Search results

The purpose of this two‐part paper is to present and discuss research into gender and seniority differences in 360‐degree assessments of influencing, leadership and team behaviours.

The paper builds on a previous article on influencing behaviour and 360‐degree assessments, which found a statistically significant positive relationship between these two sets of variables. However, the strength of this relationship was found to vary, depending on the seniority and gender of individuals. This article extends the previous one in two ways. First, it examines four hypotheses to explain the earlier findings. Second, it introduces data on two other types of behaviour – leadership and team behaviour – in relation to 360‐degree performance assessments. The first two hypotheses relate to seniority differences. The first is that influencing behaviour is more closely linked to 360‐degree assessments among middle managers because they have less power than senior managers and, in consequence, their style of influence is more important. The second hypothesis is that the behaviour of those at senior levels is symbolic and/or constrained and thus of little substantive importance. Gender differences are, therefore, explored more fully by considering two further hypotheses. The third is that male and female managers tend to be judged by different gender stereotypes. The fourth hypothesis is that male and female managers tend to do different jobs.

Support was found support for the first hypothesis. 360‐degree assessments are affected by seniority. Influencing behaviour is more closely linked to 360‐degree assessments of middle managers who tend to have less legitimate power. By contrast, influencing behaviour is less closely linked to 360‐degree assessments in senior managers who have more legitimate power, more influence over change and others and a more significant leadership role. Little support was found for the second hypothesis. 360‐degree assessments were strongly related to leadership and team behaviours in senior managers, as well as middle managers. These findings indicate that the behaviour of those at senior levels is of consequence and, can therefore, be expected to influence 360‐degree assessments. Clear evidence was found to support the third hypothesis that male and female managers were judged by different gender stereotypes. Male managers were judged more positively when they displayed a range of “leadership” behaviours. In contrast, female managers were judged more positively when they displayed “management” and “team” behaviours. Support was also found for the fourth hypothesis that male and female managers tended to do different jobs. Male managers were over‐represented at senior levels and were likely to have more influence over change at both middle and senior management levels.

The originality and value of this paper lies in its examination of the relationship between three different types of behaviour (i.e. influencing, leadership and team working) and 360‐degree assessments of performance, including seniority and gender differences.

The paper aims to present and discuss research into the relationship between influencing behaviour and impact, including gender and seniority differences.

The paper builds on previous articles considering influencing behaviour in the workplace. These articles present a model of interpersonal influence and describe how individual influencing behaviour varies in different contexts. They identified the need for further investigation into the effectiveness of such behaviours in those contexts. This research utilises 360‐degree performance assessments as an indicator of the “effectiveness” or impact of workplace influencing behaviours.

The findings extend previous work supporting the idea that there are few, if any, influencing behaviours that apply to all situations and highlight the role of expectancies in work place assessments of influencing behaviours.

The research highlights ways in which the relationship between influencing behaviour and impact differ according to both the gender and seniority of those seeking to influence. This indicates that the “expectancies” of the influence or target affect perceptions of influencing behaviour and assessments of impact. This is consistent with the model of interpersonal influence previously developed, which includes explicit reference to feedback loops between behaviour, responses and expectancies. This raises further questions as to the impact of expectancies on 360‐degree assessment, and the nature and fairness of assessment within organisational performance management systems.

This paper challenges the idea that there are influencing strategies and styles that are effective, irrespective of context. It also highlights the role of expectancies within behavioural assessments in the workplace.

The purpose of this two‐part paper is to present and discuss research into gender and seniority differences in 360‐degree assessments of influencing, leadership and team behaviours.

The article builds on a previous article on influencing behaviour and 360‐degree assessments that found a statistically significant positive relationship between these two sets of variables. However, the strength of this relationship was found to vary, depending on the seniority and gender of individuals. This article extends the previous one in two ways. Firstly, it examines four hypotheses to explain the earlier findings. Secondly, it introduces data on two other types of behaviour – leadership and team behaviour – in relation to 360‐degree performance assessments.

The authors found support for the first hypothesis. The 360‐degree assessments are affected by seniority. Influencing behaviour is more closely linked to 360‐degree assessments of middle managers who tend to have less legitimate power. The authors found little support for the second hypothesis. The 360‐degree assessments were strongly related to leadership and team behaviours in senior managers, as well as middle managers. The authors found clear evidence to support the third hypothesis that male and female managers were judged by different gender stereotypes. The authors also found support for the fourth hypothesis that male and female managers tended to do different jobs.

The originality and value of this paper lies in its examination of the relationship between three different types of behaviour (i.e. influencing, leadership and team working) and 360‐degree assessments of performance, including seniority and gender differences. It combines theory and research as a basis for practice. It draws on relevant theory on influencing, team working and leadership, presents empirical evidence, examines possible interpretations, draws practical conclusions and discusses their implications. The findings have implications for the use of 360‐degree assessments, challenge universal prescriptions about leadership and management, provide guidelines about the development needs of managers as they move from middle to senior management levels, and highlight particular problems for female managers making the transition.

Much current thinking and practice treats “management” as a peripheral activity, intrinsically inferior and subordinate to “leadership”. The purpose of this paper is to reclaim “management” from the margins and return it to the center of the stage, alongside “leadership”. It aims to highlight the importance of a set of “task” management activities (including clarifying roles, and planning, monitoring, controlling and co‐ordinating activities) in delivering organizational objectives, in getting the job done.

The research described looks at the degree of correlation, and its statistical significance, between different aspects of 360 degree assessments of performance, as well as between 360 degree assessments and three self‐assessment instruments. Evidence is also presented on the differences between senior and middle managers.

Statistically significant relationships were found between various “task” behaviors and 360 degree outcomes. There was a direct link between “task” behaviors and “task” outcomes, concerned with getting the job done, and an indirect link to other outcomes, arising from the systemic and systematic nature of such behaviors. Differences were found in the nature of the relationships between middle and senior managers.

The research uses one outcome measure, 360 degree assessments, examines one contextual variable, seniority, and is based on managers in the UK public sector. Further research using other outcome measures, examining other contextual variables and based on other populations would be useful.

The research findings highlight the importance of “task” management behaviors and indicate which particular behaviors are important at different management levels. The practical implications for managers are that to deliver organizational objectives and get the job done, they need to focus more on such behaviors, using specific behaviors appropriate to their seniority.

This paper has implications for individual training and development professionals and for organizations providing and purchasing such services, including government organizations, who need to recognize the importance of “management” alongside “leadership”.

This paper provides an evidence‐based challenge to the widely held view that “management” is intrinsically inferior and subordinate to “leadership”.

Benchmark surveys regarding talent management assessment practices and interventions of choice for organization development (OD) practitioners have shown 360-degree feedback to be a popular tool for both development and decision-making in the field today. Although much has been written about implementing 360-degree feedback since its inception in the 1990s, few longitudinal case examples exist where interventions have been applied and their impact measured successfully. This chapter closes the gap by providing research findings and key learnings from five different implementation strategies for enhancing 360-degree feedback in a large multi-national organization. Recommendations and implications for future research are discussed.

This article aims to present and discuss research findings on 360 degree assessments of team role behaviours in different contexts. In so doing, it brings together and develops two themes previously explored by the author, namely: the need to introduce a significant social dimension into thinking about team roles; the need to recognise that appropriate leadership behaviour is not universal but contingent upon context.

A mixed sample of public sector managers in the UK completed a team role self-assessment questionnaire and had a 360 degree assessment completed on them. The research looked at the degree of correlation between the self-assessments and the 360 assessments and its statistical significance, exploring the ways in which the nine team roles are more or less valued in different contexts.

Statistically significant relationships were found between measures of leadership contexts and team role behaviours. More importantly for this research, 360 degree assessments of team role behaviours were also found to vary in different contexts. Similarities and differences were found in the team roles behaviours that were typical in particular contexts and those that were valued in such contexts.

The range of contexts explored in this article was limited. Two contextual variables derived from the model of “dynamic” leadership were examined, namely the level of influence over change and the level of influence over others. In both cases, high and low levels of influence were considered. It would be useful to explore other contextual variables. It would also be useful to see if the observed relationships were found in situations other than the UK public sector.

First, the findings reinforce the view that there is a significant social dimension to team roles, they cannot be viewed merely as clusters of personality traits, they are related to social roles and the influence people have in such roles. Second, teams are likely to be more effective if the behaviour of individual team members is appropriate to the social roles and contexts that they find themselves in. Third, what people tend to do in particular situations is not necessarily the same as that which is valued in such situations.

The findings reinforce the conclusions of earlier research by the author and associates. In so doing, they lend support to original team role and leadership models developed by these individuals, as well as highlighting links between the two models. They also highlight differences between what people tend to do in particular situations and what is likely to be valued in such situations.

Focuses on 360 degree feedback which is defined as a contrived method of providing a flow of feedback to employees from all directions. Addresses the purposes of feedback within the organization, with special emphasis on its use for employee development and careeµr development; the benefits of such feedback to the organization and the individuals involved; the mechanisms used to obtain feedback; and, finally, the pitfalls of 360 degree feedback.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of gender on the performance assessments of managers arising from the 360‐degree scheme operated within the UK headquarters of a large multi‐international financial services organisation.

A questionnaire approach was used to collect data on 66 managers (33 males and 33 females) against four broad capabilities on the 360‐degree appraisal system. Data were gathered on each of the 66 managers from eight different sources including the individual being appraised, three of their peers, three of their direct reports (subordinates) and their manager (supervisor).

Performance ratings were either gender neutral or higher for female than for male managers. Within the case company there was no evidence of unfavourable discrimination against female managers, if anything the reverse with female managers showing superior performance compared to their male counterparts.

As with all cross‐sectional research causality cannot be confirmed and difficulties in accessing 360‐degree appraisal information for a large number of managers led to constraints on research methodology.

The implication for human resource management is that the 360‐degree appraisal system did not necessarily fulfil the degree of objectivity claimed by its adherents and that possible adverse influence may be inherent within the 360‐degree rating system of managers particularly.

The paper offers insights into gender differences within 360‐degree managerial performance appraisals.

How generalizable are 360-degree feedback instruments in different cultures? Research investigating the validity and utility of these instruments across the globe is scarce, yet, extraordinarily important. This chapter investigates the utility of a 360-degree feedback instrument across the globe, as well as how different raters from various cultures perceive leaders.

Looks at the difference between success and failure with regard to 360‐degree feedback projects, stressing the need for a formalized structure to facilitate effective implementation. Initially outlines the reasons why firms seek to adopt 360‐degree feedback, setting out the benefits for the various parties involved ‐ customers, employees, etc. Goes on to outline “fatal errors” such as insufficient communication, lack of training and poor regard for the time factors involved, which can lead to failure. Offers solutions to these problems and concludes that, while 360‐degree feedback is not a cure‐all for assessment problems, it does hold promise for future improvement in this field.