Who Done It: The Danger of Assigning Ownership to Anonymous Feedback

Posted by zengerfolkman on February 24, 2011 · 1 Comment 

When people receive anonymous 360 feedback there is a natural human tendency to look at the data and attempt to figure out “who done it”. It’s an interesting mystery and often people state with great confidence that they “KNOW.” We often advise our clients that about 50% of the time they are correct but that means 50% of the time they are wrong.

Recently, I was reviewing data with a client and came to the results for the competency “Develops Others.”  Paul* (names have been changed), the leader receiving the feedback, was a new manager with a lot of potential and enthusiasm but not a great deal of experience.  This manager had four direct reports:

David – New in his role. Was transferred from another group and was just learning his job. David has lots of potential but a steep learning curve ahead.

Ellen – Her performance had declined substantially and was currently on a development plan. Clear discussions had surfaced the fact that if her performance did not improve she would be asked to leave the company.

Christie – Currently on maternity leave.

Laura – She was moved into this position and was an excellent performer.  She competed for the same promotion that Paul received.

As Paul reviewed the results most of the feedback was very positive, rating him as having a “Strength” or “Significant Strength” on developing others.  However, one response on each of the three items rated him as “Needing Significant Improvement.” Paul had two immediate reactions.  First, seeing the three very negative ratings he said, “Someone is very unhappy.”  His second reaction was, “I know who that is.”

There are a few assumptions to Paul’s reaction that may not be true. First, the fact that the three negative responses are all from the same person is an assumption. Different respondents may have each given him low scores on one item. The second assumption is the “Who done it” question. When we try to figure out who said what, we are often wrong, and it may have negative consequences.

There was interesting research done about how schoolteachers who had been given preconceptions of students’ abilities actually wound up treating them very differently based on those assumptions.  If a manager develops preconceptions about who said what on a 360° instrument, there is the danger that he/she will treat them in inappropriate ways.

Paul’s knee jerk reaction was that Ellen had given him the low scores.  She was on a performance plan. Tough love is hard to take. When Paul was asked, “Are you sure it was Ellen,” he started to wonder if he was correct.  We never track this data down for a leader, but because I was curious, I went in and looked at the raw data. This cannot be determined from the standard feedback report.  Turns out that the negative responses were all from the same person, but it was not Ellen.

I could tell you who it was, but there is a moral to this story: you really don’t know, but you don’t have to know. The data suggested to Paul that he was doing a good job, but that someone was concerned. That is enough information for him to respond appropriately. He does not need to change what he is doing, but he may need to be sensitive to the fact that someone is upset. I have no doubt that he will figure this out quickly and move forward.

Joe Folkman – President and Co-founder

Need to Develop Others? Download the Developing Others Checklist from the Leadership Resource Center

Filed under 360-Degree Assessments · Tagged with 360, 360 assessment, 360 Degree Assessment, 360 feedback, business results, feedback, human resources, joe folkman, Leadership, Leadership Development, leadership training, performance feedback, professional development, zenger folkman