Self-Leadership, or the rejuvenation of a controversial tool: 360°.
Top-down management is a thing of the past. From now on, organisations must focus on collaborative working and orient their culture towards exchange and feedback in order to be successful.
Leadership practices are changing. And what if this context was an opportunity to give a new lease of life to the 360° assessment? This tool, which is better known than practised, raises many questions.
Feedback practice
Basically, 360° enables us to compare our perception of ourselves with the perceptions of others. There are two main benefits: a special moment to reflect on oneself, in oneself, and an awareness of what emanates from oneself; we're talking about self-leadership here! The gains are colossal and could stand on their own, provided the company promotes reflective management as a major leadership development practice.
The fact that there is a gap between self-perception and perception by third parties should not be seen as a problem. It may even be a deliberate tactic. On the other hand, awareness of it is essential if we are to steer our behaviour - managerial or otherwise - ethically and efficiently.
Often the process is not limited to these 2 dimensions, self and third parties; a third framework is introduced, the profile desired by the company. Development plans are proposed on the basis of this explicit or implicit frame of reference. The underlying message is as follows: "this is what we must strive for to optimise our well-being together and our success". 360° can become an instrument for measuring compliance.
As a feedback provider, 360° can cause anxiety in its recipient if he or she is not guided by a sincere desire to listen, to hear and to work on him or herself. It provides an opportunity for reflection, by others and by oneself. It is a gift that can be poisoned if the intention is unhealthy, inconsistent or lacking in accuracy.
A strong cultural dimension?
Conceived in the United States, in a cradle that is naturally culturally compatible, 360° arouses mixed feelings in France. Obviously, this cultural dimension also includes the culture of the company adopting this approach.
Why this ambivalence? Putting in a good word for yourself, being assessed by peers and colleagues, receiving feedback.... The approach is not natural, any more than the notion of self-leadership often is. What's more, it often gives rise to a feeling of fear.
Fear arises both upstream and downstream, with the intention of those administering 360° sometimes tainted by suspicion: Why are they doing this? What are they looking for? Why are they looking for me? And afterwards, what will happen? Moreover, fear can be in the camp of both the person receiving the feedback and the person giving it!
more levels of the hierarchy; fear can then fade, and everyone becomes an assessor of everyone else: I've got you, you've got me by the short hairs... Neutralising all this gently will be a waste of time with no future, more menagement than management.
All these defences show the extent to which this practice is neither harmless nor guaranteed to succeed.
Does this mean we should give it up? Obviously not, but....
360° precautions
3 conditions must be met to guarantee its success: communication on the introduction of the tool, the place of 360° in the development process, and above all the ethics and professionalism that prevail in its use. There are a number of questions that need to be answered: what are the benefits? What are the safeguards? How should employees who refuse be dealt with? etc.
The launch (or relaunch after a period of interruption) of the 360° approach must be appropriate to the situation. It's not something out of the ground, it's part of a context for the company, the entity or the individual that connotes its meaning and its virtue.
360° is not a good tool on its own, but if it is well managed, it can help you to reach a level of maturity like no other, by developing your own leadership.
The launch (or relaunch after a period of interruption) of the 360° approach must be appropriate to the context. It does not stand on its own; it is part of a context for the company, the entity or the individual that connotes its meaning and its virtue.
Is 360° adapted to "liberated" organisations?
360° means hierarchical managers, functional managers, peers, employees... But does this practice still make sense in a 'liberated' company, where links and missions are variable geometry?
Not only is the 360° approach still relevant in 'liberated' companies, it is even more so than in others. The right approach, discernment as to the added value, and hindsight with regard to systems and contributions are decisive.
Just a year ago, General Electric overhauled its performance appraisal methods by breaking with two dogmas: periodicity and the position of the appraiser. Adapting to the business, the assessment is continuous (just like the definition of priorities), and 360°. What's more, to ensure that this approach is a source of progress, the assessor identifies himself, obliging himself to take responsibility for his assessment and to contribute to the development of collective performance. Anonymity is one of the pillars of the 360° approach, and lifting it requires ethics and maturity.
In a world in constant motion, it is essential to question and assess ourselves systematically, with rigour and benevolence. The 360° can be reinvented in this context, on an ad hoc basis, with the emphasis on self-evaluation. Evaluation by third parties can be more selective, focusing on a few aspects that are useful to the ongoing process. The main learning lies in the habit of questioning oneself, of being fully aware of one's relationship to others and to the mission as each configuration differs from the previous one, and ultimately of wanting to develop one's self-leadership.
