RC 360 Feedback Job # 2647

Job Posting Details

Job # 2647 RC 360 Feedback

Posted Date
Jan 4, 2007 @ 04:06
Respond By
Jan 10, 2007
Word Count
Age Range

Job Description

About Us:

We are a unique interactive design and technology development company. We have been in business since 2002 and have had many satified clients, including United Airlines, eBay, Adobe, USC, General Electric and Ford.

We have 21 presentation slides for a management tutorial that will need one voice-over for each slide.

Note from Voices.com: The entire script is listed below for quoting purposes. Should you decide to submit a custom demo, it is recommended that you watermark it.


The global economy absolutely insists on quality at low cost. RC must produce more for less, and with greater speed than we’ve ever done before. The only way to do that in a sustained way is through the empowerment of our people. And the only way you get empowerment is through high-trust cultures and an empowerment philosophy that turns bosses into coaches, and structures and systems into nurturing institutionalized processes.

A low-trust culture is one that is characterized by high-control management, political posturing, protectionism, cynicism and internal competition and adversarialism. Organizations with these types of cultures simply cannot compete in terms of speed, quality and innovation, of those organizations around the world that do empower people.

The old rules of traditional, hierarchical, high-external-control, top-down management are being dismantled: they simply aren’t working any longer. They are being replaced by a new form of “control” that the chaos theory proponents call the “strange attractor” - a sense of vision that people are drawn to, and united in, that enables them to be driven by motivation inside them toward achieving a common purpose. This has changed the role of manager from one who drives results and motivation from the outside in, to one who is a leader – one who seeks to draw out, inspire, and develop the best and highest within people from the inside out. The leader does this by engaging the entire team or organization in a process that creates a shared vision, which inspires each person to stretch and reach deeper within himself or herself, and to use everyone’s unique talents in whatever way is necessary to independently and interdependently achieve that shared vision.

A 360-degree review asks everyone who surrounds you – peers, reports and supervisors – to measure your behaviors relative to the RC Next Generation Leadership Model. The RC 360-degree review is completed by employees on-line, and the feedback is complied and graphed, allowing a useful visual comparison of the input from various groups. The feedback of the groups can then be compared with your own self-assessment. All respondents are guaranteed anonymity, which encourages honesty in what could otherwise be a threatening or uncomfortable situation. The assumption is that honest feedback changes management behavior faster than restricted feedback.
Perception is reality. Success stems from knowing how others perceive you. A 360-degree feedback assessment will identify the areas in which you are performing at, above and/or below the RC Next Generation Leadership Model behavioral standards as assessed by your boss, self and peers.
An effective 360 degree assessment provides information that acts as a compass. Much as a pilot uses instruments to determine direction, altitude and current flight conditions, an effective 360 provides information on performance and how a leader is interacting with his or her environment. Accordingly, the 360 degree feedback process serves four key purposes:

1. It increases your awareness of leadership behaviors, strengths and weaknesses;
2. It sets a baseline measure of skills;
3. It helps you understand the importance of any subsequent leadership training and where you may need to focus your attention; and
4. It can be repeated later to measure changes in behavior (i.e., how well you have leveraged strengths and/or addressed weaknesses or transferred training from the classroom to the workplace).

It is important to understand that 360 degree feedback is for development purposes only. It is not a performance appraisal. It is also important to understand that follow up strategies are the key to a successful outcome. In other words, the 360 degree assessment should be viewed as a starting point for a developmental process, and the reports should be facilitated in a way that leads to a complete process for improvement.

The results are delivered to you and to you only. While giving the data to your manager increases your accountability and allows your manager to quantifiably track your progress, RC recognizes that there are a variety of pitfalls to giving managers a copy of their subordinates’ report –

• People may fear the process.
• Feedback comments may not be as constructive.
• Scores may be arbitrarily higher.
• Data can be viewed as being a weapon, not a development tool.
• Manager may lack the ability to interpret the data appropriately.
• Manager may reprimand the employee for not doing well.

In most instances, RC encourages participants to share their goals, not their actual results. In this way, managers can act as coaches, guiding the individual participants to higher performance levels, not judges, focusing on specific scores and comments.

RC has partnered with Personnel Decisions Incorporated (PDI) to provide our leaders with an industry leading 360-degree feedback tool. Research indicates that a correctly implemented 360-degree feedback process provides the most reliable and valid feedback information that is possible to obtain. Overall, the feedback process improves the reliability and validity of performance information, which is invaluable data for your personal and professional development. The resulting improvements are circular in nature. As management effectiveness is enhanced, work relations improve which leads to increased productivity and more proficient customer service.

Research indicates that real change occurs when attention is paid to creating action plans for development and checking up on progress in a systematic fashion; and where there are consequences related to progress (or lack thereof) on the development plan.
To ensure the effectiveness of the 360-degree feedback process, and to maximize the return on the time investment made by your respondents, you must do three things:

1. Identify goals based on you feedback results, and construct a development plan to achieve those goals.
2. Follow up on the development plan, and the goals therein.
3. Maintain accountability for executing the plan, thereby achieving the goals.

There are many options available for RC to facilitate follow-up and accountability among their 360 feedback assessment participants. The strategy that we have chosen is to offer options to participants for assistance in achieving their development goals, but leave the responsibility for action planning and development progress in the hands of participants and their managers.

It is the intent of the RC executive management team to provide a culture that encourages continuous improvement and growth for our employees. Our philosophy of leadership is communicated through our Vision Roadmap which incorporates a group of five values, four goals and a strategic framework that ultimately define RC, its beliefs and its future.

Vision Statement

Working together, creating the most trusted source of communication and aviation electronic solutions.

The Five Supporting Values

1. Teamwork
2. Integrity
3. Innovation
4. Customer Focus
5. Leadership

The Four Goals that Support that Vision

• Superior customer value.
• Sustainable and profitable growth.
• Global leadership in served markets.
• Talented and motivated people.

The Strategic Framework to Accomplish Goals

• Organizational Excellence through Lean Electronics.
• Optimize the core business.
• Expansion beyond the core.
• Complimentary alliances and acquisitions.
• Value Proposition for People.

Because the basic RC approach to following up on your 360 degree assessment puts the interpretation and development planning squarely on your shoulders, you should feel a strong sense of support within your RC organization. If you do not, then raise the issue and discuss it with your management team. You will need encouragement, support and facilitation at every step, so make certain that it is in place.

• Before you finalize your list of raters, complete the 360 self-rating. Doing this not only helps you familiarize yourself with the survey items, it helps you choose raters who might provide the best input.
• Choose current co-workers rather than previous ones. Current work situations are likely to be different, and it may be difficult to draw clear conclusions from the results if data from previous co-workers are included.
• Choose co-workers with whom you most closely work. The people who have had the most opportunities to observe your work behavior are in a better position to provide quality feedback.
• Seeking feedback from colleagues and direct reports is a relationship-building outcome in itself because the mere act of asking for feedback from a peer perceived as a competitor may help change or enhance the relationship.
• It is important that you believe your raters to be credible. You should trust that your raters will provide fair and accurate judgments, otherwise it will be too easy to discount unfavorable results.

If the number of surveys is limited, managers with large direct report and peer groups will obviously have to exclude a number of potential raters. Overlooked peers usually understand this better than do direct reports, who may feel that their opinions are not valued or that they were excluded on purpose.
One strategy to avoid this dilemma would be, in your regular team meetings, randomly pick names of direct reports who will provide feedback. This approach makes the process public, and direct reports know how they were or were not selected. However you select your raters, if you cannot include all of your direct reports, clearly explain to everyone the rationale or method by which you make your choice.

One of the most powerful and revealing aspects of 360 feedback is the comparison of self-ratings to others’ ratings. The comparison helps you discover gaps between your self-perceptions and how others see you.
Understanding the gaps is enlightening because it is difficult to be completely objective in your self-assessment. The opportunity to know how others see you helps broaden your self-perceptions.

The ratings by direct reports are another important part of the 360 process. In many cases, direct reports spend the most time with you relative to your other raters, and are certainly the most credible raters of your leadership skills. Even so, while some of you will welcome input from your employees, the role reversal may be a little unnerving for everybody, especially in traditional top down environments like Rockwell Collins. Research shows that while direct reports are in the best position to assess leadership, communication, and interpersonal skills, their ratings can be distorted, either positively or negatively, by the nature of the relationship and/or the power dynamic of the situation.
If you sense uneasiness, do whatever you can to help your direct reports feel comfortable about the process by assuring them that you value and want their anonymous input.

Research and experience suggest that understanding peer ratings is slightly less straightforward than other rating sources. The motivations of peers or team members can range from competitive to supportive to brutally honest, depending on the climate of the group and how the 360 is being used. In spite of these complications, research shows that peers observe more examples of work behavior across a variety of situations and that their ratings are a better predictor of who will be promoted than any other rating source. Peers are likely to be effective raters of communication skills, interpersonal skills, decision-making ability, technical skills and motivation.
When choosing peer raters, ask approximately five people with whom you work most closely. This can help reduce the crush of surveys at the peer level when everyone is going through the 360 is a short period of time.

While direct report and peer ratings are very good judges of how work gets accomplished, bosses are typically better raters of what gets accomplished. Since 360s tend to be better assessments of the how (for example, interpersonal and communication skills) than the what (i.e., results) of work, bosses may have a different perspective when rating some of the soft-skill competencies.
Also, because boss ratings are usually not anonymous, they suffer from two of the same biases of traditional performance appraisal ratings – restriction of range and leniency. In other words, boss ratings are not as likely to utilize the entire range of the scale and tend to be slightly elevated when compared with other rating sources.
Even though your boss may not have as many opportunities to observe you as your peers or direct reports, how he or she perceives you is still very important to your future.

The Overall Attribute Scores report shows your scores for each of the RC attributes. All results are reported as mean scores (the mean of a collection of numbers is their arithmetic average, computed by adding them up and dividing by their number).

The results are an average of the ratings you received from the individuals who rated you on behaviors that define the listed attributes and do not include your self-ratings.

This section shows your self-ratings compared to the responses of your other raters on the RC attributes. You can see how your self-perceptions compare to the perceptions of your raters.

The report highlights alignment and discrepancies in perceptions. Significant differences signal areas that might require special attention.

On the five point scale, a half-point difference or more serves as a benchmark to distinguish meaningful differences.

This section displays the ratings you received from the different groups of your respondents. If your ratings from one group of respondents are consistently higher or lower than the others, try to determine the reasons for the differences.

Other things to look for:

• Are the results consistent by rater category?
• Are there differences greater than one-half point between your self-ratings and any other rater category?
• What do the ratings tell you about possible strengths (high ratings) and areas that might need improvement (low ratings)?

This section displays the average ratings you received from your different groups or raters for each listed behavior. These groups or perspective responses are averaged into an attribute score that can also be seen in this section. This more detailed feedback can help you understand the impact you have on different groups and give you specific direction to plan your development.

This is the area where you will probably spend the most time trying to understand your results because it includes the most detail.

Other things to look for:

• What are your highest- and lowest-items by rater category?
• Are the results consistent by rater category?

These sections will display your ten highest, followed by your ten lowest rated behaviors (related attributes are shown in bold). The Non-self Average was used to determine the highest- and lowest-rated behaviors. These may be strengths that you can leverage or areas that need development and should, therefore, be included in your development plan.
Responses to open-ended questions can help you understand more about your numerical ratings and can show you what your raters consider important. The comments may not necessarily be designated by rater category, but they nonetheless offer a rich source of supplemental information. Look for comments that support and/or explain specific ratings; also look for comments about your overall managerial effectiveness.

Most people are not accustomed to receiving so much feedback at one time. Because the experience can be overwhelming on several levels, it is best to prepare yourself. The best way to benefit from 360 results is to allow yourself to be somewhat vulnerable. Realize in advance that some scores will be flattering and others will come as unpleasant surprises. If you are the type of person who eagerly anticipates feedback and is always open to suggestions, remaining open will be relatively easy.
On the other hand, if you typically react defensively in feedback situations, you will have to consciously guard against this tendency. It is natural to feel defensive and to deny or rationalize unfavorable results.
Keep in mind, though, that to really derive benefit from the process and just get through it, you need to be as open as possible. You might ultimately decide that the feedback is not accurate, but try to take it in and understand that this is how others see you.

Allow yourself one to two weeks to absorb your results before sharing them with others. Start by reviewing the report and then discussing with your spouse/ companion or your best friend. Every so often, share an item with someone who is close to you and see what he or she thinks. Start with one of your higher-rated items and ask, “when did I do something like this?” Then slip in a lower-rated item and ask the same thing. By doing this, you will begin the process of making sense of the data and getting confirmation that the results are accurate.

What to Share

Managers react differently to sharing their results. Some find it easy, others find it difficult. Some managers make copies of the entire report and hand it out to all of their raters or make transparency copies and present the result at a team meeting. Some managers are much less forthcoming.

Say Something

Most managers are somewhere in the middle of the extremes; neither sharing all nor saying absolutely nothing. But even for these managers who have a balance response, it’s common to have difficulty knowing what to say and to whom. Most managers feel comfortable discussing their results in general terms.
Acknowledging that you have received your results is bare minimum.
Managers often prepare a short, semi-rehearsed story about what the experience was like; what they learned about their strengths and development needs; and high-level things they might have learned from their peers, direct reports, etc.

Once you’ve shared your results, go a step further and ask for additional feedback.

Asking for Further Feedback

Asking for additional input can help you see even more clearly how other people perceive you and what they see as important. The report is a great opportunity to begin to dialogue with others about what the results mean, especially if some of your results are ambiguous or conflicting. These conversations can also help you learn more about performance expectations without compromising the anonymity of your raters.

The purpose of these discussions is not to confront your raters about their individual ratings or reveal your specific results but to enlist their help. For feedback on areas that may be particularly sensitive to you, such as low interpersonal skill ratings, ask someone you really trust and whom you know will be honest with you.

Using your 360 results as a starting point, ask for best practice examples. Begin by asking a few questions in each item or competency area. Here are some examples:

• Can you tell me about a time when you observed a manager who was really good at __________?
• How did they do it?
• What did they need or have in order to do it well?
• How did the direct reports respond?
• What kind of results did that manager get on a regular basis or as a result of this?

By looking for best practice examples, you are not asking people to reveal their specific ratings, or to beat you up with examples of when you didn’t do something. Rather, you are getting solid data from others about what best practice behavior looks like so that you have solid ideas of what to do instead of what to stop doing. These best practice conversations also help the other person – be it your boss or a direct report or a peer – to clarify and articulate what he or she thinks is a good example. Chances are, this will lead to further discussion on how this behavior fits in your current job, your next job, the organization’s culture, and why it is so important. You also get feedback because you are asking for it in a way that most people are willing to answer.

Another goal of the discussion is to model what it looks like to ask for and receive ongoing feedback. 360 Feedback is only a starting place, a catalyst, for changing how people in the organization communicate. Let your raters know what you are trying to improve. If you put the feedback to use and people see visible changes, they are more likely to provide input in the future.

Sometimes managers suspect that an “outlier” – usually someone who has rated harshly across the board – has lowered their results. An outlier’s ratings can obviously affect ones average score, lowering (or increasing) ones average; this is especially the case with small groups of three, as opposed to, say, ten raters. Keep in mind, a true outlier rates a person the same way across the board. If some of ones items are rated low, don’t discount the feedback by attributing the ratings to an outlier.

If you suspect an outlier, concentrate on looking for relative results. Since an outlier’s impact is the same on every rating, the outlier has only slightly lowered (or raised) your average ratings. It’s like adding or subtracting a constant since outliers typically go down the scale and rate all ones or twos (or fives). The actual numbers shouldn’t matter as much as what behaviors, skills, or competencies stand out as relative strengths or development needs. So even if one suspects an outlier, he/she should reveal the same relative themes.

Another issue with outliers is more psychological. If someone consistently rates a participant a one or two, he/she will wonder who they are and why they are seemingly out to berate him/her. Since raters are guarantee anonymity, making an issue of it can affect both the persons’ credibility and the integrity of the 360 process. It is simply better not to worry about it and to move on to understanding what the results mean.

One may receive universally low ratings from one or more rating sources. Extremely low ratings from a persons’ boss warrant an immediate discussion. While this in fact rarely happens with boss ratings, it does happen with other rating sources. The challenge is to understand what is going on. Strained relationships are typically the cause; working on those relationships is an obvious response.

Do not guess at who might have scored you as an outlier – you might be wrong. Do not confront or accuse the “suspect”. Participants will no doubt receive feedback that is positive and affirming. They will also receive critical feedback. If this is the first time that a person has received candid feedback, he/she should be prepared to deal with emotional reactions they may feel.

If one is shocked, hurt or angry, try to maintain an open mind. Remember that previous colleagues may have avoided telling you the truth. Ones’ friends and family may have historically “soft-pedaled” their feedback. If so, now is the time to be strong and tolerant. This is a chance for one to set a good example by dealing with their colleagues openly and professionally.

Outliers imply inconsistencies in ones ratings. This means that others see the participant from different angles, or they value different behaviors. Some feedback the participant can take literally, but some may be due to colleagues who lack perspective, or have different expectations of the participant. The messages a participants’ results reveal about relative strengths and development areas are more important than the actual numbers in his/her report or whether he/she suspect an outlier.

Ready to get started?

Join the #1 marketplace for voice-over talent

Need Some Help?

Contact us for help with your voice over project.