Awayday Feedback

A while back I ran an awayday for the DMOC research group at Newcastle University.  It was a very buzzy day: they seemed a really good group.

So I was naturally pleased to see the feedback they had submitted to the University about the day, which was very positive.  But what was even more pleasing was running into a couple of people this week.  One had attended the day, and said that it had made a real difference.  The other was somebody working in the same building, who hadn't known I'd been involved with them, who commented quite unprompted on how much more vibrant their area seems to be now.

I note these things against those days when I doubt the value of my work, my competence etc, as one does from time to time...

360 feedback - some musings...

There are two ways of doing 360 feedback. One is online, where colleagues answer a questionnaire, the data is collated and a skilled facilitator meets the subject of the process to talk through the feedback and draw some conclusions, leading to an action plan.

The second is for an independent person to conduct interviews with colleagues, and then collate the feedback and conduct the feedback meeting.

The first process has several advantages: it is quick, simple and relatively inexpensive; it allows comparisons to be made across populations (anonymously), and ensures consistency of questions, targetting issues that the organisation has deemed to be important.

However, I have a strong preference for the second approach, interviews; and not only because it generates work for me.

The advantages I see in the interview approach are these:

The subject of the process is involved in deciding what questions are asked.  That means that issues which are important to the individual are addressed, and also that there is a greater commitment from the individual to the process, increasing the probability of profound learning and action as a result. That does not mean that the issues the organisation deems important are not explored. Typically, I suggest that questions around the organisation's competence framework are among those to be asked.

Likewise the subject is involved in deciding whom should be interviewed, with similar impact.  I always encourage people to include those who think well of them and those who don’t, as well as considering the 360 degree aspect.

Moreover, the interviewees are much more engaged in the process. Frequently, when I am conducting such interviews, people tell me that they have previously done online feedback, and find it a less satisfying or worthwhile experience; some say that the online process doesn't really get them to think and reflect, but just give quick and (possibly) superficial answers.  Others have told me that they weren't asked the right questions: the one bit of feedback they think would be really valuable isn't asked for. 


Clearly the cumulative effect of participants finding the online process unsatisfactory could be that the process loses credibility in the organisation.

Further, by being involved in the process in this active way, interviewees' perceptions are changed, generally for the better. This is another application of tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner. That is, to understand everything is to forgive everything.  Quite frequently, people when interviewed will have something negative to say about the individual: not least because I encourage the subject of the process to choose people whom they suspect will offer criticism as part of their sample.  


However, when they are invited to reflect in depth and in a safe thinking environment, on the other's behaviour, intentions and motivations, they often move beyond an initial critical stance to a more understanding, and often more compassionate and sympathetic evaluation.  That has value to the organisation, as relationships are thereby potentially improved as part of the very process.

This aspect of the interview as an intervention was particularly brought home to me a few years ago, when there was a delay between my collecting the feedback and meeting the subject to share and discuss it.  In the interim, I met one of the people I had interviewed, and she was keen to tell me about the impact the feedback had had: how the subject was really making an effort to change now, and so on.... My interpretation of that was that the colleague had left the interview with a readiness to expect positive change, and had regarded the subject differently, looking for evidence of more positive behaviour; and what we look for, we find.

Also, when discussing the feedback, someone who has done the interviews has a much better understanding of the issues and the feelings and nuances that sit behind them, than can be gleaned from online surveys.  That can lead to a deeper understanding and a richer discussion, resulting in more insight, better action planning, and greater commitment to carry the actions forward.


So for all these reasons, I am convinced that an interview-based 360 process is far more powerful than the online version: more expensive, undoubtedly; but I suspect it to be better value for money.  Proving that, however, is very difficult indeed...

Some interesting projects

I have a number of new and interesting projects, all coming live quite soon.

One relates to some early work on a cultural change project in a large organisation; the real launch is in the autumn, but we are planning some taster sessions over the next few months to stimulate interest and pique people's curiosity.

Another is looking at approaches to creativity - an area of particular interest to me for a long time.  We will be exploring both creative tools and techniques, but also facilitation skills to enable creativity to flourish in meetings, and a number of other related approaches.

There's a few interesting team awaydays coming up too;  I always love that sort of work, as the issues are so practical and real, and with all members of a team present, you have the right people in the room to make some substantial changes and ensure they will be implemented and sustained.

Coaching Supervision

Really valuable session with my coaching supervisor today.

It is so easy to get fall into habits of behaviour and lose that quality of awareness and active choice in the way we are with others.  We were reflecting on recent patterns and noticing a little erosion of how I have been compared to when I'm at my very best: lots of good insights and practical steps to apply them.

And of course, she'll hold me to them when we talk next week!

A Night Walk

Periodically, I meet a few fellow consultants for a day's walking and talking.  We call it cpd to feel good about it: and in truth, I often learn a lot by comparing experiences, sharing dilemmas, and stealing ideas...

Alan Sides suggested a while back that we should try a night walk, so we did that.  Everyone was very keen on the  idea, but as the February night approached, one by one they dropped out.

So it was only four of us, Alan, Mike Cockburn, Stephen Merckx and myself who undertook the walk.  We left my house at about 10.45pm and drove to the bottom of Haweswater.  Thence we climbed up an extremely icy path to Small Water.

The moon was a few days short of full, and very bright, the stars clear and twinkling, and the air crisp and very cold (-5 when we started).

From Small Water - beautiful and atmospheric in the moonlight - we climbed up to Nan Bield Pass, where we got the full force of the wind.  Thence onwards and upwards, right onto High Street Summit at Racecourse Hill.  The ice was slippery, and the snow was deep: it was all much harder work than we had foreseen.  Fortunately we were all pretty fit, and had all kitted ourselves out appropriately.

From Racecourse Hill we walked over successively lower hills, one after the other, until Loadpot, the last summit of the walk.  In my memory (and it was a bit dark for maps, as the moon had set at about 5.00 and it was now nearly 5.30) it was a fairly short walk down from Loadpot Hill onto Askham Fell and so home.

Not so, but far otherwise: it was another 2 hours before we got back to Helton (via a small detour, due to the paths being completely hidden by the snow).

Breakfast has rarely tasted so good.

I enjoyed the experience greatly, as I think the others did too.

We did talk a fair bit, but much of the walk was in silence: so in terms of cpd it didn't quite live up to expectations.  But if the others are still talking to me after I led them on such a tough expedition, I'm sure I'll learn plenty more from them next time.

Organisational Integrity (ii)

Here's what lay behind my post before Christmas.

A client had approached me and asked me to design and run an awayday for them.  We had met and discussed the needs, and agreed a draft design for the day, a date and so on.

Then they said that we would have to go through a tendering process.  (I was slightly surprised at this, as the value of the event was not high, and I was already on an approved suppliers' register, following a  previous 'framework' tender).

But what concerned me was that:

A) Either I was the only person being asked to tender, in which case it seemed entirely meaningless (particularly as one of their organisational priorities is reducing meaningless work...);

B) Or they were inviting others to tender, in which case:

1.  Either they had really decided to use me, but were going through the motions (wasting their own and others' time, and compromising their integrity) or
2. It was a real competition, in which case I had been misled earlier, when we had agreed that I would do the work, on a specific date etc (on the basis of which I did the (admittedly small amount of) consultation and design at no cost).

Further, I was expected to sign declarations of non-collusion,  non-canvassing etc, including a statement that I had not talked with anyone at the organisation about this bit of work.

That was clearly a nonsense, and I could not sign it.

The good news is that I have talked all this through with the appropriate senior managers, they agree with my analysis that the system has thrown up something which, inadvertently, goes against a number of their own principles of operation, and they are sorting it out.

But as a supplier, it can be hard to raise such issues ('I can't sign that!') if one fears one may lose a contract, or even a client.  There must be a better way...

Organisational Integrity

I am increasingly interested in the ways in which processes intended to increase transparency, fairness etc can sometimes drive people within organisations to act in ways that are lacking in honesty and integrity.

I am not attributing any ill-will here, or intention to deceive, but rather noticing that the cumulative effect of some processes and their collision with other organisational needs (both strategic and pragmatic) can have some unintended consequences that make the organisation look dishonest.

I will blog more on this shortly, when I have more time and when I have discussed the specific issue that has brought this into sharp focus with the appropriate senior managers...