nd use two ticks if the word is very descriptive. We find this system inhibits people's responses less and allows extreme views to be filtered during averaging.

It is useful if a fully representative sample of respondents is chosen from all levels within the organisation who deal with the individual concerned.

The results of the feedback can then be compared with the indivi

I meet a large number of executives who consider themselves as team players and believe they have the respect of their subordinates. With some individuals it is can be difficult to understand why they hold these beliefs when it is apparent there is significant conflict within their organisations coupled with high staff turnover rates and high staff absenteeism. Private discussions with members of staff can give the impression the boss is a monster who manipulates the staff in a cold and cynical manner.

How can the opinions be so contradictory and polarised when describing the same person? It may be understandable that politicians will have both active supporters and active detractors but should this be expected with managers?

Unfortunately some managers are so focused on achieving corporate goals they consider people purely as a means of achieving the goals in a shorter time. They will blindly lead the charge towards a goal only to look around and find they are on their own.

One answer to this is to provide a mechanism of anonymous feedback to the manager from all directions. There is some debate about if the feedback should be anonymous but in most cases people are likely to be more honest if comments cannot be traced back to them. Vindictive feedback can be filtered out in an averaging process.

Some feedback systems require the respondents to write comments but this can reduce the anonymity and the quality of the feedback. The system we use requires respondents to tick boxes against descriptive words and use two ticks if the word is very descriptive. We find this system inhibits people's responses less and allows extreme views to be filtered during averaging.

It is useful if a fully representative sample of respondents is chosen from all levels within the organisation who deal with the individual concerned.

The results of the feedback can then be compared with the individ

members of staff can give the impression the boss is a monster who manipulates the staff in a cold and cynical manner.

How can the opinions be so contradictory and polarised when describing the same person? It may be understandable that politicians will have both active supporters and active detractors but should this be expected with managers?

Unfortunately some managers are so focused on achieving corporate goals they consider people purely as a means of achieving the goals in a shorter time. They will blindly lead the charge towards a goal only to look around and find they are on their own.

One answer to this is to provide a mechanism of anonymous feedback to the manager from all directions. There is some debate about if the feedback should be anonymous but in most cases people are likely to be more honest if comments cannot be traced back to them. Vindictive feedback can be filtered out in an averaging process.

Some feedback systems require the respondents to write comments but this can reduce the anonymity and the quality of the feedback. The system we use requires respondents to tick boxes against descriptive words and use two ticks if the word is very descriptive. We find this system inhibits people's responses less and allows extreme views to be filtered during averaging.

It is useful if a fully representative sample of respondents is chosen from all levels within the organisation who deal with the individual concerned.

The results of the feedback can then be compared with the indivi

re so focused on achieving corporate goals they consider people purely as a means of achieving the goals in a shorter time. They will blindly lead the charge towards a goal only to look around and find they are on their own.

One answer to this is to provide a mechanism of anonymous feedback to the manager from all directions. There is some debate about if the feedback should be anonymous but in most cases people are likely to be more honest if comments cannot be traced back to them. Vindictive feedback can be filtered out in an averaging process.

Some feedback systems require the respondents to write comments but this can reduce the anonymity and the quality of the feedback. The system we use requires respondents to tick boxes against descriptive words and use two ticks if the word is very descriptive. We find this system inhibits people's responses less and allows extreme views to be filtered during averaging.

It is useful if a fully representative sample of respondents is chosen from all levels within the organisation who deal with the individual concerned.

The results of the feedback can then be compared with the indivi

anonymous but in most cases people are likely to be more honest if comments cannot be traced back to them. Vindictive feedback can be filtered out in an averaging process.

Some feedback systems require the respondents to write comments but this can reduce the anonymity and the quality of the feedback. The system we use requires respondents to tick boxes against descriptive words and use two ticks if the word is very descriptive. We find this system inhibits people's responses less and allows extreme views to be filtered during averaging.

It is useful if a fully representative sample of respondents is chosen from all levels within the organisation who deal with the individual concerned.

The results of the feedback can then be compared with the indivi

nd use two ticks if the word is very descriptive. We find this system inhibits people's responses less and allows extreme views to be filtered during averaging.

It is useful if a fully representative sample of respondents is chosen from all levels within the organisation who deal with the individual concerned.

The results of the feedback can then be compared with the individual's self perception. This report needs to be presented with great care if there is a significant difference between the feedback and the self perception. Any differences can be used to identify training and development needs and in extreme cases identify counselling needs.

A variation on this process is for leaders where 180 degree feedback is used. This is used to help a leader understand what it is like to be around them and the effect they have on the motivation of others. Some leaders are surprised to find how contagious their moods are on other people within the organisation.

belbin