Cross Cultural Usage Of 360 Feedback (Cubiks Network Event Oct 09)

1

www.cubiks.com, [email protected]

Cross cultural use of 360°feedback

2


Q: Is cross cultural use of 360°

feedback…

1. A waist of time! An illusion!

Or

2. The way to get a grip on your leadership bench strength around the globe! The solution to align your managers (and their leadership skills) around the globe!

3


Brief overview

1. Introduction

2. Cross cultural use

3. Study

4. Final thoughts

4


Brief overview

1. Introduction


3. Study

4. Final thoughts

5


What is 360°feedback and why is it used?

• What is it? Some definitions:

– “The practice of providing an employee with perceptions of his or her

performance from a number of recourses“ (Payne, 1998, p. 16)

– “A process whereby raters from multiple perspectives rate a subject’s

performance“ (Zimmerman, Mount & Goff III, 2008, p. 123)

• Why is it used? Two main assumptions:

– The belief that feedback / ratings from multiple sources is more reliable than

feedback / ratings form one person

– The assumption that feedback will lead to behavioral change and development of

individuals (Church and Bracken, 1997)

6


Popularity: some statistics

• 25% of the companies use some kind of upward or MRF process (Antonio, 1996)

• Approximately 90% of fortune 1000 companies use some kind of MRF instrument (Atwater and Waldman, 1998)

• Over one third of all US companies use some kind of 360ºprocess (Bracken, Timmreck and Church, 2001)

• 60-90% of all major corporations are using a MRF instrument (Lobsenz, Caruso and Seidler, 2004)

• Approximately 90% of all Fortune 500 companies are using MRF (Nowak, 2007)

7


Objectivity claim

• Fans claim that the objectivity is ensured by consulting multiple

raters and by averaging their responses.

• This claim has face validity appeal, but is a dangerous assumption, or to quote Payne (1998, P 16.):

“Garbage in, garbage out”

8


The gap and self-awareness

• Not all research is in line, but in general it seems fair to state that after receiving feedback, self-ratings become more in line

with the feedback of others (Atwater, Waldman and Brett, 2002)

Lowest outcomes (no recognition). They see no discrepancy

between goal and behavior.

Over-rater

Mixture of positive and negative outcomes Under-rater

Low outcomes (recognition of weakness, but

not addressed so far). They see the

discrepancy but don’t act

Positive outcomes. In agreement

Low ratingsHigh Ratings

The effect of in agreement, under-, and over-ratings (Mabe and West, 1992)

9


But?

“Overestimating oneself can be seen as the normal creative self-deception of a healthy mind”

Maciel, Heckhausen & Baltes(1994, p.82)

10


Brief overview

1. Introduction


3. Study

4. Final thoughts

11


Nine out of ten times

• A corporate tool is used across the globe in more or less the same way using the same

leadership model / competencies

• The process (such as who is inviting the reviewers, how are the results fed back, the

confidentiality issue) is the same around the globe

• Cultural effects are not taken in consideration

• Results from different countries / cultures are

interpreted in more or less the same way

12


It is not rocket science to state that…

• People form different cultures have a different view on giving and receiving feedback

• It is not always easy to ‘asses’ your boss and/or confront your peers with your opinion about their performance

• In addition there are more complex issues to contend with, particularly relating to language

• One culture may be inspired by the very thing that depresses another. (Trompenaars and Hampden (1998. p 19.)

– Useful feedback according to American management culture and enforced admissions of failure in a German management culture

– An over-estimator or an under-estimator is important in one culture, but less in another culture

13


Some findings of research

• Scientifically-grounded research is still mainly focused on the use of MRF in a more or less isolated environment, in a single organization

and/or a single culture

• The frame of references from raters (the norms they use) is culturally

defined (Williams and Hummert, 1990)

• Rowson (1998) states that “cultural differences may be expected to reflect both in how the process of MRF is viewed and how well it is

accepted” (p.46)

• Gillespie (2005) concluded that employees from different countries

and cultures, working for the same multinational, interpreted and responded differently to the same MRF questionnaire

14


Some findings of research

• Italian and Germans tend to rate themselves higher than

counterparts in the USA, while French give lower self ratings (Hazucha at all, 1995)

• Varela and Premeaux (2008): “Notably missing from this body of research is the analysis of cross-cultural values” (p. 134 ). They

wonder what impact this shortcoming has on the legitimacy of using MRF

15


Questions that frequently pop up

� Is benchmarking 360°feedback in a cross cultural environment an illusion?

� Is 360°feedback only useful for individual and developmental purposes? If so, it should not be used comparatively.

� Can you use 360°feedback in all cultures (for instance in high power distance cultures)?

� What if people move around, do they carry their cultural assumptions across cultures?

� What is stronger: corporate culture or national culture?

16


Brief overview

1. Introduction


3. Study

4. Final thoughts

17


Hofstede´s Dimensions

Hofstede´s theory about cultural differences and typologies is one of the most popular and most used classifications (Atwater, Waldman, Ostroff, Robie & Johnson, 2005).

� Hierarchy: High Power distance vs. Low Power Distance: The distribution of power by nature

� Identity: Individualism vs. Collectivism: The tension between a focus on individual freedom vs. a focus on group harmony

� Gender: Masculinity vs. Femininity: A distinction between a ´caring pole´ and a more ´assertive pole´

� Truth: Uncertainty Avoidance vs. Uncertainty Tolerance : Focused on the search for the truth, a society’s tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity

� Virtue: Long-term Orientation vs. Short-term Orientation: A focus on direct reward / results vs. perseverance and a more long term benefit

Source: www.geert-hofstede.com

18


How well do you know these cultures?Please mark the highest and the lowest per dimension

Russia

New Zealand

Venezuela

US

Sweden

Singapore

Pakistan

Japan

Greece

China

LTOUAIMASIDVPDI

19


How well do you know these cultures?

332957131Sweden

Unknown76731281Venezuela

070501454Pakistan

11830662080China

498482074Singapore

Greece

Japan

US

New Zealand

Russia

Unknown112573560

8092954654

2946629140

304958792

Unknown 95363993

LTOUAIMASIDVPDI


20


Netherlands?

LTOUAIMASIDVPDI

4453148038Netherlands


21


Context

Company

• Manufacturing and business services

• HQ in Scandinavia

• Presence in over 50 countries (2008)

• Over 4.6 billion net sales in (2008)

• Over 34,000 employees worldwide (2008)

22


Target group / data set

360°feedback• As a start of a development program

• Subjects: first management level• Reviewer groups: Boss, Peers, Report and Stakeholder

• 12 competencies, 56 statements• Rating scale: 1 to 5 and 0 for not observed

Final data set• 413 cases / subjects• 372 Male, 41 Female

• Finland, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Belgium, India, Sweden, Poland, France, China, Germany (<10 subjects)

23


Hypothesis IMasculine vs. Feminine cultures

• In a masculine culture people are more competitive

• People are more focused on being (perceived as) successful

• People will be more critical towards each other

Hypothesis I

a) The gap (self vs. others) will be bigger in masculine cultures

b) Self ratings will be higher in masculine cultures

c) Other ratings will be lower in masculine cultures

24


Hypothesis IIHigh Power vs. Low Power distance cultures

• In a high power culture people tend to respect leaders

• People will feel less comfortable being critical towards their leaders, they might be tempted to be extra positive

• Leaders will be highly critical towards their reports

Hypothesis II

a) In High Power Distance cultures ratings of bosses will be lower then ratings of direct reports

b) In High Power Distance cultures ratings of direct

reports will be higher than ratings of peers

c) In High Power Distance cultures ratings of bosses will be lower than self ratings

25


Power Distance and Masculinity

831Norway

6240United States

4368Germany

6635China

4368France

6468Poland

531Sweden

5677India

5465Belgium

7050Italy

4257Spain

1438Netherlands

2633Finland

MasculinityPower DistanceNationality


26


Results

• Check: the gap between self and others (regardless of any cultural effects) seems to be significant

• Hypothesis 1: Masculine vs. Feminine cultures

• Hypotheses 1a (the gap) will be higher in masculine cultures) is not supported

• Hypotheses 1b (self ratings will be higher in masculine cultures) is supported

• Hypotheses 1c (other ratings will be lower in masculine cultures) is not supported Surprisingly it seems that the hypothes Ic is reversed: other ratings are higher in a more masculine culture

27


ResultsContinued

• Hypothesis 2: High vs. Low Power distance cultures

• Hypothesis 2a (in high power distance cultures ratings of bosses will be lower than ratings of direct reports) is supported

• Hypothesis 2b (in high power distance cultures, ratings of direct

reports will be higher than ratings of peers) is supported

• Hypothesis 2c (in high power distance cultures, ratings of bosses will

be lower than self ratings) is supported

28


Main conclusions

• These results are not consistent enough to conclude that Hofstede´sMasculine / Feminine Dimension does, or does not a have clear effect on MRF.

– No cultural effect on the gap between self and other ratings

– A cultural effect on the ratings of self (more masculine, higher ratings)

– A cultural effect on the ratings of others (more masculine, higher ratings)

• Based on these results it seems fair to conclude that Hofstede´s Power Distance Dimension has an effect on MRF.

– Ratings of bosses are lower than ratings of direct reports

– Ratings of direct reports are higher than ratings of peers

– Ratings of bosses are lower than self ratings

29


Brief overview

1. Introduction


3. Study

4. Final thoughts

30


Discussion, next steps

• The research is based on only one data set. Any future study

– Should point out if this data is representative

– Also needs to be focussed on other dimensions

– Should also take possible noise factors, such as the objective of the MRF (development, or appraisal), into account

• Future research will also (need to) be focussed on

– A comparison of the effect of corporate vs. national culture

– A comparison of the (possible) effects of all the dimensions

31


Final thoughts

•

• It is surprising that the cross cultural use of MRF continues to grow even though most of the global operating companies using it take very little notice of the effects of culture

• This is particularly disturbing when one considers that there are plenty of researchers who question the positive effects of feedback, irrespective of the effects of culture

32


Your questions

Thank you!Jouko van AggelenManaging consultant Cubiks

Cross Cultural Usage Of 360 Feedback (Cubiks Network Event Oct 09)

Documents

Transcript of Cross Cultural Usage Of 360 Feedback (Cubiks Network Event Oct 09)