A Case Study of Academic Leaders’ Beliefs Regarding AMulti-Source Feedback System to Evaluate Leaders’ Competencies in Higher Education

ABSTRACT

A CASE STUDY OF ACADEMIC LEADERS’ BELIEFS REGARDING A
MULTI-SOURCE FEEDBACK SYSTEM TO EVALUATE LEADERS’ COMPETENCIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Amani Jawah

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explorethe beliefs of faculty academic leaders regarding a Multi-Source Feedback (MSF) program to evaluate leaders’ competencies in one Texas regional university. Participants of the study consisted of nine faculty from one Texas regional university. Interviews were conducted. The researcher transcribed the information from the interviews, analyzed it, and identified themes within the data.  An overall conclusion is that MSF components have the possibility to improve the quality of work of an institution; however, it is not a “quick fix.” To implement appropriately, MSF issues must be considered thoroughly and appropriate training provided. Implications of practice include setting a vision for faculty that includes communication, building a level of openness and trust among faculty members, supporting faculty in understanding that MSF is part of an evaluation process and not the only way to evaluate, setting a clear purpose of the MSF program, and providing sufficient training before implementing the MSF. 

Keywords: performance appraisal, Multi-Source Feedback, 360-degree, leaders’ competencies.

  Chapter I

Introduction to the Study

Nearly every university, whether public or private, requires a Performance Appraisal System (PAS) to assess the performance of its employees (Yarmohmmadian, Mozaffary, & Esfahani, 2011). Yarmohmmadian et al. (2011) noted that the use of a Performance Appraisal (PA) is an effective tool for strategic development in a higher education environment. Additionally, adopting a successful PAS—such as multi-source feedback—will enhance awareness of strengths and weaknesses, which in turn influences organizational decisions.

Multi-Source Feedback (MSF), also known as 360-degree feedback, is one of the modern methods of performance appraisal (Ikramullah, 2011). The systematic process of this approach relies on collecting information about managers’ performances from several viewpoints, such as colleagues, subordinates, superiors, and managers themselves to assess their performance according to the organization’s criteria or standards (Bergman et al., 2014). Bergman et al. (2014) asserted that assessing a leader’s behavior using multi-source feedback is considered an important tool in explaining variance in leadership behavior. They also suggested leaders’ behaviors or traits should be assessed based on special job criteria to improve the predictability of personality in relation to different job-connected outcomes. 

Modern research in performance appraisal was intended to investigate the perceptions of academic leaders in regards to the implementation of performance appraisal system in one Texas regional University. Since this is one of the most recent concepts in higher education in the USA, Texas regional Universities could benefit from performance appraisal to gain advantage and improve ranking.

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions

The purpose of this case study was to explorethe perceptions of academic leaders regarding implementing a multi-source program (360- degree) in one Texas regional University. Academic leaders are defined as directors, deans, and department heads for the purpose of this study. The overarching question for this study was: What are the perceptions and beliefs of leaders regarding the implementation of a multi-source feedback program (360 degree) to evaluate leaders’ competencies? The related research questions were

What are the perceptions and beliefs of academic leaders to the university regarding the multi-source feedback process: diagnosing, developing, implementing, and interpreting the 360 degree feedback program

What are the perceptions and beliefs of academic leaders at the university regarding the importance that should be given to implementing the multi-source feedback program (360 degree feedback) to evaluate leaders’ competencies

How does implementing a multi-source feedback program develop leaders’ competencies

Rationale and Significance of the Study

Performance appraisal is not an entirely new concept in the field of education (Anjum, 2011; Jalaliyoon & Taherdoost, 2012; Noaman et al., 2013; Rasheed et al., 2011; Yarmohmmadian et al., 2011). Researchers have noted literature focused on performance appraisal in relation to higher education is limited and more information is needed to conduct further investigation (Dai, De Meuse, & Peterson, 2010; Leong Wee, 2015). Many organizations have been busy implementing new or improved performance appraisal systems (Dusterhoff, Cunningham, & Macgor, 2014; Ikemefuna & Chidi, 2012; Leong Wee, 2015). Moreover, literature in organization performance has highlighted the significance of performance appraisal as one of the ways by which organizations can ensure quality to their stakeholders (Dusterhoff et al., 2014). Leong Wee (2015) indicated that performance appraisal programs in educational institutions are a major indication to assess achievements and uphold the quality in education.

This study in performance appraisal was intended to investigate the beliefs of faculty academic leaders in regards to an MSF system in one Texas regional university. Since this is one of the most recent concepts in higher education in the USA, Texas regional universities could benefit from implementing the performance appraisal system.

Assumptions

            According to Simon (2011), assumptions in the study are issues that are somewhat out of the researcher’s control, but if they disappeared the study would become irrelevant. The following assumptions guided this study:

It is assumed that the study participants answered all questions openly and honestly.

It is assumed that the research questions developed are to help understand what the overall beliefs of faculty academic leaders are at the university regarding a MSF program as a performance appraisal program

It is assumed that MSF program is not actively alive in Texas regional universities.

The MSF programs are performance appraisal systems that are a tool to enhance leaders’ performances.

Limitations

Limitations are potential weaknesses in the study that are out of the control of the researcher (Simon, 2011). This study was limited in the following ways:

Responses are limited to the participants’ experiences with MSF.

Qualitative studies are not generalizable to the larger population.

Delimitations

The delimitations are those characteristics the researcher identifies that limit the scope and define the boundaries of the study (Simon, 2011). The study included the following delimitations:

The participants selected for this study have been employed as faculty members in a higher education institution in Texas.

In this study, the researcher included only the dimensions that are related to leaders’ competencies.

Only faculty academic leaders in this university were participants in the study. 

The MSF system is considered a new concept in Texas regional universities; a few universities in Texas regions are using such programs; however, participants were not using the MSF system in this study.

The study has been conducted in one state (Texas); therefore, the result may not be applicable in other states.

In addition, the participants met at least two of the three following criteria:

Served in various leadership positions;

Had at least two years of experience in education leadership program;

Served as coordinator or administrator at least five years in higher education.

Definitions

            The definitions for this study are defined following

Global leader – “an individual who inspires a group of people to willingly pursue a positive vision in an effectively organized fashion while fostering individual and collective growth in a context characterized by significant levels of complexity, flow, and presence” (Mendenhall, Reiche, Bird, & Osland, 2012, p. 75).

Faculty academic leaders – are defined as directors, deans, department heads, and coordinators who have worked as a faculty member in a leadership environment in higher education.

Performance – those actions or behaviors under the control of the individual, that contribute to the organization’s goals, and that can be measured according to the individual’s level of proficiency. In the organizational context, performance is typically defined as the level and commitment in which an organizational individual contributes to achieving the organization objectives (Campbell, 1990). 

Performance appraisal – typically the formal assessment and rating of individuals by their managers, and usually done on an annual basis in a review meeting (Armstrong, 2000).

MSF program – a performance tool in which individuals, subordinates, peers, and supervisors within an organization provide constructive feedback to each other (Sones, 2009). It is also referenced as MSF.

Chapter II

Literature Review

Multi-Source Feedback Background

MSF is one of the modern methods of PA (Ikramullah et al., 2011). Berk (2009) noted it was developed in the management industry more than half a century ago, then later applied to a different field a decade ago. The first appearance of MSF was during World War II, when it was used to evaluate the leadership skills of U.S. cadets and other trainees. Berk suggested the concept of MSF was developed when psychologists began to investigate how to best hire and train employees and subsequently how to evaluate job performance. In the 1960s and 1970s, several researchers reported positive outcomes from MSF and created more momentum for the method using “multi-rater” measurement. Many terms have been used to refer to the MSF process since it emerged in the U.S., such as multi-rater assessment, multi-rater feedback, multi-source assessment, full-circle feedback, and upward feedback (Bracken, Timmreck, & Church, 2001). In the interest of consistency, the term multi-source feedback, or MSF, will be used throughout this study report because it most accurately describes the process: the ability to obtain feedback from more than one source. 

Extensive literature (Sepehrirad, Azar, & Sadeghi, 2012; Wood et al., 2006) has shown that using MSF as an assessment tool can, with certain caveats, be practical, valid, and reliable, and it can enhance teamwork, productivity, good communication, and trust. Wood et al. (2006) said the efficiency of using MSF as a PA lies in its simplicity and purpose. The purpose of using MSF is based on an organization’s goals. For example, Wood et al. suggested there are six purposes for using MSF: (a) developing insight into an individual’s strengths and weaknesses; (b) enhancing culture change; (c) summative assessment of performance; (d) evaluating the potential of individuals; (e) enhancing team effectiveness; and (f) identifying training needs for the system.

Although MSF has become popular as PS, many departments did not think highly of the 360-degree approach according to Pak (2009). In his study, Pak introduced a strategic 360-degree performance-appraisal system for a university, as universities increasingly face demands to be accountable to their stakeholder. Researchers argued, “If a 360 has (been) implemented properly, and with the appropriate training and the right resources, it becomes a powerful and positive addition to any performance management” (p. 62). The popularity of MSF is understood easily because of the multiple benefits it confers to both (a) the organization, which helps enhance two-way communication, increasing employees’ involvement and demonstrating respect by showing that their opinions count, helping to create a better working relationship, and (b) the individual, for which the feedback is invaluable because it comes from numerous sources, increasing the reliability, fairness, and acceptance of the data being ratified, so it can act as a motivational dimension, serving a directional purpose, helping to uncover and solve conflicts, and acting as an opportunity to praise or criticize co-workers anonymously. 

The 360 Feedback Process

            The following phases serve as a guide for effectively introducing and implementing MSF: the diagnosing-appropriateness phase, which tackles MSF’s benefits and negatives, and how to avoid risk; the development phase, which deals with identifying the dimensions that should be included within the MSF survey, and how to gather the data from the survey; the implementation phase, which explains and spotlights the training and selection of raters; and the interpretation phase, which involves discussing feedback types and how to deal with different responses (Morgeson, Mumford, & Campion, 2005) (See Figure 1).

Figure 1. The Four Phases of the MSF Program (Morgeson et al., 2005).

Global Leadership Competencies

Scholars have not agreed on an accepted definition for global leadership (Javidan & Walker, 2012; Mendenhall, 2013; Osland, 2013; Story, 2011). For example, Mendenhall et al. (2013) offered what is referred to as a “broad definition” of global leadership: “Global leaders are individuals who effect significant positive change in organizations by building communities through the development of trust and the arrangement of organizational structures and processes in a context involving multiple cross-boundary stakeholders, multiple sources of external cross-boundary authority, and multiple cultures under conditions of temporal, geographical, and cultural complexity” (p. 20).

More specifically, to examine the most common global-leader behaviors to determine whether those behaviors were characteristic of the competencies outlined in multiple frameworks, Gundling et al. interviewed 70 global leaders from 26 countries. They identified ten key behaviors and categorized those behaviors into five major stages, referred to as SCOPE: Seeing differences, Closing gaps, Opening the system, Preserving balance, and Establishing solutions. Moreover, they explained that ten key behaviors define great global leaders, together shaping dynamic global leadership.

By understanding these key behaviors, their interrelationships, and their ability to promote a dynamic leadership style, leaders can develop these behaviors within their organizations to achieve a global view.

Figure 2. Global Leadership Behaviors: Five Stages (Aperian Global, 2015).

Chapter III

Methodology

Research Design

According to Creswell (2015), qualitative designs are used to explore an issue that is difficult to measure and quantify. Creswell also stated that qualitative research begins with assumptions of a social problem utilizing a theoretical lens. To study social problems, Creswell suggested that qualitative researchers use an emerging qualitative approach to inquiry, data collection in natural setting, and data analysis that establishes patterns or themes and finally write the final written report which includes novices of the participants reflexivity of the researcher, a detailed description, and interpretation of the problem as it closes the gap of the literature.

The researcher chose a case study approach to explore the perceptions of academic leaders regarding a performance appraisal program in the university. Creswell (2013) defined a case study as “a qualitative approach in which investigator explores a real-life, contemporary bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded system (cases) over time, through detailed, in- depth collection involving multiple sources of information, and reports a case description and case themes” (p. 97).

The Participants and/or Setting

Qualitative researchers are concerned with using samples that provide the greatest depth of information and understanding (Ary, Jacobs, Razavieh, & Sorensen, 2006). Purposeful sampling was used to select the participants for this study. In addition, Patton (2002) described a purposeful sample as “the selecting of information-rich cases for in-depth study… from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the research” (p. 46). In addition, this form of sampling enabled the selection of participants who best aided in achieving the research objective (Merriam, 1998).

According to Creswell (2015), “In purposeful sampling, researchers intentionally select individuals and sites to learn or understand the central phenomenon” (p. 205). For the purpose of this study, Lamar University was selected. This university is among the fastest growing Texas colleges and universities, and is a member of The Texas State University System (Lamar University, 2017). The aim of the purposeful sampling is to obtain a comprehensive set of perspectives from this university’ leaders. The participants consisted of a dean, directors, a professor, and a coordinator.  The researcher conducted person-to-person interviews with the eight participants, and an online interview with one participant.  The following criteria were used in selecting participants for this study:

Served in various leadership positions in higher education.

Had at least two years’ experience in an education leadership program.

Served as coordinator or administrator at least for five years in higher education.

Nine participants met the criteria.The interview location was agreed upon by the researcher and the study participant. Participants were subsequently questioned using a guided protocol, semi-structured interview method.

Data Collection

 The researcher sent letters to the university to briefly describe the study and to obtain informed consent from the participants after getting the approval from the Lamar Institutional Review Board (IRB). Data for this study was collected through a self-developed questionnaire, and this questionnaire was used as the main data collection instrument. The questionnaire was a set of written questions or statements to which the participants were to respond in order to provide data relevant to the research topic (Ravhura, 2006).

For the purpose of this study, a semi-structured questionnaire was used. A semi-structured questionnaire is “a questionnaire consisting of both open-ended and closed questions, and provides a greater depth than is possible with a structured questionnaire with open-ended questions used as a data collection tool for the study” (O’Sullivan, Berner, & Rassel, 2008, p. 216). According to Creswell (2015), the open-ended responses permit one to explore reasons for the closed-ended responses and identify any comments people might have that are beyond the responses to the closed-ended questions. The main goal of the questionnaire was to find out what the overall perceptions and beliefs were of the university academic leaders regarding the implementation of performance appraisal programs.

Treatment of Data

 Data were collected to provide adequate and appropriate interpretative material in accordance with the research questions (Patton, 2002). Organization and analysis of data followed the basic structure outlined by Creswell (2015). Data analysis in qualitative research consists of organizing the data then reducing the data into themes through a process of coding and condensing the code, and finally representing the data in figures, tables or a discussion (Creswell, 2015). The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and the researcher organized the data to identify codes and themes in the data as well as make interpretations of the information. The Nvivo software was used to classify themes for analysis. 

Chapter IV

Findings, Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations

Findings

Major findings of this study are summarized by research question.

Research Question One.  Research question one examined the beliefs of faculty academic leaders regarding the MSF process: diagnosing, developing, implementing, and interpreting the MSF program. Emerging themes included:

MSF is critical for communication that builds leadership;

Focused, clear training should be provided to all faculty;

The MSF has challenges to consider when implementing strategies.

Research Question Two.  Research question two examined the beliefs of faculty academic leaders regarding the importance that should be given to implementing the MSF program to evaluate leaders’ competencies.  One primary theme emerged which suggested that implementing an MSF program would clearly support leadership development, thus indicating a high priority for future implementation.

Research Question Three.  Research question three examined the beliefs of faculty academic leaders comparing their current evaluation model to MSF. Themes that emerged during the interviews were:

The MSF promotes clarity of improving the current program; and

The MSF would be more difficult to implement than their current program.

Conclusions

The case study explored nine participants’ beliefs regarding the MSF program in one Texas regional university.  An overall conclusion is that MSF components have the possibility to improve the quality of work of an institution; however, it is not a “quick fix.” To implement appropriately, MSF issues must be considered thoroughly and appropriate training provided (Kets de Vries et al., 2007; Pak, 2009; Rai & Singh, 2013; Sones, 2009; Wood et al., 2006).

Research Question One. Research question one examined the beliefs of faculty academic leaders regarding the MSF process. A suggested conclusion from this study is that participants believe the MSF is important because it increases the collaboration and communication among the employees that build leadership by creating a healthy atmosphere. Wood et al. (2006) indicated that MSF could enhance team working, productivity, good communication, and trust. Faculty and staff feel they are valued and satisfied when their opinions are considered during the evaluation. The findings were supported by Pak (2009), who determined that the MSF enhances two-way communication increasing employee involvements, demonstrating respect by showing their opinions count, and helping to create better working relationships. As a result of communication between faculty, staff and administrators, organization begins gathering missing data in depth and then identify the desired goals in ways to improve areas were addressed.

Training both raters and assessers is an essential step before implementing the MSF in higher education. According to Pak (2009), if the MSF program has been implemented properly and with the appropriate training and the right resources, it becomes a powerful and positive addition to any performance management. Other findings indicated that the MSF program does have challenges that should be considered when implementing strategies. An inherent challenge of the MSF has to do with the information received from others (Kets de Vries et al., 2007). Further, it was concluded that evaluation should include quantitative and qualitative items, as well as, it should be carefully selective, short, and confidentially anonymous. It is important that HR practitioners expand their understanding of process through which the MSF can improve performance of employees in their organization. These insights will help them to design and implement effective MSF processes in their organization (Rai & Singh, 2013).

Research Question Two. Research question two examined the beliefs of academic leaders regarding the importance that should be given to implementing the MSF program to evaluate leaders’ competencies. Based on the findings, implementing an MSF program would clearly support leadership development by helping leaders to identify their strength and weakness areas within their leadership styles. Kets de Vries et al. (2007) indicated that developing an MSF survey with multiple dimensions to provide an accurate picture of leadership strengths and weaknesses can be very useful in helping leaders understand and fill gaps in their styles.

Furthermore, it was concluded that effective leaders should be self-aware, so understanding self-awareness through self-development is essential for quality leadership. Therefore, self-development is important because it helps leaders to compare their scores with others’ scores and then identify the gap and areas that need improvement, as well as areas of excellence. Sones (2009) concluded that the MSF creates an environment for leadership development that is unparalleled in its effectiveness and opens new doors for self-development within the organization.

Research Question Three. Research question three examined the beliefs of faculty academic leaders comparing their current evaluation model to MSF. The findings suggested that getting feedback from multiple sources (self, peers and subordinates) should be included as part of the employees’ evaluation because it would help to identify the gaps in their leadership styles and ultimately support the growth of the institution. Morgeson et al. (2005) noted that feedback on dimensions that describe specific behavior (e.g., values) enables leaders to use the dimension to set specific goals. In addition, leaders who observe the largest differences between their performance ratings and others will demonstrate the largest performance gains. Moreover, getting feedback from multiple sources helps the growth of an organization by identifying the goals of the department, the objectives, and strategies to reach those goals. According to De Andrés et al. (2010), the MSF was used by organizations in establishing strategic planning, promotion decisions and determination of education requirements.

A suggested conclusion is that implementing the MSF in higher education is difficult because people do not like to be criticized. According to Rai and Singh (2013), if administered transparently in an atmosphere of trust and openness, the MSF may encourage employees to accept constructive criticism and deficiencies. However, accepting change is another reason that makes the MSF difficult to implement when people do not like to change the way they are currently doing tasks. One of the common uses of MSF is workplace culture change (Sepehrirad et al., 2012).

Wimer and Nowack (1998) discussed conducting a pilot test to address the use of MSF processes. Supervisors, subordinates, and peers should understand how to change their perspectives about their evaluation (from top-down to MSF). Further, it was concluded that the university being studied might not currently be ready to implement the MSF because there are many new administrators and, in addition, some leaders are practicing top down decision-making and procedures. The findings of this study were supported by Morgeson et al. (2005) who determined that the culture of the organization needs to be considered when planning and implementing MSF, and the organization readiness for MSF as an appraisal device should be assessed to ensure effectiveness.

Implications for Practice

The case study explored nine participants’ beliefs regarding the MSF program in one Texas regional university. Implications suggested from this study that could help administrators to start building a plan to implement the MSF program include the following:

Evaluate leaders’ competencies. It is important to evaluate employees’ performance and outcomes in order to create effective future strategies to develop the entire organization’s performance (Chouhan et al., 2016).

Set a vision for faculty that includes communication. When planning and implementing MSF, stakeholders should be able to discuss their concerns and understand the rational underlying decisions for using MSF (Wimer & Nowack, 1998).

Build a level of openness and trust among faculty members.  According to Rai and Singh (2013), openness, trust, better understanding of colleagues and being supportive of others in the organization are the key points of interpersonal communication.

Support faculty in understanding that MSF is part of an evaluation process and not the only way to evaluate.  MSF should be considered a process for helping leaders gain a rich and accurate perspective on how others view their management practices, interpersonal style, and effectiveness, rather than considering it as a substitute for managing poor performance (Wimer & Nowack, 1998).

Set a clear purpose of the MSF program. According to Wimer and Nowack (1998), the MSF should be designed and implemented based on the organization’s strategic needs. For example, leaders may need to enhance critical competencies based on the provided feedback from MSF.

Provide sufficient training. Wood et al. (2006) indicated that training both raters and assessors is important because raters need to understand the common forms of bias, such as the halo effect and centralization.

 Recommendations for Future Research

Higher education is experiencing essential changes. The rapid growth, quick movements of knowledge, and globalization encourages institutions of higher education to seek out new ways to improve their performance, quality, student learning, and management (Demiray & Sever, 2009). Future research recommendations could include:

Conduct comprehensive research in different universities to have a broad view about the level of implementing the MSF programs.

Conduct quantitative studies to measure the level of the implementation and employees satisfaction of the program in different universities.

Study other dimensions that the MSF may measure, such as interpersonal communication, productivity, and trust.

Explore leaders’ beliefs regarding the MSF to evaluate leaders’ competencies in different universities and countries to better understand how different perspectives impact implementing the program and help to generalize the results.References


Anjum, A. (2011). Performance appraisal system in public sector university of Pakistan. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 1(1).

Ary, D., Jacobs, L., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in education. (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Creswell, J. W. (2013).  Qualitative inquiry and research design (3rd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dai, G., De Meuse, K. P., & Peterson, C. (2010). Impact of multi-source feedback on leadership competency development: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Managerial Issues, 22(2), 197-219.

Dusterhoff, C., Cunningham, J. B., & MacGregor, J. N. (2014). The effects of performance rating, leader–member exchange, perceived utility, and organizational justice on performance appraisal satisfaction: Applying a moral judgment perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(2), 265-273.

Ikemefuna, C., & Chidi, C. (2012). Workers’ perception of performance appraisal in selected public and private organization in Lagos Metropolis, Nigeria. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 2(3), 80-97.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Noaman, A., Ragab, A., Fayoumi, A., Khedra, A., & Madbouly, A. (2013). HWQAM: A developed higher education quality assessment model. Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information System, 739-746.

O’Sullivan, E., Berner, M., & Rassel, G. R. (2008). Research methods for public administrators. New York, NY: Pearson Education.

Ravhura, M. (2006). Performance management in the Department of Education with special reference to the Limpopo Province. (Master Theses). University of South Africa.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rasheed, M., Aslam, H., Yousaf, S,. & Noor, A. (2011). A critical analysis of performance appraisal system for teachers in public sector universities of Pakistan: A case study of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur. African Journal of Business Management, 5(9), 3735-3744.

Leong Wee, P. (2015). The effectiveness of performance appraisal in the private education industry in malaysia. International Journal Of Business & Information, 10(1), 95.

Yarmohmmadian, M., Mozaffary, M., & Esfahani, S. (2011). Evaluation of quality of education in higher education based on academic quality improvement program (AQIP) model. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2917-2922. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.214

Appendix A

Individual Survey Items OF The SCOPE

Items	Self	Managers	Peers	Range
				1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Cultural Self-Awareness
Sees how his/her cultural background has influenced his/her leadership style.Puts self in the position of people from other parts of the world by asking: What do they want.Checks with people from other cultures to ensure that his/her leadership style is effective in different environments.Acknowledges that other cultures have effective leadership practices that may be different from his/her own leadership style.
Invite the Unexpected
Takes a genuine interest in the history, institutions, and points of local pride of other countries.
Builds upon the existing strengths of people in other countries before introducing his/her own ideas.
Discusses the global threats to his/her organization with people from other countries.
Adopts new practices when he/she is in different business environments.

(continued)

Items	Self	Managers	Peers	Range
				1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Results Through Relationships
Achieves good business results because of his/her strong personal relationships with global counterparts.Global colleagues share their relationship networks with him/her to help accomplish shared goals.Invests significant time to build relationships with counterparts from different cultures.Seeks out cultural guides to help build strong business relationships in different cultures.
Frame-Shifting
Is able to distinguish between real agreement and polite responses that do not necessarily signify agreement.
Is successful in working with global colleagues who have a different sense of timing about the completion of key tasks.
Uses different strategic approaches in global business environments than what he/she would use at the home office.
Effectively motivates employees in other locations around the world.
Expand Ownership
Allows global employees some freedom in how they meet his/her expectations.

(continued)

Items		Self	Manages			Peers		Range
								1 2 3 4 5 6 7
	Creates decision-making processes that encourage the participation of global colleagues. When decisions have been made in an inclusive way, he/she holds employees accountable.Leads projects in a way that creates pride of authorship on the part of all global employees who participate in the effort. Developing Future Leaders Develops future global leaders from any cultural background based on their performance and potential..Provides coaching and support to help develop future global leaders.Creates opportunities for high potential local leaders to serve in more strategic roles.Assigns career development opportunities to future leaders regardless of where they come from. Adapt & add value Learns from foreign business colleagues.Chooses the right moments to drive change in a foreign business environment.Listens carefully to the views of people from other cultural background.Makes tough decisions when required after considering the different perspectives on the issues. Core values & Flexibility His/her experience in other parts of the world has influenced his/her personal views.

(continued)

Items	Self	Managers	Peers	Range
				1 2 3 4 5 6 7
His or her core values are clearly apparent to colleagues around the globe.He/she upholds his/her core values even when they are different from those in the local business environment.Is flexible in applying his/her organization’s values while preserving their primary intention. Influence Across Boundaries Works smoothly across different organizational functions to accomplish global business tasks.Delivers new solutions regardless of cultural differences and organizational barriers.Is regarded as an effective ambassador for his/her global organization. When working in a matrix relationship, he/she is able to persuade people to get the job done. Third-Way Solutions Communicates his/her expectations in a way that people from other cultures can understand.Successfully integrates the ideas of diverse team members.Is able to convert cross-border disagreements into innovative business outcomes.Effectively bridges different points of view in a way that creates the best solutions for customers.

Appendix B

Guided Protocol

The purpose of this case study was to explorethe perceptions of academic leaders regarding implementing a multi-source program (360- degree) in one Texas regional University. Academic leaders are defined as academic leaders, deans, and department heads for the purpose of this study. The overarching question for this study was: What are the perceptions and beliefs of leaders regarding the implementation of a multi-source feedback program (360 degree) to evaluate leaders’ competencies? The related research questions were:

What are the perceptions and beliefs of academic leaders to the university regarding the multi-source feedback process: diagnosing, developing, implementing, and interpreting the 360 degree feedback program

• What are the perceptions and beliefs of academic leaders at the university regarding the importance that should be given to implementing the multi-source feedback program (360 degree feedback) to evaluate leaders’ competencies
• How does implementing multi-source feedback program develop leaders’ competencies

Purpose statement: The purpose of this case study was to explorethe perceptions of academic leaders regarding implementing a multi-source program (360- degree) in one Texas regional University.

Background and Get Acquainted Questions: The questionnaire seeks to identify your perceptions as academic leaders regarding the presence of and implementation of 360 degree feedback system as a performance appraisal in the university. Please give your own and honest opinion in all responses.

• Tell me about yourself, how old are you? What is your position? How long have you been in this position?
• Do you have the authority to evaluate leaders’ competencies in your department

Research Questions

• What are the perceptions and beliefs of academic leaders to the university regarding the multi-source feedback process: diagnosing, developing, implementing, and interpreting the 360 degree feedback program
• Based on the diagnosing phase, do you think that your organization’s culture is ready for a 360 degree feedback program? Why
• How will a 360 degree feedback help develop the dimension of leaders’ competencies
• How do you know that you are ready to implement the 360 feedback program
• Based on the interpreting phase, do you feel that the kind of feedback that should de given to leaders is effective?  
• What are the perceptions and beliefs of academic leaders at the university regarding the importance that should be given to implementing the multi-source feedback program (360 degree feedback) to evaluate leaders’ competencies

A.  In your opinion, what does a 360 degree feedback program achieve

B.  How important is it to you to have this 360 degree feedback system as a performance appraisal in you department

C.  In what ways do you feel the 360 degree feedback is useful

D.  What do you think should be done to improve the understanding of the 360 degree feedback system as a performance appraisal within your department

• How does implementing multi-source feedback program develop leaders’ competencies
  • How does evaluating leaders’ competencies by using a 360 degree feedback program help leaders know their strengths and weakness in their leadership styles
    • Describe any experiences that you have had that might add to the perceived benefit of the 360 on your leadership behavioral development.
      • Do you encourage higher education leaders to implement the 360 degree feedback system as a Performance Appraisal. Why

: Closure

.Thank the interviewee

.Reassure confidentiality of the interview

.Ask permission to follow-up