The Process of Change in Leadership Development: Using 360-degree Feedback to Study the Roles of Reflection, Planning, and Support
Open AccessThis study investigated the relationship between the use of 360-degree feedbackfor executive leadership development and subsequent change in leadership. Participatingexecutives were mid-level and senior executives at a US government agency. It wasproposed that 360-degree feedback to executives regarding their leadership would enablethem to improve if they critically reflected on the feedback, set development goals,created an Individual Development Plan, and sought organizational support for changingbehavior.A survey questionnaire was used to assess leadership and change. The studyemployed an experimental pretest-posttest-control group design to assess perceivedchanges in leadership behavior in response to receiving feedback and engaging indevelopment activities. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups.Group A members received feedback and a training intervention after the firstassessment. Group B members received only written feedback. Group C membersreceived no feedback or intervention until after the experiment ended.Hypothesis 1(a) predicted posttest leadership scores of Group A members wouldbe significantly greater than their pretest scores. Hypothesis 1(b) predicted posttestleadership scores of Group A members would be significantly greater than posttest scoresof Group B members. Hypothesis 1(c) predicted posttest leadership scores of Group Amembers would be significantly greater than posttest scores of Group C members.Results showed no significant differences between pretest and posttest scores forGroup A members. Hypothesis 1(a) was not supported. However, comparing Group Amembers' posttest scores with those of Group B and Group C members revealed thatGroup A members' mean posttest scores were higher than those of either Group B orGroup C on all 10 scales of the assessment questionnaire. A number of these differenceswere statistically significant. Therefore, Hypothesis 1(b) was partially supported andHypothesis 1(c) was supported. Post-hoc tests revealed that these results were due todifferential dropout of Group A members such that those completing the study had initialscores higher than members of the other groups. It is suggested that lack of topexecutives' support for the study contributed to this outcome. The importance of suchsupport for the success of any executive development efforts is discussed.
- All rights reserved
Notice to Authors
If you are the author of this work and you have any questions about the information on this page, please use the Contact form to get in touch with us.