One size does not fit all

We live in a world of customization. From finding the best features and apps for our cell phones to selecting the toppings on our ice cream, we continually find ways to customize items to fit our individual needs.



It’s no different for the practice of leadership development, and according to recent research more companies are investing in management training.



The four areas where respondents suggested spending will have the most impact are: leadership and executive development, management accountability, interpersonal and organizational business skills, and aligning leaders with the business strategy, according to a rece.t poll by SMU Cox Executive Education.



With a renewed focus and investment in leadership development, companies want to make sure its employees receive measurable value from its 360 feedback process. If the organization is going to invest time and money implementing a 360, it needs to be confident that the survey measures what it is intended to.



As a result, customization is playing a bigger part in 360 Feedback.



Customization is important because every company has its own unique culture. Capturing the essence of an organization's leadership framework is a critical step in creating a superior solution, which ultimately leads to employee buy-in and engagement.



The customization process includes looking at the organization’s unique culture, competencies, and values. With multiple sets of competencies, participants’ receive feedback targeted to their job responsibilities, which makes results more meaningful. It is critical to focus on the right competencies and customize the process to what is important and valued at the company.



Good measurement is crucial to change initiatives, and this is why customized surveys need to maintain reliability. Customized assessments must meet these basic criteria:



·They must yield operational relevance. The dimensions must make sense to all participants, and executives concerned. They must also demonstrate practical validity, meaning that scores on the instruments must relate to performance.



Otherwise, if the instruments have face validity only - acceptable because they look right - but have not been shown to relate to measured performance, then you have a problem justifying investments in your programs. If you do not have good assessments of performance, you should use instruments whose validity can be demonstrated on comparable jobs.



·They must be sufficiently reliable over time to assess any change resulting from your programs. If the measures are less reliable than necessary, any change can be mistakenly interpreted. Change may appear to take place when in fact, it does not; or conversely, good change programs may be evaluated negatively because real differences are unreliably measured.



Customized surveys that preserve overall reliability helps participants receive feedback that directly applies to their jobs as well as the organization. It shows the participants the importance of the process because of its connection to the organization and to their individual success.



Here at TBC we offer expert survey customization while maintaining reliability of the competencies. If you would like more information on our process, click here.

Apple Inc. puts succession planning in the spotlight

When Apple CEO Steve Jobs announced he would take a medical leave of absence, there was one question burning in the minds of shareholders, investors, and the general public.



What happens now?



Tim Cook, chief operating officer, will be at the helm for the company’s major products for now. However, this is the third time that Apple shareholders were faced with news that Jobs will take a prolong length of absence. Jobs’ most recent departure puts Apple’s succession issues back in the public eye.



Jobs founded the company in 1976 and he is still the main driving force behind all of Apple’s innovations. There have been virtually no reports on who will take over for Apple when Jobs steps down. Some are concerned that there is not a succession plan in place.



In January 2011, Apple urged its shareholders to reject a proposal at the following month’s annual meeting calling for the company to “adopt and disclose a written CEO succession policy”. In the statement, the company’s board said publishing a plan would impact their ability to attract executive talent and would give competitors an unfair advantage.



Still, long-term shareholders want the assurance that the company does have a succession plan.



This then calls into question – who will be the next Apple CEO?



Finding a replacement for Jobs, the breakthrough innovator and person of influence, is extremely difficult. The next leader will most likely have to come from within the company.



A Wall Street Journal reporter made the point that to further instill investor confidence, Apple needs to pull back the curtain on its development process and highlight some of the individuals who have helped usher in the iPhone and iPad. Jobs can’t be the only innovator in the company, right?



There is research that successful companies need to better value and leverage their Individual Contributors (IC's) and provide these individuals development tools. Utilizing proven tools like 360 Feedback for IC's can help spot and develop tomorrow’s leaders.



The company could already be utilizing development tools to aid a succession plan or it may not – shareholders and the public have no idea. Apple may need to make a succession plan transparent, or its stock may come under pressure because of questions of who will succeed Jobs at the helm.



It will be interesting to see what move Apple makes next.



What are you thoughts about Apple and a succession plan? Who could replace Steve Jobs?



Sources: Wall Street Journal, Director of Finance Online

Behaviors vs. Traits

By Caroline Fox

One of the valuable aspects of our surveys is that we measure behaviors and not traits. In 360 surveys, some providers confuse the two. The difference, however, is what makes the difference between an effective and ineffective 360 Feedback. What is the difference, you may ask? Let us explain.

According to Dictionary.com, behaviors and traits are defined as the following:

Behavior:
1. the manner of conducting oneself
2. anything that an organism does involving action and response to stimulation

Traits:
1. a distinguishing characteristic or quality, esp. of one's personal nature: bad traits of character.
2. A genetically determined characteristic or condition. Traits may be physical, such as hair color or leaf shape, or they may be behavioral, such as nesting in birds and burrowing in rodents. Traits typically result from the combined action of several genes, although some traits are expressed by a single gene.

The difference between a behavior and a trait is simple: a behavior can be changed; a trait is essentially impossible to change. For example, you may react to certain situations with anger or violence—but that is a learned behavior and can be changed. You are born with certain color eyes; even if you wear colored contacts, your eyes are still naturally the same color as they were when you were born. This is a trait.

We make sure our surveys are validated to measure applicable behaviors that will be coachable. There would be no need for an organization to take the time and money to measure a trait when change is unlikely or impossible. An individual trying to change a trait will become frustrated and may quit working toward their goals. But an individual working to change a behavior? With hard work, a good coach, and the necessary tools, the individual can be successful at changing their behavior for the better—for good.

This butterfly’s traits make it very colorful, but also taste extremely bad to predators.

This child’s angry outbursts and temper tantrums are examples of behavior that needs to be changed.

Emotional Intelligence and Leadership: A Fascinating Connection

By Caroline Fox

Here at TBC we like to keep abreast of industry news, so we read from a lot of different sources: blogs, websites, white papers, scholarly articles, research, etc. We know that not everyone likes to read scholarly research, so decided to make it easy for you by summarizing some important industry articles and putting them into less intimidating language.

One researcher we really enjoy following is Dr. Frank Shipper Ph.D., Professor of Management in the Franklin P. Perdue School of Business at Salisbury University in Salisbury, MD. He has conducted many studies on using 360 Feedback to develop leadership and workplace skills, and has been awarded many accolades for his research.

One particularly interesting article is titled, “A cross-cultural exploratory study of the link between emotional intelligence and managerial effectiveness” (2003). In this article, Shipper explores the association between emotional intelligence, which is the ability to manage emotions and create motivation, and the effectiveness of employees in a managerial setting across three different cultures: The US, the UK, and Malaysia.

A quick background:

Emotional intelligence has garnered a large following over the past century, starting with Darwin’s work on emotional survival in the 1900s. As early as the year 1920, researcher E.L. Thorndike described “social intelligence” to describe the skill of managing and understanding other people. The first person attributed with using the term, “emotional intelligence” was Wayne Payne in his doctoral thesis, although there is proof that the term occurred in papers as early as 1966. EI became mainstream after the publication of Daniel Goleman’s best selling book, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Since its publication, many theories on EI have developed and, inevitably, controversy has ensued. Wikipedia does a great job of summarizing information on EI and providing further links to different theories, ideas, and opinions on the worth validity EI.

According to Shipper, emotional intelligence (EI) is a “self-other argument” that can be gathered and tentatively measured by using 360 surveys. It is very complicated to measure EI, and there are many differing opinions on the best instrument for its collection and measurement. Shipper, however, decided that the most effective way to measure self-awareness, which is directly correlated with EI, was to use 360 surveys.

Through completing 360 Feedback surveys of 3,785 managers from the U.S., the U.K., and Malaysia, Shipper proved his hypothesis that there is a relationship between self-awareness and managerial effectiveness, but determined that the link is more complicated than previously thought. He noted that the culture in which the survey was written and the content of the survey can affect the visible strength of this relationship. Shipper also noted that interpretation of 360 instruments should be done carefully in countries where the instrument was not developed, and that cross testing of 360 instruments must take place for accurate results.

Shipper’s article supports the idea that good managers are able to understand their emotions and interact with others in a way that encourages and inspires them. Developing EI skills are an essential step on the path to leadership development, and can make or break leadership in the workplace.