FC Now readers don't seem to like the assessment test I commented on yesterday. Peter Rees indicates that the tool "allows for a fair degree of self-deception," and Randy Weber suggests that "team members should be doing the judging."
I agree. While feedback from peers and colleagues -- and even people outside of your organization -- can often encompass what you don't want to hear, such feedback is what you need to really know. Take editor-in-chief John Byrne's recent experience seeking feedback from the Fast Company team as an example.
That said, here's another online self-assessment! (Bait, meet Switch.) Are you a trusted leader? This online survey from Robert Galford and Anne Seibold Drapeau aims to gauge leaders' ability to build a community of future leaders, identify and model "appropriate" behaviors, establish a legacy, and ensure organizational vitality.
Do you think this is an adequate measure of trusted leadership?
Related Stories: | Topics:Leadership, Peter Rees, Randy Weber, John Byrne, Fast Company Magazine, Robert Galford |
Email
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Buzz Up!
LinkedIn
Recent Comments | 4 Total
July 2, 2004 at 2:53pm by Peter Rees
Works for me.
For instance, question 8 on the assessment asks about disagreeing publicly, that was simple but nuanced.
I liked my score -- there was some room for improvement -- which may have influenced my thinking. I don't think so , but it may have.
July 2, 2004 at 10:42pm by Randy Weber
I still don't see how this answers the big question - do others view you as a leader? I can't see how a self-administered test can ever answer this question. Though I do agree that this one asks more probing questions.
Seems that if one wants to quantify their leadership abilities, it would need to be done by the organization as a whole with an emphasis on consistency and annonymity. Otherwise you can't compare results and people will be scared to answer the questions honestly.
July 3, 2004 at 7:58pm by Peter Rees
Randy -
I like - I think - where you're going.
Self-administered tests taken in isolation are of limited use. However, if I take a test and score lower than expected, the epiphany may be profound enough to draw on broader feedback that is uniquely meaningful.
Coversely. If I score higher ... I may be the kind of person to start guzzling my bath-water.
July 7, 2004 at 4:54am by Pam Fox Rollin
What strikes me, Randy, is that the usefulness of any feedback -- anonymous or direct -- depends on the receptivity of the person getting it. I've seen smart people get the same feedback a hundred ways and not seem to hear it. I've seen others find an epiphany in a stray sarcastic remark and figure out what the lesson is for them.
About the trust assessment, Heath, I'd go back to the simple and useful model in "Trusted Advisor", the book this same Rob Galford co-authored with David Maister. They said trust depends on 4 dimensions (I'm paraphrasing)
- Credibility (Words): I can trust what he says
- Reliability (Actions): I can trust him to do what he says
- Intimacy (Emotions): I feel comfortable being honest, being real, and discussing whatever impacts the work
- Other-Orientation (Motives): I trust that he sincerely cares about me, my concerns, my goals
This seems to me a simpler and more actionable way of thinking about trust than what I saw in the new assessment. It's also relevant not only for direct reports but for peer relationships, where trust really drives effectiveness.