Cross Cultural Usage Of 360 Feedback (Cubiks Network Event Oct 09)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

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

on

  • 1,092 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,092
Views on SlideShare
1,078
Embed Views
14

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

3 Embeds 14

http://www.lmodules.com 6
http://www.linkedin.com 5
https://www.linkedin.com 3

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

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

  • Cross cultural use of 360°feedback www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 1
  • 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! www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 2
  • Brief overview 1. Introduction 2. Cross cultural use 3. Study 4. Final thoughts www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 3
  • Brief overview 1. Introduction 2. Cross cultural use 3. Study 4. Final thoughts www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 4
  • 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) www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 5
  • 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 360º process (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) www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 6
  • 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” www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 7
  • 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) The effect of in agreement, under-, and over-ratings (Mabe and West, 1992) High Ratings Low ratings In agreement Positive outcomes. Low outcomes (recognition of weakness, but not addressed so far). They see the discrepancy but don’t act Under-rater Mixture of positive and negative outcomes Over-rater Lowest outcomes (no recognition). They see no discrepancy between goal and behavior. www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 8
  • But? “Overestimating oneself can be seen as the normal creative self-deception of a healthy mind” Maciel, Heckhausen & Baltes (1994, p.82) www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 9
  • Brief overview 1. Introduction 2. Cross cultural use 3. Study 4. Final thoughts www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 10
  • 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 www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 11
  • 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 www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 12
  • 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 www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 13
  • 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 www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 14
  • 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? www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 15
  • Brief overview 1. Introduction 2. Cross cultural use 3. Study 4. Final thoughts www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 16
  • 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 www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com Source: www.geert-hofstede.com 17
  • How well do you know these cultures? Please mark the highest and the lowest per dimension PDI IDV MAS UAI LTO China Greece Japan New Zealand Pakistan Russia Singapore Sweden US Venezuela www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 18
  • How well do you know these cultures? PDI IDV MAS UAI LTO Russia 93 39 36 95 Unknown New Zealand 2 79 58 49 30 US 40 91 62 46 29 Venezuela 81 12 73 76 Unknown Japan 54 46 95 92 80 Sweden 31 71 5 29 33 Greece 60 35 57 112 Unknown Singapore 74 20 48 8 49 China 80 20 66 30 118 Pakistan 54 14 50 70 0 www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com Source: www.geert-hofstede.com 19
  • Netherlands? PDI IDV MAS UAI LTO Netherlands 38 80 14 53 44 www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com Source: www.geert-hofstede.com 20
  • 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) www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 21
  • 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) www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 22
  • Hypothesis I Masculine 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 www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 23
  • Hypothesis II High 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 www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 24
  • Power Distance and Masculinity Nationality Power Distance Masculinity Finland 33 26 Netherlands 38 14 Spain 57 42 Italy 50 70 Belgium 65 54 India 77 56 Sweden 31 5 Poland 68 64 France 68 43 China 35 66 Germany 68 43 United States 40 62 Norway 31 8 www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com Source: www.geert-hofstede.com 25
  • 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 www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 26
  • Results Continued • 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 www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 27
  • Main conclusions • These results are not consistent enough to conclude that Hofstede´s Masculine / 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 www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 28
  • Brief overview 1. Introduction 2. Cross cultural use 3. Study 4. Final thoughts www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 29
  • 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 www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 30
  • 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 www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 31
  • Your questions Thank you! Jouko van Aggelen Managing consultant Cubiks www.cubiks.com, jouko.vanaggelen@cubiks.com 32