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

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!


2

Brief overview

1. Introduction

2. Cross cultural use

3. Study

4. Final thoughts


3

Brief overview

1. Introduction


3. Study

4. Final thoughts


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)


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)


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”


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.


8

But?

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

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


9

Brief overview

1. Introduction


3. Study

4. Final thoughts


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

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

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

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


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?


15

Brief overview

1. Introduction


3. Study

4. Final thoughts


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

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

19

Netherlands?

PDI IDV MAS UAI LTO
Netherlands 38 80 14 53 44


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)


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)


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


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


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

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

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


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

28

Brief overview

1. Introduction


3. Study

4. Final thoughts


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


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


31

Your questions

Thank you!
Jouko van Aggelen
Managing consultant Cubiks

32

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

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (9)

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

Similar a Cross Cultural Usage Of 360 Feedback (Cubiks Network Event Oct 09) (20)

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