360 Leadership, the next TQM

[Tumbleweed]

Taking odds on just how badly the Air Force will water down the coming fad that will be 360 leadership. Given all the recent press about GO/FO misconduct and mistreatment there is a lot of chatter about 360 leadership coming to a base near you. I predict it will be an epic fail unless the real seniors put some teeth in it.

360 Leadership is supposed to be feedback that comes from members of an employee's immediate work circle. Most often, 360-degree feedback will include direct feedback from an employee's subordinates, peers, and supervisor(s), as well as a self-evaluation. I have two questions for those in charge; why aren't we doing it already and why do we have to wait for a formal program?

There is an absolute chasm of perception on how some of our leaders are actually doing. I am not talking about sport bitching, that has always happened and always will. I am talking about malignant leaders that are rewarded for creating caustic environments. There are Category Five leaders that sweep an organization clean of any motivation and leave a trail of devastation. Somehow they have been rewarded for this destructive form of leadership rather than be held accountable, because those above refuse to listen or take any action.

Reading some of the recently published DoD reports made me nauseous, not because it happened there, but because the problem has metastasized, I can think of other organizations where it is happening RIGHT NOW and the powers that be refuse to take action. We have so much potential, it is sad to see it squandered.

I am sure there will be a grand roll out of the program, but unless the real leaders are willing to step forward and put everything on the line to stop these corrosive tumors, the program will slowly fade away and it will be business as usual.

God I hope I am wrong.

[guineapigfury]

Everything depends on the execution. If this is done half-assed, like mid term feedback then it just becomes more paperwork to fill out. I say keep this simple. We already do a climate survey every year, roll it into that. Add one or two yes/no questions along the lines of "I'd go to war with him/her" or "My commander should be considered for promotion". If you get a significant percentage of no's, you've got a problem.

[jcj]

I've had a couple 360 reviews of my own performance, and I've used results of 360 reviews (voluntarily provided to me by the person being reviewed) to mentor people who report to me. I'm a civilian of course but my work environment (Academic Surgery) has a fairly rigid, very hierarchical organizational structure with a broad range of authority (Chief of Surgery down through the ranks to the newest interns. I'm not the Chief of Surgery but I'm fairly high up on the totem pole).

The 360 review is all about giving you feedback from those you work with who might not otherwise be able or willing to do so. If the 360 review program is administered effectively, it does a pretty good job of getting that feedback to the person being reviewed. In fact, I've made a couple of major changes in my leadership style (and several minor course corrections) based in large part on 360 review feedback.

There are a couple of things that are really critical about doing it right:

1. The program must, without exception, ensure that the confidentiality of respondents is maintained, especially for subordinates. If there is any significant actual or perceived reprisal against respondents (especially junior ones) that word spreads like wildfire and you will no longer get honest feedback from subordinates.

2. The person being evaluated must be open to receiving the feedback. If the person being evaluated is "head down & locked" and is incapable of introspection or unwilling to seriously consider the (sometimes unflattering or humbling) feedback, then it's a waste of time. With that said there will be some feedback received that is devoid of value and should be ignored (i.e. "Maj. Doe sucks and he cusses too much"). But that's the exception - generally, the feedback from a 360 is helpful and should be carefully considered.

In my world, the 360 feedback goes only to the person being evaluated. It does not go to the leadership chain, and it is not used for external evaluation (we use other tools for that) - the 360 feedback is information only for the person being reviewed and to use or ignore as he/she sees fit. We do have leadership development consultants who will consult with the person being reviewed based on 360 results if asked, but this is outside of the leadership chain.

Perhaps other organizations provide the 360 feedback up the leadership chain as well. Ostensibly this would be to assist with mentoring, but it would be difficult to keep it out of summative evaluation with this model. I'm glad we do it the way we do - where the 360 feedback is solely for performance improvement and not summative evaluation. We have other tools for that.

So if done right by the Air Force I'd see it as an opportunity to give officers additional valuable feedback on their leadership style and management practices. But it's also not a universal leadership style evaluation, it's but one tool - the results of which must be considered both in context and in comparison with other feedback tools.

I think it's an absolutely valid concern that it will be a really complicated big deal to administer 360 reviews throughout the entire Air Force. But I hope they can get it right because I think it is a valuable tool in leadership development.

Edited February 2, 2014 by jcj

[brickhistory]

Big blue fcuk it up?

Nah, couldn't happen.

Results being used punitively, both by the affected ratee towards subordinates, and by the seniors to the ratee getting scwacked? Or ignored if the ratee has top-cover?

Cynical = me.

[Herk Driver]

The 360 feedback program has been executed in the Army for some time now, according to some Army friends of mine.

I just did a 360 feedback this past year administered through the Army program. It provided very useful information; some actionable and some not so much. The process is already in place...I would suspect that the AF would utilize the same programs that are already in place. However, I am sure that the AF can sufficiently screw it up. That said, there is no real way for those providing feedback to get scwacked unless they write comments that are very specific to them as an individual.

Frankly, I was not interested in figuring out who anyone was, and based on the comments I would not have been able to do so. If you keep the comments constructive then what is the real problem? If you think this will be your chance to tell your CC to go F*ck himself, then you probably will be disappointed.

Agree with jcj that this is "but one tool - the results of which must be considered both in context and in comparison with other feedback tools."

My guess is that like the annual Unit Climate survey that most people will not take the time to complete the survey. Say what you want, but trying to get people to provide feedback is a painful process.

Liquid, you said earlier that this is already being used at the GO/FO level, correct? If so, can you share how it is implemented? Who is compiling the data, etc?

[pawnman]

I'm guessing it will be just about as effective as the climate surveys. No matter the results, it will be reported that our leaders are doing a great job and morale remains high.

[Dupe]

360 Feedback has been implemented by the Navy after a few tyrants who made it to skipper got canned.... I'd like to know how effective its been.

In the outside world, it's become a great tool for separating the slave drivers from those you'd follow anywhere. I hope the AF doesn't f-away the implementation...

[Champ Kind]

I propose LRF for the test bed.

[Azimuth]

I propose LRF for the test bed.

Haha

[Tumbleweed]

360 Feedback has been implemented by the Navy after a few tyrants who made it to skipper got canned.... I'd like to know how effective its been.

In the outside world, it's become a great tool for separating the slave drivers from those you'd follow anywhere. I hope the AF doesn't f-away the implementation...

If we use it to hold shitty leaders accountable. Right now there is some traction because the press is reporting just how bad we have let it get. It appears the Navy and the Army are taking a serious look, but based on what I've seen, we seem willing to tolerate tyrants, we even accelerate them.

Odds are we will water it down, share the feedback with the caustic leader who will then change his or her surface behavior only to remain a cancer in the system. If USAF wants to seriously make an effort, it needs to start with firing a few poisonous leaders that are in command right now.

[snafu]

I have experienced this type of review from a predecessor of mine in business. It ultimately provides only a snapshot of the mood of the organization. The questions need to be precise on the point of view requested. Bottom line, I have seen this type of review/feedback destroy morale. I like the idea above about asking if you would go to war for them or if they should be promoted. It will probably have a question like "does more with less".

[Roswell]

Out in private industry this was the cool thing to do something like 15-20 years ago. When we first looked at this in 1996(?) the pitch HR gave us was the someting like 90% of the Fortune 500 were using this process at that time..

We went with it for about 10 years and then it too died on the vine; we are back to a more basic annual evaluation premise using annual goals and performace review now and its no better but no worse either.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2012/08/17/the-7-reasons-why-360-degree-feedback-programs-fail/

[zrooster99]

Poor substitute for real leadership...

[Liquid]

Liquid, you said earlier that this is already being used at the GO/FO level, correct? If so, can you share how it is implemented? Who is compiling the data, etc?

CSAF directed all GOs to complete the feedback on GOs they knew. You used a drop down menu for rank, then selected the GO. You ranked 1-5 in different leadership categories than provided comments for each category and a section for overall comments. Several questions on ethics, leadership style, integrity, etc. It was anonymous except for the rank of the person that rated you. After the results were released you could look at your numbers, compare to the average and read the comments. CSAF said he would review all of the feedback numbers and comments. Haven't heard much about the program since.

[trailmix]

I am talking about malignant leaders that are rewarded for creating caustic environments. There are Category Five leaders that sweep an organization clean of any motivation and leave a trail of devastation. Somehow they have been rewarded for this destructive form of leadership rather than be held accountable, because those above refuse to listen or take any action.

We have so much potential, it is sad to see it squandered.

Wading through this right now... some of the best pilots/bros I have ever known are running out the door and the upper management doesn't give 2 sh*ts. Sad, really.

[17D_guy]

Why is it so rare for a Sq CC to get fired for creating these toxic environments? Can the Wing CC not see what's going on? Are they not aware of the MEO/EO. IG, fraud complaints? I've watched Sq's just tank the mission when one of these hard chargers rolls in and they do their 2 years and go off to school. Watching it right now in an Ops Sq.

That's the part I don't understand. I get that the way we select will let a few stinkers get command billets. But for some reason the AF won't fire the under-performers, or the toxic destroyers. Is it they figure the Flt CC's, and DO's will protect the Sq? That the careers destroyed and the qualified people driven away are worth the command experience?

I've seen situations where the Group CC hates the Sq CC.. but nothing happens. Well, except promotion to full bird for Sq CC for being a "performer".

Just realized it's not even at the Wing level. I've seen this reluctance to remove someone in NCOIC positions, and Lt's/Capt running a shop. Why are we so scared of firing people who are harming our organization through neglect, abuse and malice?

[Skitzo]

Just realized it's not even at the Wing level. I've seen this reluctance to remove someone in NCOIC positions, and Lt's/Capt running a shop. Why are we so scared of firing people who are harming our organization through neglect, abuse and malice?

2. It is a problem for sure. I'm also not a fan of simply having people as flight commander's simply because their board is soon.

Problem under the current construct is that being a shitty leader doesn't catch up to you fast enough unless you screw up big time. It takes at least three to four years. I'm amazed that after not seeing a certain individual for three years and PCSing to a location he used to be at there is a strong consensus that individual x was a shitbag then and is a shit bag now. But he was a certain someone's golden boy.

Certainly guys like this are the exception to the rule but they are also damaging to our institution.

One well connected shit bag mediocre officer can be a dangerous thing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk