Corporations
use elaborate, well-crafted paper and pencil surveys to take
the pulse of the organization's people. For the large investment
in time and expense, these techniques are not usually capable
of providing a manager with relevant, specific, timely feedback
that empowers them to take effective action.
In recent years, much
interest has been expressed in 360° feedback. This approach collects
data from a manager’s boss, direct reports, peers and sometimes
others, about the manager’s leadership and management style and/or
attitudes and/or behavior. This data is then analyzed by a third
party and fed back to the manager for his or her information and
possible action.
The MFS™ process is easily confused
with the plethora of such programs being promoted for a variety
of purposes. We believe it is important to make explicit the significant
distinctions between MFS™ and 360°
feedback. Based on our experience and reports from clients who have
used both MFS™ and 360° feedback
approaches, there are a number of points to consider:
MFS™
is focused on helping a manager identify work group needs as experienced
by members of the work group and then to address these needs for
the mutual benefit of the work group and the manager.
Feedback from
other sources, Boss and Peers, does not accurately reflect the
needs of the work group, and if combined with work group data,
contaminates that data and provides inaccurate results.
Why have a
manager's boss complete a survey when the manager can more effectively
get this information in a face to face discussion?
Three tiers
of simultaneous data creates confusion and information overload.
Managers have enough to do to digest the data from their work
group and initiate needed change.
MFS™
does provide a foundation for the subsequent collection
of data from work groups’ suppliers and customers, internal and
external, to effect improvement in those working relationships.
However, this requires a much different process and set of questions
to be effective.