Knowledge Summary Series: 360-DegreeAssessmentRobert W. Eichinger, Michael M. Lombardo, Lominger Limited, Inc.

The common thread of the three short pieces

that make up this article is assessment. We

assess ourselves. We ask others to give us

their assessments. And we welcome {or at

least tolerate) boss assessments. All for the purpose

of perfortnance improvement, development, and

getting ahead.

The research presented here first looks into whether

self-assessment is accurate or even important.

Because self-rating is commonly used in organiza-

tions, its deficiencies—and how to overcome them—

should be well-understood. In a cautionary mode,

the second piece explores whether sharing 360

assessments is good practice. Next comes assess-

ments of strengths and weaknesses, and where to

focus development efforts. Much has been written

about concentrating on strengths. Here, the dangers

of overemphasizing strengths are exposed and an

argument made for balance: enhancing strengths but

working on or around weaknesses.

34 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING

The Dynamics and Value ofSelf-Ratings

Self-rating is a common HR practice. Almostall 36(}s. many performance appraisal processes,and some competency sy.stems include a self-rat-ing component. Many development programsallow people to self-insert based upon self-evalua-tion. Few would argue .self-ratings should not beincluded in these applications. People should com-piire their own viewpoints with what bosses, directreports, peers, and customers have to say aboutthem, but probably not for the expected reasons.The dynamics of self-rating must be understoodin order to use it better: to know the ways inwhich it is useful, useless, or even harmful.

To look at the dynamics and value of self-rat-ings, the existing research is summarized by thefollowing questions:

1. Do self-ratings agree with ratings by otherpeople?

2. Do self-ratings relate to anything of impor-tance? Who is right?

3. Does it make any difference that self-ratingsare not very accurate? (This makes perhapsthe biggest difference of all: A person withinaccurate .self-ratings might end up gettingfired.)

4. What are the typical patterns of inaccuraterating? (On what areas are those who getfired overrated?)

5. Summing up, what might some best prac-tices be',*

Do Self-Ratings Agree with Ratings byOther People?

No. Not closely. Many studies show low rela-tionships between self-ratings and those by otherpet)ple (Conway & Hunnicut, 1997; Clark, et al.,1992: Harris & Schaubroeck, 1991; Mabe &West. 1982). There is much higher agreementbetween all of the other rater groups (boss, peers,and direct reports) than between any of thesegroups and self-raters. The norm is for self andother ratings to be different; so one use of self-ratings is to look at differences. Differencesbetween self and others of typically a scale pointor tnore are usually called either blind spots orhidden strengths. In blind spots, one rates oneselfhigher tban others. In hidden strengths, one ratesoneself lower than others do. As discussed later.only one of these is a likely problem. The othermay be a blessing.

Self-ratings and ratings by others differ signif-icantly most of the time.

Do Self-Ratings Relate to Anything ofImportance? Who Is Right?

The question here is who is most right?Whether self-ratings agree with those of others(they do not) begs the question of who is moreaccurate. Self-ratings might relate to performanceor promotion better than those of others. Shouldn'tthe self know the self best?

Self-ratings ordinarily relate to nothing ofimportance (Mabe & West, 1982). In our lastround of studies, the overall correlation betweenself-ratings and performance was .00, with theboss being the most accurate rater by far in pre-dicting long-term performance and promotion(Lombardo & Eichinger, 2003). On average, wecollected competency data about two years beforecollecting measures of performance and if theperson was terminated, status unchanged,or promoted. Peers and direct reports providedsome value as well, with at least some of theircompetency ratings correlating with the criterionmeasures. But the boss was the best rater.

Other than for public relations purposes, whyinclude self-ratings at all when they are likely tobe different from everyone else and wrong.

Self-ratings do tiot relate to performance orpotential for promotion or whether a person getspromoted in the future.

Does It Make Any Difference that Self-Ratings Are Not Very Accurate?

The inaccuracy of self-ratings is understand-able. People often overestimate their strengths aspart of a positive self-image or false self-esteem.Research by Stone (1994) indicates people tendto overestimate their facility at more complextasks. Similarly, Vonk (1999) found peopleengaged in more bragging and self-promotingbehavior when they thought that a claim couldnot be verified, that statements were more a mat-ter of opinion. That self-ratings tend to be higherthan those of others is fairly well-established(Harris & Schaubroeck. 1988).

This finding requires important qualificationwhen we look more deeply at research data.Thrown together so tar are low performers andhigh, people with little interest or possibility ofpromotion, and people on the fast track upward.

When we split data by performance, we findthe overestimators {who rate themselves higherthan others do) are the poorest perfoniiers.Research by Fleenor. et al. (1996) concludesthose who overrate them.selves are perceived aslower in effectiveness by others, noting that theevidence is clear that "self-ratings (alone) tell us

HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 35

little about leader etfectiveness" and that there isa kitid of manager who routinely over evaluateshis or her performance, and that tendency is asso-ciated with poor leadership. Atwater. et al. (1998)came to a similar conclusion.

Research findings differ on whether higherpertbrmers agree more with others and are presum-ably more self-aware, seeing themselves more asothers see them, or underestimate their ratings incomparison with those of others. Some researchers(Kelley. 1998; Boyatzis. 1982; Atwater, et al...1998) find them to be more in agreement. Othersftnd they are just underestimators (they rate them-selves lower than others do). On 36()-degreecompetency assessments, average pertbrmers typi-cally overe.stimate their strengths, whereas starpertbrmers rarely do. If anything, the stars tendedto underestimate their abilities, possibly an indica-tor of higher internal standards (Goleman. 1998).Lombardo and Eichinger (2003), in predictingperformance two years out. al.so found the moreeffective people to be underestimators.

Lcwking at the flip side, at what gets people incareer trouble, the evidence is similar. Shipper andDillard (2000) found that derailers (people whofail or stumble after being successful for someperiod of time) are "managers who overestimatetheir own abihties, are often ineffective and fail tolearn from management development programs."They note: "those rating themselves high oftendemonstrate traits such as lack of self-aware nessand arrogance, usually associated with ineffectivemanagement." The tnanagers most likely toderail are usually those who have too high anopinion of their own skills and abilities comparedto managers who underestimate their abilities.Underestimators were more able to bounce backfrom career derailment regardless of level.

In our last round of studies we looked at threegroups of people across on average a two-yearperiod. Some were promoted, most wereunchanged, and some were terminated. In terms ofactual promotion (as well as peiformance).the higher the .self rating compared with thoseof other groups, the more likely a person is to beterminated. Those who are terminated rate them-selves higher (as do their direct reports). Directreports tend to rate fairly highly and undifterenti-atedly in most cases. Some may have worriedabout retribution from a marginal boss. Bossesand peers rated them much lower (a full standarddeviation on average).

Those who were unchanged rate more similarlyto their rater groups, but still rate themselvesmore highly. And those who are promoted rate

EXHIBIT I

Self Rates Significantly MoreFavorably Than Other Rater GroupsMeasuresRated higheron 67competencies

Rated loweron 19 careerstall ers

Total (out of86) Self-ratedmore favorably

Terminated

30

10

40

Unchanged

22

6

28

Promoted

1

0

1

themselves lower than does any rater group. Thesame trend holds for career derailers or stallers.Those terminated rate themselves lower (morepositive) on career-stalling behaviors; thosepromoted rate themselves higher (less positive)(Lombardo & Eichinger. 2003).

To get an idea of how difterently those whoget fired rate, we looked at our 86 measures (67competencies and 19 career-stall ing patterns).Exhibit 1 shows the significant differences.

Overraters fail and underraters succeed.

What Are the Typical Patterns ofInaccurate Rating? On What Areas DoThose Who Get Fired Overrate?

They are generally self-deluded, but in particu-lar they think they are better at creating somethingnew and different, keeping on point, makingaccurate people calls, energy and drive, managingdiverse relationships, inspiring others, and honor.

The most accurate rater by far in our studies isthe immediate boss (many more boss ratings arerelated to long-term performance and whetherpromotcd/terminated/unchanged). Bosses ratesignificantly lower than the fired do 41 times outof 67. Thirteen of the differences are large (morethan a standard deviation). Bosses describe theterminated as less able to deal with conflict, maketough choices, or think things through broadly.There is also a large interpersonal theme: lack ofinterpersonal savvy, poor at managing diversity,or failure to build teams. Finally, as other researchhas shown, lower self-knowledge (see Shipper &Dillard, 2000).

Bosses do rate them higher than they rate them-selves on a few things such as functional/technicalskills, technical learning, intellect, career ambitionand work/life balance. But bosses rate the same

36 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING

tlve competencies as higher for the promoted aswell. This is nice for the promoted, and deadlytor the terminated, as they are the only relativestrengths the bosses see in them.

We might expect the narrow technocrat withserious people problem.s who just can't makelough calls. Bad enough to he seen this way byothers, but Ihey think they're pretty good at thesecompetencies.

But what about selt-iniage? Couldn't all thegroups be as deluded as the terminated? Theanswer is no. One simple method is to comparethe absolute self-rating scores. The promotedare the lowest rater (or tied for low) for 48 of 67competencies. The tenninated are the lowest raterfive times.

Of the 67 comparisons, there are 15 statistical-ly significant differences; in all cases, the termi-nated are the highest raters. Their inflated view ofself forms some strong patterns. They think theyare better than others think they are on:

1. Problems with conflict• Command skills• Conflict management• Confronting direct reports• Si/ing up people• Hiring and staffing• Negotiating

2. Narrowness• Perspective• Business acumen• Innovation management

3. Poor hands-on managers• Delegation• Directing others

4. Honor• Integrity and trust• Ethics and values

Finally, we verified whether any of the groups*self-ratings of competencies correlated withperformance. None did. Self-raters apparentlyare rating something else: largely how they seethemselves against an internal image of excellence.The fired generally rate higher; the promoted.lower. Neither is accurate for performance. Thefired obviously have an inflated self view in somebad areas: hreudth of judgment, conflict skills,people skills. They believe they are better hands-on managers and think they are more trusted thanother self-raters or any rater group (except directreports in some case.s).

Because interpersonal skills usually do notrelate as much to performance as the more opera-tional and strategic skills, their overrating there

doesn't hurt them until later: When we look atwhat gets people fired, it's quite often interperson-al. And here is the only significant relationshipof self-rating with performance: The promotedrate themselves significantly higher on peopleproblems and overall stallers. The terminatedare as clueless as ever.

The promoted save themselves with self-criti-cism and setting a higher bar. They are on thelookout for potential problems with people. Thetenninated don't expect problems. Their inflatedview of their conflict, interpersonal, degree oftrust, and hands-on management skills gets themrun out the door. Their blind spots become fatalHaws. As many research studies have shown(McCall, et al., 1988; Morrison, et al., 1992;Lombardo & Eichinger, 2002), what doesn't getyou in trouble early (poor people skills) will getyou later when the demands of the job change toorchestrating change and building a productiveclimate for high pertbrmance.

Poor performers rare themselves higher onconflict, operating skills, perspective, and honor.

What Might Some Best Practices Be?In summary, self-ratings and those by others

differ significantly most of the time. Self-ratingsdo not relate to pertbrmance or potential for pro-motion or whether a person gets promoted iti thefuture. Overraters fail and underraters succeed,although both are inaccurate. And poor peribrmersrate themselves higher on conflict, operating skills,perspective, and honor.

What's the value of self-ratings? They are notuseful in determining what a person is like. Theydon't identify a person's real strengths and weak-nesses. They can't reveal if a person is qualifiedfor a development program. They tell us nothingabout whether a person is qualified for a job.

SummaryAgain, what's the value of self-ratings? There

is some evidence people's ratings become morelike those of others with repeated 360s and feed-back; even if there were not, self-awareness canbe enhanced through more candid performanceevaluations, 360 feedback and peer review.Continuing to overrate and rate inaccurately isdeadly and a clear sign of a non-leamer. So weneed to collect self-ratings to find out whetherpeople know themselves.

If not self, who? Eocus on boss ratings.While other groups (besides self) make somecontribution, boss ratings are the most accurateand the most differentiated by far:

HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 37

1. Bosses make sharper distinctions betweenlevels of performance and promotion/termi-nation that other rater groups don't.

2. The difference in how boss and self rates isa powerful predictor of who gets ahead andwho gets shown the door.

3. Bosses really hammer people who get termi-nated later. For example, in career stallers,bosses rate defensiveness (again a non-learn-er) and political missteps as quite differentfor the promoted and the terminated.

What should you be looking for? Watch outfor blind spots. The fatal pattern in lack of self-awareness is relatively high self-ratings comparedwith those of others, especially the boss. Onmost 360s, one point or more should be highlysignificant. Look for patterns of inflated strengthassessment, especially in conflict, perspective,honor, and managing.

Once again, what is the real value of self-rat-ings? Treat underrating differently. When oneunderrates, we call these hidden strengths or alack of self-confidence or lack of self-knowledge.While any of those is possible, multiple researchstudies indicate the person more likely has highself-confidence, is highly self-critical, has highstandards, and is a high performer. Lower self-ratings only have meaning once we add iheinformation on how well the person performs.

Self-ratings don't really tell much about peo-ple other than how successful they may be in thefuture^not because of what they say about theirstrengths and weaknesses as much as how theirratings compare to the ratings of others, especiallybosses. Self-ratings are collected to judge self-awareness, which in turn may indicate a lot abouta person's future.

ReferencesAlwaler. L. E., Ostroff, C, Yammarino. R J., & Fleenor. J. W. (1998)."'Self-Other Rating Agreement: Di>es ll Really Mutler," Pi'rsoiwt'tPsychology. 5]: 57b-S')7.

Conwuy, J.M. & Huffcuti. A.I. (1997|. ••Psychometric Priiperlics ofMuitisiiuree Performance Ratings: A Meta-Analysis of Subordinate,Supervisor, Pi;cr. and SelfRatings." Hiirmm Peiformame. 10: 331-361).

Clark. K, E., Clark, M- B-. & Campbell, D. P (1992], Imiutci ofLeadership. Greensboro. NC: Center ior Creaiive Leadership.

Fleenor, J.W.. McCauley. CD.. &. Bruius. S. (1996). "Self OtherAgrcemenI and Leader Effectiveness." The Leadership Quarterly.7(4): 487-506,

Goleman, D. (1998). "What Makes a Ixader?" Hcirx-ard Bnsint'ssReview (November-Deeember).

Harris. M.M, & SehaubrDeck. J. | I9K8). -A Meta-Analysis of Self-Supervisor. Self-Peer and Peer-Supervisor Ratings." PersonnelPsychoh^y.Al: 43-62,

Kclky. R. I \99H fiow lo Be a Star at Work. New York: Times Books.

Lombardo. M.. & Eichinger, R. {2()O2). The Leadership Mtirhine.Minneapolis: Lominger,

Lombardo, M., & Bichinger. R. (2'M).1|- The LEADERSHIP ARCHI-TECT® Nimns and Validity Report. Minneapolis: Lominger,

Mabe. PA. & West, S.G. (19821. "Validity of Self-Evaluaiion ofAbility: A Review and Meta-Analysis." Journal of AppliedP'.ychohgy. 67: 2S0-29f,.

MeCall. M.. Lombardo. M, & Monison. A. (1988), The Lesson^ ofExperience. Lexington. Mass.: Lexington Books.

Morrison. A.. Wbite. R.. & Van Velsor, E. 11992). Bretikinn ihe Glas.\Ceilini;. Reading. Mass: Addison Wesley.

Shipper. F., & Dillarcl, J. (2(K)0l. "A Sludy of Impending Deruilmenijnd Reeover> o( Middle Managers Across Career Slages." HumanResource MiiiiagemeiU. 39 |4|: 331-347.

Sione. Dan N. (1994, September). "Overcontidenee in Initial Sell-Ettkiicy Judgments: Etfecis on Dei:ision Prtitesses and Pertbrmance."Omaniziilioniil Behavior & Human Decision Pnices.ses. 59(3): 452-474.

Vonk. R. (1999). "Impression Formation and Impression Management:Molives. Traits, and Likeabilily Inferred from Self-Promoling andSelf-Deprecating Hehavior." Social Cofi'iilion. 17: 390-412.

Should 360 Results beConfidential?

Ah. the good old days. Long ago and far away(five years ago), best practice was clear andalmost everyone agreed: 360 results and feedbackwere confidential and anonymous, one copy only,it went to the participant and that was that. It wasfor development. Armed with accurate data onstrengths and needs, most ambitious peoplewould address their needs on their own. The par-ticipants were responsible for carrying the resultsforward to their bosses. Many did; some did not.Development and performance appraisal neededto be .separate. Every professional conference hada panel on this topic.

In recent years, a different trend has emerged.Shared 360 results. Boss gets it. HR gets it. it'sin the file. It's used for performance appraisaland succession planning. Why? It was probablyspurred by comments from bosses like: "Why dowe do this if I can't see it?" "I need to see it ifI'm held responsible for developing my people.""What's the ROI?" "If 1 don't know what mypeople need, how can I develop them?" "Wehave an open culture here, so people don't mindif I see their reports." "I need to know when peo-ple under me are causing people problems belowthem so I can prevent legal issues." "If we use360 feedback for performance assessment, I haveto sec the results."

The trend bas become widespread. In a recenisurvey (Rogers. 2000). almost half the bosses hadaccess to full 360 reports and about one-third ofHR groups did. The most recent survey we haveseen on using 360 for performance appraisalsshowed about 50 percent of the firms had tried it,although the majority had stopped the practice(Lepsinger & Lucia, 1997).

38 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING

Why Not?Like many emerging practices, this one is

well-intentioned and the reasons sound persua-sive. The problem is unintended, overwhelmingconsequences. Publicly sharing 360 results is awell-meaning but flawed practice.

What Happens When 360 Results AreShared?

The Scores Go Up• Antonioni's study (1994) of upward feedback

(ratings of the supervisor by direct reportsonly) found that direct reports whose ratingswere not anonymous rated their managerssignificantly higher than direct reports whoseratings were anonymous.

• When raters didn't mind whether the learnersaw their ratings, the average .scores went up,and the variance (spread of ratings over thescale) decreased. When ratings are made pub-lic, they bland out and go up - the scores of43 of our 67 competencies increased signifi-cantly. The themes are clear: When peoplerate under total anonymity, those rated (thelearners) take a significant hit on most ratings,particularly caring, motivating, managingdiversity, general interpersonal skills, andself-knowledge: how they come across. Theyalso get lower ratings on intelligence, vision,developing others, composure, conflict skills,and, perhaps most important, ethics and val-ues (Lominger & Eichinger, 2003).

• In a study of 58.000 performance appraisals,scores went up significantly in publicappraisal processes (Jawahar & Williams.1997). The title of the article was, "WhenAll the Children Are Above Average.""

Scores on typical 360s are inflated under thebest of circumstances (probably around .5 on afive-point scale). Sharing results inflates themeven more.

Variance DecreasesThe spread of the scores decreases. People

are less willing to use especially low scale points.The range is restricted even under the best ofcircumstances. Sharing makes it worse.

Accuracy VanishesIn [he only study we've located on the subject

(Lombardo & Eichinger, 2003), accuracy disap-pears when the ratings become more public and

identifiable. The 360 process we use (VOICES®)allows each rater to select the level of confiden-tiality. The rater can choose to have the learnersee their results directly (no anonymity), onlywith one other rater (some anonymity), or onlywith two other raters (a group of three raters,maximum anonymity). When raters said theydon't care if the learner sees their individualratings, the correlation with independent ratingsof performance was .09 and not significant. Whenthey selected "my rating will be combined withone other rater, " the correlation was .27 andsignificant with performance ratings. When theyselected "see my ratings only in groups of three"(the maximum anonymity), the correlation was.30. Accuracy increased with confidentiality.When raters thought their ratings might berevealed, they were high, bland, and meaningless.

Fear of RetributionChappehtw (1998) argues that when raters'

responses aren't anonymous, or if individualsdon't feel enough safeguards have been put inplace to protect their anonymity, raters may fearretribtition and be less than candid in theirresponses or not respond at all. Bracken, et al.(2001) had similar findings. They found thatgiving feedback providers (raters) a guarantee ofanonymity (or the perception of anonymity) max-imizes honesty, candor, and response rates. Theynote that the perception of rater anonymity can beas important as the guarantee of actual anonymityand can affect feedback honesty.

There Can Be Rating CoalitionsEspecially in the case of 360 u.sed for perfor-

mance appraisal, people informally agree to rateeach other highly. It's just standard coalitionformation and group protection against threat.

Rater Misidentiflcationin most 360 processes, the raters indicate the

rater group (boss. peer, customer, direct report)to which they belong. Throughout the 20-yearhistory of this practice, some raters misidcntifledthemselves. In anecdotal examination of thisphenomenon over the years, 50 percent of themisidentification is caused by administrativeincompetence—not reading the instructions prop-erly—and 50 percent is caused by purposefuldeceit. Why? Probably fear of retribution andfear of later questioning by the learner, whomight ask: "Why did you rate me so low on ...?"'

HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 39

In another common event, a person assembleshis or her staff after a particularly brutal 360feedback, usually in the inteipersonal and listen-ing skills areas, and asks, with possibly goodintentions: "Why did you all rate me down'.'" Noone admits to the low ratings.

Some organizations have abandoned 360 feed-back for performance assessment because of someof the preceding problems. Raters make dealsand scores go up. One company reported that theaverage score on an item on its 360 was 4.5 on afive-point scale. This is obviously useless for anypurpose. For an excellent discussion of the use of360 feedback for performance assessment, seeLepsinger and Lucia (1997). ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

is difficult for

Common SenseThink about similar processes,

for example, an anonymous tip linefor citizens to report bad people andcrimes. The tip line gets 100 calls aday. Now announce that caller IDwill be used to record callers' phonenumbers. What will happen to thecall rate and accuracy of the reports'?

There is currently a system toreport tax cheats anonymously andget a percentage of whal the IRS col-lects. Again, say that there are 100reports a day. The law changes andthe person who reports the tax cheatmust now be identified. What will happen to thecall rate? And the whistleblower must testifywhy he or she thinks the person is cheating onhis/her taxes. What happens to the call rate now?

Your company provides as a wonderful benefitan annual physical paid for by the company.Ninety percent take advantage of the prt>gram.One small change: The doctor will forward his orher notes about the physical and what was talkedabout to your boss. What happens to the partici-pation rate?

Rater exposure to risk and conflict decreasesparticipation and hone,sty. The same is true for 360.

Best PracticesWe can't have everything from one application.

360 works best for development. As typicallywritten, the items are not finely grained enoughor tied to work objectives for pertormance pur-poses. Public processes don't work as well. Fromour research, the data aj-e near worthless. So ouranswer is to use it as intended.

The main reason 360 feedback arose is

The main reason

360 feedback

arose is because it

because it is difficult for peers, direct reports.managers, and executives to engage in straighttalk about weaknesses. Giving critical feedback todirect reports face to face is ranked 63rd out of 67(5th from the bottom) for the typical supervi.sor.manager, and executive (Lombardo & Eichinger,2002). That's why most performance appraisals—even anonymous 360s—are inflated.

Important Questions to ConsiderI. /,v this truly confidential'.^ Be sure to describe

the process in a straightforward fashion.Some people won't trust that feedback iscontldential, but the more said the better. Atypical policy for developmental feedback is

that the actual report is confidential.Most 360 instruments are nowprocessed electronically.so no one in the organization seesthem. There is one copy, which thefacilitator hands to the person at thefeedback session.

peers, direct

reports, man-

agers, and execu-

tives to engage in

straight talk about

weaknesses.

2. How can development plans beconstructed if only the recipienthas a copy? The covenant werecommend goes like this: "We'reinvesting in your developmentthrough our 360 feedback fordevelopment system. The actualresults (the numbers, ratings, andcomments) are private. The sum-mary of your strengths and

weaknesses should be discussed in some formwith your boss. HR, or your mentor. Your jobis to improve continuously and ours is to helpyou. Your direct boss will help with yourshort-term development (for performance) andtop management and human resources willhelp witb long-term development (projects,next job, anything outside the present scope ofyour responsibilities)."

All participants (learner, raters, bosses) needto know about the rules before tbey fill out thesurveys. If data is going to be shared, partiallyor fully, everyone involved needs to know. Don'tcollect data under one .set of rules (confidentialand anonymous) and then apply another set ofrules after the fact. This has negatively affectedmany 360 programs.

So best practice is private, confidential, andanonymous. Worst practice is shared. The middleground is mandatory sharing after the feedback.Even mandatory sharing will have negativeconsequences.

40 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING

ReferencesAnlunuini. I). (I W4l. "The Effects of Feedback Accounlability onUpwarJ Appraisal Ralmgs." Personnel Psychology. 47; ,149-356.

Bracken, D.W., Timrjireck, C.W. & Church, A,H. (Hds.|. Tlie Handbookol Multisiiune Feedhiuk: The Comprehensive Resource for Designingand Implementing MSF Processes. .San Franci.sco; Jossey-Bass.

Chuppelow, C. (1998). "MO-Degree Feedhack in IndividualDevelopment." In C-D. McCauley, R, Moxicy. & E. Van Velsiir (Eds.).The Center for Creative Leadership's Handbook of LeadershipDevelopment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jijwahar, I.M.. & Williams. C.R. (1997), "When All ihe Children AreAhove Average; The Perlbrmantre Appraisal Purpost Ellect."Personnel Psychology. 51) (4): 905-925.

Lepsinger. R., & Lucia, A.D. (1<J97). The An and Science of iWDegree Feedback. S;in Francisco- Pfcil'fcr (Jossey-Bass).

Lomhardo. M. & Eichinger. R. (2002). The Uadership Machine.Minneapolis; Lominger.

Lombardo, M. & Eichinger, R. (2()03), leadership Architect Nomtsand Validity Report. Minneapolis; Lominger.

Rogers. E., Mclla>. W., Kaplan, I.. & Barriere. M. iHni). Multi.soimeFeedback: A Suite of ihe Art nnd I'nictice Report. (L'npublished manuscript).

If a Lot Is Good, More Must BeBetter: Overusing Your Strengths

Most of us have a few significanl strengthsand many things we'll never be particularly goodat doing. Most can't run the 100 meters in under10 seconds, or be inspiring team builders, or bestrategic or improve on Einstein's theory of rela-tivity. Most successful people get to the top andnear to the top and retire happy just repeatingtheir limited strengths time and time again. Manygo through their careers never improving any-thing they were not good at to begin with.

Given these observations, a common argumentis to focus on strengths and ignore or just livewith our limitations. Get in a job. career path, andorganization that need your strengths. Limitationscan always be staffed iiround. For those in a roleor career path that does not change much, or alower level job with no aspirations for differentkinds of work or higher levels, this is a good argu-ment. Our strengths are what propel us. Focusingon our weaknesses or limits does not make muchsense. If we ignore or minimize our strengths, andfocus too much on our less effective selves, won'tour overall effectiveness go down?

It probably will, temporarily, but one wrongdoes not justify another. Focusing on strengthsalone can be deadly too. in fact, following onlyour strengths may get us fired.

Is There Evidence Outside of AnecdotalObservations that People OveruseStrengths?

A few researchers have looked at the questionof the extent we overdo our strengths. !n investi-

gating how balanced the skill sets of executivesare. Kaplan found that only about 5 to 10 percentcould be described that way: 35 to 40 percentoveruse forceful and operating skills behaviorsand 10 to 15 percent overuse enabling behaviors(Kaiser & Kaplan. 2000). In our data on about100,000 competency ratings, we ask. "To whatextent does this person overdo this strength (askedonly if the competency was rated as a strength)?"The average overuse of any competency is 17 per-cent (Lombardo & Eichinger, 2003). These studiesindicate overuse is somewhere between 10 to 40percent and is common. Some competencies getmore overused than others.

What Might Happen if Strengths AreLeft Largely Untouched?

Strengths can highlight weaknesses—andbecome coupled with corollary weaknesses:

1. The smart person who ignores his or herinterpersonal frailties.

2. The independent, stand-alone pertbrmerwho cannot build a team.

3. The highly results-oriented manager whoovermanages and underdelegates.

4. The creative type who starts 50 things andwreaks organizational havoc by not finish-ing anything.

5. The face-to-face salesperson who cannotmake the transition to back-office salesmanager.

Years of research on derailment show thesepatterns are real (McCall, et al., 1988; Morrison,et al., 1992). What we do well we can overdo. Wecan largely ignore corollary weaknesses.

Strengths Can Lead to Failures to LearnFocusing on strengths alone leads to repeating

the same behaviors in new situations. Low-per-forming executives seem to have much moredifficulty learning from experience. They tendto form preconceived and general notions of, forexample, how to develop others. Commenting onthe earlier studies done at CCL. Lombardo andEichinger (2002) remark:

The derailed executives, all of whom hadbeen successful for many years before derailingand who had gone through many of the samekey assignments as the successful executives,had virtually no pattern of learning from jobs.Their learning appeared to be virtually random.Derailed executives quit learning, thought theywere infallible, became legends in their own

HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 41

minds, or couldn't make the transition to a dif-ferent job or way of behaving. They relied onwhat had gotten them to where they were,ironically becoming victimized by their pastsuccesses. They got locked into standard waysof thinking and acting that didn't really meetthe new demands. They also underestimated thenewness of the demands, seeing them as justanother version of what they had done before.

In contrast, successful executives had a strongand similar pattern of learning from key jobassignments. In all major studies of success andderailment, learning to do something different inorder to make key transitions has figured promi-nently in the results: Successful people do and tbeless successful do not.

Strengths Can Lead to Low Self-Knowledge and Overrating Oneself

This is ihe proverbial smoking ^ ^ ^ ^ ^gun of derailment. Among differentgroups of raters, self-ratings tendto be the highest on 360 feedbackinstruments (Harris & Schaubroeck,1988) and do not relate to perfor-mance or potential. They do notcorrelate with actual performance,for example, while boss ratings do(Mabe & West, 1982; Lombardo &Eichinger, 2003). It is now becomingclear tbat primarily the worst per-formers overrate, (See Fleenor, et al,, 1996,Atwater. et al.. 1998, for additional findings,)

Shipper and Dillard (2(X)0) found. "The fatalflaw shown by this research is a lack of selfawareness. All three groups of impending derailers(early career, mid-career and late-career) overesti-mated tbeir overall skills profile in comparison totheir successful cohorts," The managers mostlikely to derail usually had too high an opinionof their own skills and abilities compared to man-agers who underestimated their abilities. Theynote that, "those rating themselves high oftendemonstrate traits such as lack of self-awarenessand arrogance, usually associated with ineffectivemanagement." In contrast, "Fast trackers signifi-cantly more accurately estimate or underestimatetheir ability on tbe overall profile and on both theupfront and follow-up skills profiles."Underestimators were able to bounce back fromcareer derailment regardless of level.

In our last round of studies we looked at threegroups of people across on average a two-yearperiod. Some were promoted, most were

Focusing on

strengths alone

leads to repeat-

ing the san^e

behaviors in new

situations.

unchanged, and some were terminated. One keyfinding: The higher the .self-ruting coinpiired withthose of other rater groups, the more likely a per-son is to he terminated. Those who are terminatedrate themselves higher (as do their direct reports).Bosses and peers rated them much lower {a fullstandard deviation on average). Those who areunchanged rate more similarly to their ratergroups, but still rate themselves higher. And thosewho are promoted rate themselves lower than doany rater group.

The same trend holds for career stallers. Thoseterminated rate themselves lower {more favor-ably) on career-stall ing behaviors; those promotedrate themselves higher (less favorably)(Lombardo & Eichinger. 2003).

The magnitude of these differences is consid-erable. Out of 86 competency and career-stallerratings, the terminated rated themselves signitl-^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ cantly higher than any other rater

group 40 times; the unchanged werehigher 28 times; the promoted, once.

While this lack of self awarenessand a tendency to overrate oneselfhave been found to be crippling, incontrast, successful people learnedmore new behavior, were more self-aware (see Spreitzer, et al.. 1997;Lombardo & Eichinger. 2000;Shipper & Dillard, 2000; Lombardo& Eichinger, 2003),

The terminated obviously have an Inflatedself-view in some bad areas: breadth of judgment,conflict skills, people skills, a belief they are betterhands-on managers and more trusted than otherself-raters or any rater group (except direct reportsin some cases). It is at least arguable they saw littleneed to add any strengths beyond the ones theythought they had: If they rated themselves unrea-sonably high, what is left to develop?

Interpersonal skills usually do not relate asmuch to pertbrmance as the more operational andstrategic skills, so their overrating doesn't hurtthem until later. What gets people fired is ofteninterpersonal. And here is where we found theonly significant relationships of self-ratings withperformance: The promoted rate themselves sig-nificantly higher on people problems and overallstallers. The terminated are as clueless as ever.

The promoted save themselves with self-criti-cism and setting a higher bar. They are on thelookout for potential problems with people. Theterminated get blindsided. not expecting problems.It's a fair conclusion that their inflated view of

4 1 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING

their conflict, interpersonal, degree of trust, andhands-on management skills eventually gets themrun out the door. Their blind spols become fatalflaws. Many research studies have shown(McCall, et al., 1988: Morrison, et al., 1992;Lombardo & Eichinger, 2002) that what does notget you in trouble early (poor people skills) willget you later, when the demands of the job changelo orchestrating change and building a productiveclimate for high performance. You have to be ableto work the people side of the organization.

Common Sense: How Long Will FiveStrengths Last?

Who among us really believes a single set ofa few strengths will carry us throughout a career?Who believes they have not developed a significantnew skill or neutralized a weak one? What is thehalf-life of a strength these days? How many ofus do not change our work orientation as we age?

Focusing only on your strengths, while appeal-ing, is short sighted at best.

What Are Some Best Practices?

Adapt, Grow, and Know

Your best bet is to adjust your portfolio ofstrengths throughout your career as the require-ments of roles, situations, and jobs change andcareer aspirations shift. Knowing yourself is stillthe best option^—strengths, averages, weaknesses,and untested areas. Successful people do not haveall possible skills but they do not have blindspots. Their edge is in fully knowing them-selve.s—developing where they can, enhancingaverage areas that become more important, andneutralizing weak areas where they will never bestrong. No one suggests a truly conflict-averseperson can become a conflict master: however,that person can learn to deal in a straightforwardfashion with conflict situations (e.g., understand-ing ihe other side, asking more questions, makingclear, unemotional statements). Remain open tofeedback, criticism, and corrective suggestions.Learn from new jobs, other people, and transitions.Be fully self aware. Monitor your weaknesses. Donot get obsessed with tbem but make sure theyare not causing too much noise.

Expand the Success ProfileAn increasingly common poor practice is to

assess and give feedback on only a few (7 to 12)core competencies that arc "believed" to be criticalfor success. We say "believed" because what gets

selected for the so-called core competenciesis often no( backed up by research. This is anexample of simplicity gone awry: A good goal,becoming simplistic—producing a bad result. Allaspects of human endeavor matter across a careerunless nothing ever changes. People get fired forreasons that have nothing to do with their previoussuccess. Many competencies related to termina-tion (approachability. for example) rarely relateto current performance. The lack of these seldom-included competencies accumulates over time.People make transitions and the work environmentchanges. Lack of skill development in corollaryareas and lack of feedback lead to all the illsnoted previously—poor self-knowledge, narrowview of a job. failure to grow and change, andoverestimating one's skills. Full bandwidthassessment and feedback is a must. Whetherapproachability is seen as important this minute,it will be in future minutes.

Focus on Strengths, with Caution andPerspective

Is it a good idea to focus on and leveragestrengths? Of course. That's what accounts formuch of our success. We should focus on whatwe've been given, leverage it. and use ourstrengths. But, weaknesses sometimes matter.Each person should make a list of the corollaryweaknesses that typically accompany specitlcstrengths (Lombardo & Eichinger. 2002). Getfeedback on those specific weaknesses over timeand attempt to neutralize the ones that begin tomatter. See Exhibit 2 for examples of how overde-pendence t)n one skill can become a weakness orresult in a negative outcome for executives.

Watch Out During TransitionsThose who focus only on their strengths face

the most risk during and after stark transitions.Changing jobs. Changing organizations. Changingroles. Life changes. Location and culture changes.People with a limited portfolio of strengths whoare not self-aware and overestimate what they cando have a high chance of crashing before they canget the wheels down. Ask someone knowledge-able in the new context about the requirements forsuccess. Have a mentor or trusted peer observeyou to catch any weaknesses early.

The Mae West adage that "too much of a goodthing can be wonderful" may have been true forthe sultry 1920s star, but that advice is fraughtwith peril for today's rising executives. Over-reliance on the management skills and personal

HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 43

strengths that gained them promotions andincrea.sed responsibilities may lead lo derailmentif new skills are not identified and developed andweaknesses neutralized.

The bottom line is that each of us needs toknow ourselves completely—the good, the badand the ugly. Then we can choose what to doabout it. Those who decide to .stick with theirstrengths can be successful but will be limited.Those who decide to enhance their strengths, beaware of their weaknesses, and work on them^—oraround them—will be more successful.

ReferencesAiuaicr. I. K., Ostrolt. C . Yumniarino. F.J.. & Fleenor. J.W. 11W8)."Self-Other Ruling Agrt-emeni: Docs It Really Matter." Pfrsoiim-IPsyrhiilii^y.^]. 576-597.

Flccmir, J,W.. McCauicy. CD., & Brutus. S. (199ft). ".Self Otheragreemeni and Leader Effccliveness," The t-eudership Qiitinerh.7(4): 487-3()fi.

Harris, M.M.& Schaubrneck. J. (I98K). -'A Meta-Analysis of Self-Supervisor, Self-Peer and Peer-Supervisor Ratings." Pcrsomii'lPsychit^igy. il: iT'-bl.

Kai.'ier, R.B.. & Kaplan. R.E. (20(K)l. "Geltjng Al LeadershipVersatility: The Ca.'ie nf the Foreefiil and Enabling Polarity" /5;/iAnnuiil Cunfvreiuf iifilw Society (I'r liulu.Mrial unil Orf-iini^iiiiamilPsychology. New Orh-an.t (April).

Lombiirdo. M,. & Eichinger. R. (2(XI()). "High Potentials as HighLearners." Humiin Resource Xfatuiai'ineni. 39l4|: 32l-3.H),a

Lombardo. M.. & Eiehinger, R. (2002). The Leudei.ship Miwliine.Minneapolis: Lnminger.

Lombardo. M., & Eichinger, R. (2003). The LEADERSHtPARCHI-TECT Norms and Vaiidiiy Report. Minneapolis: Lominger.

Mabe, P.A. & West S.G, (1982). "Valicliiy of Self-Evalualion ofAbiliiy: A Review and Meta-Analysis." Jiiurniit of AppliedP\ychology. 67: 2R0-296.

McCall, M.. Lombardo. M. & Morrison, A. (1988). The Lessons ofExperience, Lexington, Ma.ss.: Lexington Books,

Morrison. A., While. R., & Van Velsor, E. (1992). tireiiking ihe ClassCeiling. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.

Shipper, F.. & Dillard. J. (2()(H)). "A Study of Impending Derailmeniand Recovery of Middle Managers Across Career Stages," tiumanRe\ource MaiMfU'meni, 39(4): 331-347.

Spreii/er, G.M., MeCall, M.W. & Mahoney. J.D. (1997). -EarlyIdentification of Intemational Executive Potential."' Journal of AppliedPsychohfiy. S2( I): 6-29.

Biographical SketchesRobert W. Eichinger is CEO and cofoimder ofLoniini^er Limited. Inc. and cocreator of TheLEADERSHIP ARCHITECT® Suite of manage-ment, executive, and organizational developmenttools. During his 4O'yectr career, he has workedinside companies such as PepsiCo and Pillsbiwy.and as a consultant in Fortune 500 companies inthe United States. Europe. Japan. Canada, andAustralia. Boh lectures extensively on the topic ofexecutive and management development and hasserved on the Board of the Human ResourcePlanning Society. He has worked as a coach withmore than 1,000 managers and executives. Bobslatest book, a collaboration with Mike Lombardo,is The Leadership Machine. // outlines the stepsnecessary to develop effective and successfulleaders and managers.

Michael M. Lombardo is cofounder and directorof research and product creation at LomingerLimited, Inc. and cocreator of The LEADERSHIPARCHITECT® Suite. He was director of researchin leadership development at the Center forCreative Leadership for 15 years, where he coau-thored The Lessons of Experience, a study ofe.xec-utive success and derailment that detailed whichlearnings from e.xperience can teach the competen-cies needed to be successful. While at CCL Mikealso coauthored BENCHMARKS®, a 360-degreefeedback instrument: coauthored the research onexecutive derailment revealing how personal flawsand overdone strengths caused otherwise effectivee.xecutives to get into career trouble: and theLOOKING GLASS® simulation. During his career,Mike has authored over 50 publications dealingwith various issues of development and has wonfour national awards for re.search on managerialcmd executive development.

OverdependenceStrengths

Highly social; interacts effectively withemployees and clients

Decisive; takes charge; makes decisionstinder pressure, even with incomplete information

Delegates well, finds best person for the job;shares responsibility an(d accountability with others

Composed, mature, handles stress well; calmin crisis

Weaknesses

May be viewed as people-pleaser; too nicecannot face tough issues; wastes time

Dictatorial; does not seek or listen to inputfrom others; may appear impulsive and impatient

Hands off work; does not contribute individually;does not add to strength of department: is not involved

May seem cold and uncaring; easilymisinterpreted

44 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING