Who’s looking at you?

I’ve just survived my most recent 360° review, and was reminded once again that there is always room for improvement. As a personal development tool, it has to be amongst the best for making you really reflect on the impact you’re having as an individual.

It is important though to get the questions right. Asking something that only one group of stakeholders can answer is not going to generate the insight you need. Questions should therefore be targeted at behaviours and skills – which can be commented on by the ‘many’ – rather than tasks – which can only be commented on by the ‘few’.

Feedback is predominantly subjective, but in this context that’s fine. You are really looking for patterns across the data rather than specifics. If each stakeholder group highlights the same issue then you probably need to take note; there’s a message in there somewhere!

It is however too easy to fall into the trap of trying to justify and rationalise the feedback. Stop! This is a mistake. A 360° is one of the best opportunities you’ll get to really dig deep and question why your behaviour is being interpreted in a particular way. Don’t make excuses for it, learn from it.

Most HR departments can now facilitate a 360° review, so if you get the chance, I recommend that you give it a go. You may be surprised by the results.

Are you consciously choosing your leadership style?

When you have leadership responsibility for a group of people, it is important that you adopt a flexible approach tailored to the individuals on your team. In practice, most leaders naturally do this, however, understanding the mechanics behind the choice will give you more control and help you select the most appropriate style.

The model that I've used to good effect is known as Situational Leadership®, developed by Ken Blanchard and Paul Hersey. The picture on the left gives a good overview.

Here there are 4 clear leadership styles identified - Directing, Coaching, Supporting and Delegating - which mirror the experience level of the team member from low through to high.

It is important to note that a team member will typically have different levels of experience in each functional area of their remit and may therefore need more than one leadership style applied to them.

This reinforces the point that it is the leader who needs to flex their style rather than the team member.

In my experience, it has been very helpful to share this model with my direct reports and agree with them what approach and style they would like me to adopt. It is also a helpful tool in monitoring an individual's progress as they move through each development stage.

Having the right leadership style at the right time will enable you to build a stronger team, so I hope this inspires you to find the time to look into this further.

Do you know your MBTI and should you care?

Your MBTI - Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - is the result of probably the most widely used personality assessment tool. Based on four different dimensions, your self-assessment (or test result if you prefer to pay the fee) leads to one of 16 possible results. The assessment is rapid and based on your preferences along each dimension's scale. Your personality type is expressed as a four character code - mine, for example, is INTJ - and comes with an associated description of how you as an individual are likely to operate.

So, does it work? Well, the sheer weight of numbers behind this method and its long-lasting popularity would have to indicate that it's pretty accurate. From my own perspective, INTJ is certainly a good fit for me.

Why should you care? The MBTI can help you become more self-aware, so it's good from a personal development point of view. It can also help identify potential personality conflicts which, from a team or group dynamics perspective, can be invaluable.

MBTI can give you useful insight, so I recommend you invest a few minutes to get yourself up to speed.

Cut, Copy, Paste

When making your next hire, will you be looking for the right qualities in the candidates that apply?

As Apple finally delivered Cut, Copy, Paste for the iPhone this month, a feature that some might refer to as "pretty basic", it spurred me to consider how applicable our past experiences are when solving new manifestations of the "same old" problem and, in particular, what is their relevance when moving between discrete roles and employers?

People are typically brought into an organisation on the back of their past experience. As recruiters, we can be overly prescriptive when describing the ideal candidate and too easily persuaded when we find what looks like the perfect match. At the back of our minds, we should always remember that "past performance is no guarantee of future results".

In practice, solutions are unique to the environment in which they are conceived and implemented. So, to my mind, it is how the results are achieved and the skills that are employed that are the most critical factors, as these are far more portable than the results themselves. What you value in this context will depend on your particular organisation, but examples might include: listening, critical reasoning, collaboration, engagement and tenacity, to name just a few. Often, these are the very things you look for during graduate recruitment when past experience is only a minor consideration.

A strong team needs a broad set of knowledge, skills and experience to be at its most effective. So, before you limit your candidate pool unnecessarily, I recommend that you take a step back and reassess what qualities would have the greatest positive impact on your team.