User:MGMT90018 2015S2 (Upward Feedback)/sandbox

THIS PAGE IS BEING BUILT FOR A CLASS ASSIGNMENT -- PLEASE DO NOT DELETE IT.

Upward feedback is a multi-rater feedback instrument in which subordinates candidly evaluate the performance and skills of their immediate supervisors. The feedback is based on how employees perceive the actions of their managers, giving equal weighting to situations reflecting leadership, management, tasks and people. Feedback topics can vary depending on the manager's needs; however, topics typically attempt to gauge the manger's effectiveness to lead, train workers, delegate responsibility, manage office conflicts, and communicate clearly and effectively. The feedback is confidentially communicated first to the manager, then between team and manager. Upward feedback is frequently associated with performance management and associated with the broader 360-degree feedback.

History
Upward feedback was initially developed by Peter Farey, a Senior Human Resources manager with British Airways, who first adopted the evaluation process at the Air Transport Staff College in 1973. Farey refined his system to ensure that feedback would go "beyond present measures of management style (mainly "task" and "relationship" management)". .

Historically, studies have found that employees feel inhibited to provide honest and valuable feedback on the performance of their immediate managers. This inhibition is largely due to the fear of being reprimanded and dismissed from one's daily duties as a direct result of raising concerns with one's manager. Results therefore run the risk of being inaccurate and inconclusive as subordinates tend to inflate ratings to avoid retribution, limit interpersonal conflict or to ingratiate themselves with their supervisor.

A feature of upward feedback that sets it apart from other forms of feedback is that it is not appraisal in another form. The method is built to make employees feel more comfortable in giving accurate responses. The result of this approach is ready acceptance -- while managers fear being critiqued and employees fear being reprimanded, the upward feedback system is defined from the outset as feedback and improvement, not judgement, for both parties involved.

In the mid-1980s upward feedback grew as a popular theory within management psychology. This happened as a result of successful research conducted at the Center for Creative Leadership – a non-profit research and training organisation in Greensboro, North Carolina aimed at promoting an increased understanding of management and leadership. The research focused on the positive impact of upward feedback in enhancing management development. The research at the Center during the 1980s resulted in three key findings. First, feedback is important for an individual’s personal and professional development. Second, most effective executives were learners who sought continuous improvement through feedback from others, emphasising the need to transform this form of feedback into a learning experience. Third, most members of organisations worked in “feedback-poor” environments which were not conducive to the sharing of feedback among employees. This was particularly accurate among middle and senior managers, whose personal needs for feedback and development were seldom, if ever, addressed.

Methodology
In an attempt to incorporate the theory of transformational leadership, developed by James MacGregor Burns, Farey combined leadership with "traditional management behaviours (setting goals, strategies, resources, organization, control, motivating people, ex cetera)". As such, he developed the skeleton for his model, the Leader/Manager Map, with the reasoning that successful organizations are those that can generate a culture where four characteristics are present: people leadership and management, as well as task leadership and management.

His process began by evaluating nearly 1,000 management behaviors that he thought were desirable and further reduced the extensive list to a set of 100 statements of management practices that fell into his Leader/Manager Map. These 100 statements were then categorised into 20 areas of management activities that he established as spokes for his Leader/Manager Map. The map is to be used in conjunction with the detailed responses provided through the feedback. Where subordinates want more of a specific behaviour, the map will pinpoint areas within the circle. Where they want less of a particular behaviour, the map will highlight areas outside the circle. This is intended to make it visually clear where the manager excels and where change is needed.

The confidentiality encompassing the methodology "ensures that no individual response can be identified, even though the complete range of responses can be seen".

In order to create a symbiotic relationship between employer and employee, management theorists have stressed the importance of creating an environment in which employees feel safe and are motivated to provide upward feedback. Smith and Forntanto provide empirical support suggesting that upward feedback is based on three distinct factors: "cynicism towards upper management and the upward feedback process, understanding the upward feedback process, and lastly, the opportunity to observe their supervisors." They found that honest responses depended on 3 mediators: 1) perceived positive benefits resulting from honesty in rating their supervisors 2) the extent to which employees feared retaliation by their supervisors and 3) rater self-efficacy.

Factors Influencing Upward Feedback
There are several factors that influence a subordinates desire to provide accurate and successful upward feedback.

Self-efficacy and learning goal orientation
Self-efficacy and learning goal orientation are two factors which influence responses to upward feedback. Self-efficacy motivates the processes necessary to constructively respond to upward feedback whilst learning goal orientation motivates managers to direct their focus and strength on advantages that help them to improve their performance based on the feedback they receive.

Based on Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory, self-efficacy controls the efficacy of information seeking from colleagues in regards to role expectations and performance. Individuals with high self-efficacy have more of an optimistic attitude towards upward feedback and their willingness to participate in providing feedback to others increases. In contrast, those with low self-efficacy are uncertain in their ability to interpret performance and the ability to interpret information accurately and therefore their desire to provide upward feedback decreases. On the other hand, low self-efficacy is also associated with providing destructive and negative criticism to others. Heslin and Latham’s (2004) study showed that over a period of time, high performing managers with high self-efficacy will continue to improve their performance by successfully interpreting feedback. In comparison, managers with low self-efficacy are unable to use this information effectively and thus are less likely to take upward feedback onboard.

Learning goal orientation is facilitated by goal setting, preparation and effort which are all required to respond to constructive upward feedback. A study has found a significant correlation between a manager's learning goal orientation and their performance thereafter, showing that learning goals should be fixed based on the upward feedback given by subordinates. Learning goal orientation also helps to improve performance as a result of others observing negative feedback as an indication to seek additional feedback and generate improvement strategies.

Goal-setting
A longitudinal study on upward feedback illustrated that the ability of managers to be motivated to change their behaviour can also be explained by goal setting. Locke & Latham’s (1990) goal setting theory explains the importance of communicating the performance areas to be measured at the beginning of the upward feedback program. Managers are also able to use feedback on the items that describe certain behaviour to set clear goals for improvement.

Social Exchange Theory
According to the social exchange theory, employment is seen as a mutual exchange relationship by both employees and employers wherein equally positive behaviours such as managerial support and employee conscientiousness encourage the development of optimistic attitudes, loyalty and high performance. Based on this theory, the quality of the relationship between an associate and their managers, supervisors and other co-workers will influence one's desire to provide upward feedback to their direct report or management.

Individuals that exhibit a strong rapport such as high levels of loyalty and ongoing communication with their associates are more likely to be involved in upward feedback programs as they experience some form of obligation compared to those that exhibit a weak relationship. This relates to the social exchange theory as being part of an in-group and viewed as a trusted associate in contrast to being part of an out group and not having to experience the same form of responsibility. Alternatively, subordinates that have a strong rapport with their associates may have previously expressed their opinion and as a result do not need to provide upward feedback. This is in comparison to those with weak rapports with their associates who wish to provide a formal method of communication and thus participate in upward feedback within their organisation.

Long-term orientation
In terms of time and usage, upward feedback programs are more effective when utilised over the long-term, rather than when utilised as a one-off or for short period of time. This is because when it is utilised over the long-term, managers generally exhibit greater improvements in their overall management practices, as well as a sustained performance level. Organisational support and institutionalisation of upward feedback programs is considered to be an important factor shaping the success of upward feedback interventions.

Self-rating
Upward feedback is considered to be used most effectively when superiors also complete a self-rating prior to the results of the upward feedback being known. This is particularly effective when upward feedback programs are carried out for developmental purposes. The inclusion of self-rating with upward feedback as part of the overall 360 degree feedback process is considered to be effective because the self-rating represents the standard against which managers compare them, and therefore what the results of the upward feedback program can be compared to. Similar to self-ratings, upward feedback is broken down into different dimensions – therefore allowing insights into the discrepancies. In this way, upward feedback can be used to allow managers to focus on those dimensions that show the largest discrepancies between their scores and those of their subordinates for areas of improvement.

Usage
Upward feedback can be used in a range of industries for the same purpose of reviewing superiors’ performance. In recent years, the use of upward feedback within organisations has been increasing. This increase reflects the recognition that instituting directions for development of potential managers can benefit from the input of subordinates

Much of the research on upward feedback has consisted of longitudinal studies on various industries to determine its long-term outcomes and effectiveness. Longitudinal studies have showed much more consistent findings than field experiments taken over a short period, because they have studied managers who received regular feedback and analysed subordinates’ upward rating changes over time. Despite industry differences, upward feedback programs are thought to develop leadership and enhance management effectiveness

Organisations utilise upward feedback for two purposes – developmental purposes, and administration decision making. The overall effectiveness of one system over the other continues to be debated and researched

Developmental approach
The utilisation of upward feedback for developmental purposes is to improve the utilisation of human resources. Upward feedback programs for developmental purposes focus on supporting behavioural changes to improve work performance. Traditionally, upward feedback programs have generally been designed for developmental purposes. When upward feedback is used for developmental purposes, individuals become more aware of their desired behaviour in the organisation in which they work, and therefore are able to set organisational goals accordingly.

Administrative approach
Secondly, upward feedback is used for administrative purposes to provide a basis for personnel actions. This approach focusses on supporting organisational decision making related to merit pay and promotion decisions. The use of upward feedback for administrative purposes is relatively new, and it is only recently that its benefits for administrative decision making has been realised.

Research has established that upward feedback for administration purposes provides a stronger motivation for behaviour changes. It is suggested that when upward feedback is used to influence organisational decision making (such as pay decisions and promotions), upward feedback is one method to hold ratees accountable. This elucidates that organisational performance and accountability may improve when upward feedback is utilised to influence financial and non-financial incentives rather than used for the purpose of self-development. A longitudinal study carried out in South Korea found that fundamental changes in behaviour would only occur when feedback was directly linked to financial rewards, upholding the notion that the use of upward feedback is most effective when utilised for administration purposes.

On the other hand, research has found that both raters and ratees alike are generally more sensitive about the outcomes of upward feedback when it is linked to administrative decisions, believing that upward feedback programs are more effective when utilised for developmental purposes. When the results of upward feedback are linked to administrative decisions such awarding promotions and performance-based pay, subordinates are more likely to provide untruthful feedback in fear of possible repercussions, whilst managers become overly concerned with pleasing their subordinates in pursuit of positive ratings.

Cross cultural implications
Similarly to other forms of employee feedback, the use of upward feedback varies greatly between countries, due to different cultural beliefs and values.

Australia
In Australia, organizations strongly value authority rather than leadership and upward feedback tends to have a learning goal orientation. This is where individuals, after receiving feedback, develop and focus on learning tactics that will improve their personal competence. Negative upward feedback is often viewed as an indication to change task strategies, create development strategies and pursue extra feedback. In 2003, it was found that only 9 percent of Australian organisations utilised an upward feedback program.

United States
Upward feedback has been widely adopted in Western nations such as the United States of America, where it is estimated that 40% of companies utilised upward feedback as part of their 360-degree feedback program. Specifically, Robert E. Allen, CEO and Chairman of AT&T between 1986 and 1988, states that he actively sought upward feedback from his management. His questionnaire dealt with 30 statement concerning his leadership with statements such as "my manager does not "shoot the messenger" or "my manager encourages people to learn from one another". Allen found that he had rated himself lower in certain categories than his managers but also found specific areas for improvement. He found the process unnerving at first, but found it to be effective in understanding what his subordinates seek. Furthermore, a study of managers at the US Geological Survey stated that over 45 percent of managers indicated that subordinate appraisals would provide a valid source of information in the assessment of their own performance.

South Korea
Asian nations have been less receptive to the use of upward feedback, such as Korea where a study found that of 379 sample companies, only 3.4% utilised this approach .This could be because there is a high power distance in South Korea as illustrated by Hofstede, whereby managers may find upward feedback offensive due the traditional top-down organisational structure. Furthermore, when upward feedback is utilised, it is prominently used for administrative purposes such as promotions and bonus payments rather than for development, training and education. Only 10% of respondents in a study conducted in a large government organisation in South Korea favoured upward feedback being used for developmental purposes and education rather than administrative reasons. When developmental upward feedback becomes administrative, there is a significant performance improvement. Even though upward feedback is often reinforced by top management, managers are reluctant to receive feedback from their subordinates. This is due to the high power distance and militaristic culture of organisations who utilise a top-down and strict chain of command approach.

Positive Outcomes
Upward feedback provides vital knowledge and information to superiors about their strengths and weaknesses and hence, increases self-awareness. Often, the results of the self-assessments of managers' and the assessments conducted by employees on the managers competencies are not aligned with performance. Research consistently shows that managers tend to overrate and have a more positive view of their competencies compared to associate ratings because they are unaware of how they are seen by their colleagues, due to lack of feedback. . Self-consistency theory explains that consequently these managers are motivated to increase their performance which as a result reduces the difference between how others perceive them and their own self-perception, thus re-establishing a feeling of cognitive balance. However, if the feedback received is consistent, then managers will not have the motivation to improve as they are satisfied with the results, even if their performance is low. In the same way, if subordinates ratings are higher than their self-ratings, they would have little motivation to develop and improve their performance.

Furthermore, individuals are likely to use more effort if they receive negative feedback in comparison to when they receive positive feedback. According to the control theory, once the difference is lowered, then motivation to continue to improve is also reduced. Consequently, initial improvements either fade or remain stable at a particular level. Providing multi-source feedback will help managers to become more aware of their strengths and faults and resolve issues.

While feedback can cause an array of issues that need time and planning before implementation, an immediate result of upward feedback is thought to be openness. In a film titled Openness in Action, managers from the British County Council (a British organisation with 20,000 staff) discussed how their sentiments toward receiving feedback changed as they went through the upward feedback process. The most positive result was the break down of barriers between management and employees. In its place, a culture of feedback, learning and development becomes the norm. As a result of the removal of barriers in the film, the work environment is thought to become more productive and collaborative.

Subordinates have more favourable views towards upward feedback than managers as they perceive the use of upward feedback ratings as an indication that they have become empowered and have autonomy and control in the workplace. Furthermore, when organisations utilise upward feedback, it makes employees feel that they have greater control over company decisions. Employees are able to view the direct outcomes of the feedback they have delivered when the company implements managerial action strategies and changes personnel.

Employees are also best-placed to judge and evaluate their managers and superiors by the very nature of their professional relationship in the workplace. Employees have frequent contact with their superiors usually on a daily basis and therefore, they are in a good position to directly witness and correctly assess many managerial activities. Furthermore, the decisions and actions made by managers directly affect and involve employees and therefore employees are able to reflect on first-hand experiences when evaluating their superiors. Finally, when employees perceive upward feedback as a role appropriate activity, linked to developmental purposes and do not fear retaliation from their managers, they are more likely to provide honest feedback.

Oc (2015) depicts that subordinates have a strong influence over powerholders and how these powerholders distribute resources to subordinates and make decisions in organisations. When employees provide candid and straightforward feedback to their superiors, these superiors will make choices that support the perceptions of others and their own self- interests. However, when managers receive compliant feedback from employees, they will make selfish decisions as there is no evidence to motivate an adjustment in perception. Hence, upward feedback can initiate the self-regulatory practices of managers and act as an essential check on their self-interested behaviour over time.

Additionally, upward feedback is particularly valuable when developing leaders as it indicates to the future leader whether or nottheir perceptions are aligned with the views of the organisation. Upward feedback leads to improvement in leadership skills when it is given by many sources, and is direct and precise. When leaders become aware of faults that they were not aware of previously, they will modify their behaviour in order to improve and respond to these weaknesses, and satisfy their self-image and reputation.

Finally, Dr. Ronald Forbes, a pioneer in leader effectiveness and neuro-lingusitic programming in Australia, discusses the effectiveness of upward feedback at providing the right information at the right time and to the right people. He depicts that the information and intelligence gained from upward feedback ratings has impact in four key areas: the development of supervisors, how well members collaborate together and support the manager, how an employee is supported in their individual tasks, and the ability of the organisation to lead, manage, and improve.

Negative Outcomes
Despite the rapid growth of upward feedback programs in organisations, there are some shortcomings in the program’s outcomes. According to Dunnette (1993), the concept brings in “hodgepodge of techniques, testimonials, cautions, methodological difficulties, some axes being ground, and a rather confusing lack of cohesion.” Some would expect that upward feedback could assist employees to change its behavior and enhance performance. Kluger & Denisi's study (1996) indicated that approximately one third of the participants felt that upward feedback brought negative impact and actually detracted from performance. Providing upward feedback on an individual’s behaviour or performance did not demonstrate consistent improvement in performance.

Upward feedback has limited impact when managers are not accountable for using feedback to guide performance improvement. London et. al (1997) stated that managers receive upward feedback for developmental purposes and yet many do not utilise with the feedback provided. Also, supervisors did not support upward feedback appraisals compared with other appraisal system. Redmond & Matthews (1995) conducted a research by comparing traditional appraisal systems and upward feedback systems. The study indicates that supervisors did not find that by performing upward appraisal would make the organisation a healthier workplace or that it was valuable

Applying upward appraisal within organisations has brought negative consequences for supervisors. Supervisors fear reprisal due to fragile egos and are unwilling to accept reproval from their subordinates. opinions from subordinates look like “the barbs on a whale harpoon than gentle and constructive nudges”. Moreover, supervisors may fear that their influence in the organisation being challenged and that they would become less effective in their position. Furthermore, supervisors who make commitments to improve their performance may heighten  subordinates’ expectations that the superior will improve, however the failure of the subordinate to achieve to these commitments may create distrust and disappointment among subordinates, thus reducing the superiors’ future ratings. . All these issues may constitute supervisors feeling the threat or the loss of their managerial post

Additionally, upward feedback requires high participation rate from employees. If there is an insufficient number of raters in the program, it will be difficult to generate a valid result. However, subordinates are unlikely to initiate upward communication as they are afraid of being ignored or identified by their superior. Employees are unwilling to provide feedback due to confidentiality. In a research conducted by Turrentine et.al (2004), there was heightened sensitivity about this approach where employees believed that they were at risk of losing their job if the feedback could be identified by their superior. In addition, upward appraisal emphasises openness between senior management and employees. In teams or division where the bond between the manager and the employees are lacking, response rates are low because staff members do not trust the effectiveness of the appraisal process and were unwilling to contribute. hence, making the appraisal system unreliable.

Furthermore, dishonesty was evident when using upward appraisal in organisations. According to Bernadin (1986), individuals to be rated will resort to various forms of dishonesty in order to enhance their scores during a performance appraisal. Managers may attempt to bribe subordinates providing special privileges to ratees. Moreover, superiors could affect the rating system by commenting about the invalidity of the process, and spreading rumours about other ratees to affect their ratings. . Other issues consist of the time consuming nature associated with administering upward feedback systems.