotion or pay rise.
If
the system is seen by managers to have a controlling or sanctioning
orientation, the developmental potential may be lessened. Anxieties about
confidentiality and use of the information may distract managers from the task
of using the feedback to improve their skills.
Most
organisations employing upward feedback systems quarantine the results for
individuals from the company performance appraisal system. The feedback is seen
as a developmental tool only, and does not enter into any judgments about the
adequacy or otherwise of the manager's performance.
There
is a related question, however, as to who actually sees the feedback
provided:
·
In the "purest"
developmentally-oriented systems, the results are provided directly and
exclusively to the manager who is the subject of the ratings. No one else in
the organisation even sees the results or the raw data (this can only happen where
the feedback is processed by an outside party).
·
Some systems include a measure of
accountability by copying the results to the manager's boss. There are pros and
cons for this approach, as discussed below.
·
In some organisations, which have
devised or adapted their own systems, the processing is done internally,
perhaps by human resources personnel. The HR people guarantee the
confidentiality of the feedback provided, and it is specifically not supplied
to the manager's own manager.
Should
the manager's boss receive a copy of the individual's results?
Probably not is the
view advanced here. The argument for is that the boss can be coach - or
pressure - the manager to change in areas where the feedback has been less
positive. The assumption is that the involvement of the boss will increase the
likelihood of the manager attempting to change.
The
argument against is that the involvement of the boss may trigger
rationalisations and excuses for poor ratings, as the manager tries to protect
his/her self-image and position. For example, "they rate me down because
they don't like the important changes I'm trying to introduce".
The
telling point is that upward feedback systems are designed to promote a new
style of people management, with features such as greater openness, mutual
influence and trust. The implementation of the system should be consistent with
the values espoused.
This
means that managers should be able to own their feedback and be trusted to use
it constructively. The power of upward feedback lies in bringing the manager
face to face with new information about how he/she is seen by others. The
motivation to change comes from within. Most managers want to improve, if only
so their scores might look better next time.
No
amount of pressure can force a manager to become a better leader. As Peter
Senge (1990:172) observes in his best-selling management tome, The Fifth
Discipline, "It must always be remembered that embarking on any path
of personal growth is a matter of choice. No one can be forced to develop his
or her own mastery. It is guaranteed to backfire."
A
compromise strategy would be to provide the feedback exclusively to the
manager, and encourage that person to brief his or her boss on the general
thrust of the results and on action steps to improve skills in identified areas
of weakness. Top management can be provided with an overall summary of results
for the group of participating managers.
Which
managers are to be included?
Involving all
managers from the top down has the benefit of signalling organisational
commitment to the development of team leadership skills. However, upward
feedback processes can also be used effectively with even a small, localised
group of managers (e.g. in one region or functional area), as part of a
management development or related program.
Who
provides the feedback?
While the focus of
this article is on upward feedback, some systems involve the manager's
peers and colleagues - and even the manager's own manager - in making
assessments.
The
question of who provides the feedback primarily comes down to the objectives of
the system. If the primary objective is to assist managers to develop their
team leadership skills, the raters should be drawn from their direct reports.
If the objective is to develop communications or management skills more
generally, it might be appropriate to include colleagues and the manager's boss
among the raters.
Including
a mixture of the manager's colleagues, subordinates and own manager may appeal
because of the range of perspectives obtained. However, a note of caution is
called for. For practical reasons, most systems involve about six raters as
well as a manager self-assessment. If the respondents comprise, say, two
colleagues, three team members and the manager's boss, the numbers will be too
small to indicate clearly how the colleagues' - as compared to the team - view
performance. Moreover, with only three team members involved, the individuals
may feel potentially exposed, and this could influence their responses.
A
more elaborate approach, for larger organisations, would be to conduct two
parallel systems. In the first, line managers are rated by their subordinates
on their team leadership skills. The other system would be designed for staff
managers, whose function is primarily to assist other departments.
These
managers would be rated by their colleagues on their communications skills and
on the level of service provided.
Questionnaire
design
This is an issue
particularly in cases where an organisation or individual business unit
develops its own system. Care needs to be taken in the definition of
competencies (to ensure that the behaviours being assessed are truly important
to managerial effectiveness) and the wording of items (to ensure that they are
clear and unambiguous). It's also important to ensure that the competencies are
ones which the raters are in a position to make informed judgments about.
Similarly,
care needs to be exercised in the selection of a scale for rating leadership
skills. Scales are usually expressed in terms of either the frequency with
which the manager performs the action (manager does this rarely, occasionally,
frequently, etc) or the manager's demonstrated skill level on the
competency (poor, fair, good, etc). Some management behaviours are not best
measured by a scale based on frequency. For example, a manager who provides
positive feedback "very often" may not be better at providing
feedback than one who provides it "often". It depends on what's
appropriate; too much feedback may be annoying to some people. Scales
reflecting the quality rather than frequency of the manager's actions are
probably more useful in this area.
SUGGESTED
GUIDELINES
These guidelines are
of a general nature and should apply with virtually any upward feedback system.
However, the guidelines assume that the feedback will be processed externally
and that the results will not be provided to the manager's own manager.
For the operation of particular system, additional specific guidelines may be
needed.
Confidentiality
·
Respondents should be given assurance
that no-one in the organisation will see their completed questionnaires.
·
Managers who are the subject of the
ratings should be assured that their results will be shown to no-one else in
the organisation without the manager's explicit permission.
Selection
of raters
·
Any one manager should be rated by at
least four, and preferably six, people. This is to ensure that the assessments
of individuals are disguised.
·
Where the manager has more than six
direct subordinates and where - for reasons of cost or logistics - it is
decided not to survey all subordinates, the selection of respondents should be
done randomly.
·
The respondents should have worked
closely with the manager for a reasonable period, at least three months. Also,
subordinates who work in isolated locations may have insufficient contact with
the manager to make informed assessments on the various items.
Selection
of managers
·
If a manager expresses anxiety about
the prospect of receiving feedback from subordinates, this view should be respected,
with a view to the person taking part at a later stage. In such instances,
other training - particularly in self-esteem building - may be helpful for the
manager.
Briefing
of participants
·
Both the respondents and those
receiving feedback should be thoroughly briefed, in addition to the matters
concerning confidentiality, on:
-
the purpose of the exercise;
-
the arrangements for collecting the data and reporting it.
Debriefing
·
Managers should have an opportunity to
discuss the results of their feedback with another person, in an environment in
which confidentiality is assured. Such a debriefing session could be conducted
by an external consultant or a suitably trained internal person (again,
appropriate safeguards for confidentiality would apply).
·
Managers should be encouraged to hold a
special debriefing meeting with their team members. This enables the manager to
check his/her understanding of the feedback and its implications with team
members, and to make a public commitment to change. The making of this
commitment increases the likelihood that the manager will indeed act on the
feedback received. Some managers may need the assistance of a facilitator to
conduct the debriefing session.
·
The manager should brief his or her own
manager on the feedback received, the outcomes of the debriefing session with
team members, identified areas requiring change, and steps the manager plans to
take to achieve such change.
CONCLUDING
REMARKS
One organisation,
which has used upward feedback extensively, is the Eastern Region of the US
Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA summed up its experience in the
following terms:
Once
we acknowledged that subordinate input was the missing link in developing and
maintaining managerial effectiveness, we were already well on our way (Del
Balzo and Miller, 1989).
Although
well established in the USA, upward feedback is a relatively new concept in
Australia. Perhaps this is a reflection of a more traditional management
culture in this country than that which has developed in the USA over the past
decade or so. The recent establishment of a Commonwealth Task Force on
Leadership and Management Skills may, however, encourage organisations to pay
more attention to leadership issues in their change programs.
If
the experience of the FAA is any guide, upward feedback is likely to become an
important tool for developing team leadership skills in Australian
organisations.
REFERENCES
Buhalo, I H (1991), “You
Sign My Report Card, I'll Sign Yours”. Personnel Management, Vol.
68, No. 5, May.
Del Balzo, J M and Miller, A
(1989), “A New Organisational Flight
Pattern”. Training and
Development Journal, Vol. 43, No. 3, March.
James, D (1992), “What Australian Workers
Think of Their Bosses”. Business
Review Weekly, July 31.
Levinson, H (1987), “How They Rate the Boss”. Across the Board, June pp53-57.
Santora, J E (1992), “Rating the Boss at Chrysler”. Personnel Journal, Vol. 71, No. 5,
pp38-45.
Senge, P (1990), The Fifth Discipline:
the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Random House.