How Am I Doing? 360-Degree Feedback in Asia

I recently returned from Singapore, where I taught an executive MBA class in Global Leadership to a group of mostly Asian managers and executives. As part of the course, they were required to participate in a 360-degree feedback process using a a popular instrument, the Leadership Practices Inventory (Kousez and Posner, 2012). For many of them, although they were working for global, multinational companies, it was the first time they had experienced this kind of feedback from others – their managers, their co-workers, and others.

Now I know that it is simplistic to make generalizations about Asian cultural values, and even more so with this class (with students representing at least six different nationalities, including a few American expatriates). My class was certainly not representative of Asians in general, nor even of Asian managers in general. As scholars such as House et al. (2004) have shown, there are at least two distinct cultural clusters in Asia: Confucian Asia (e.g. China, Singapore, South Korea) and Southern Asia (e.g., India, Malaysia, Thailand). Hofstede (2001) and others have pointed out that Asian cultures tend to have higher Power Distance and Collectivism scores than Western cultures. More specifically, Power Distance tends to be higher in Southern Asia than in Confucian Asia, while Collectivism is higher in Confucian Asia than in Southern Asia. Southern Asia managers more so than Western managers tend to value leaders who are somewhat more authoritarian and more decisive in their decision-making; Confucian Asia employees value work places where harmony, relationships, and group recognition rather than individual achievements and confrontation are emphasized. In addition, as Ready et al. (2008) point out in their HBR article on attracting talent in emerging markets, employees from these markets (which include Asian countries such as China and India) value work place cultures that emphasize meritocracy, opportunities to learn and develop, and a strong connection to their teams and to their company. I kept these contextual factors in mind as I coached my students around their feedback and their reactions. Having spent time with these students, both as a group and individually through one-on-one coaching sessions with their 360-degree feedback results, the following are three impressions I have about their reactions to feedback, and how these tie to the use of 360-degree feedback in Asian cultures.

First, these managers and executives were eager not only to understand and learn about their feedback, but to also figure out what they could to do to develop themselves. When I met with each of them, they had already pored over their results and were especially interested in the written comments, some of which they claimed never to have heard before from others in such overt fashion. This is perhaps consistent with the generally non-confrontational and high-context language in many of these Asian cultures, especially among peers. About half had asked people outside their work place to give them feedback, including childhood friends, elderly relatives, parents’ friends, and their spouses. Many had actually already shared their results with their spouses.

Second, perhaps because educated Asians were focused on grades as they were going through school, many of my students were particularly interested in the numerical scores and the percentile ratings. They wanted to know how “good” they were, and tended to view the results as a sort of report card. While coaching them, I suggested reframing their view of these results not as a grade, but as developmental feedback. As I explained to them, the ratings are based not on how well or how poorly they were demonstrating certain leadership behaviors, but on how frequently their raters observed them performing these behaviors. It is certainly possible that in the context in which they interacted with some of their raters, these raters did not have an opportunity to view some of their leadership behaviors. For example, a family friend who provided ratings may not necessarily have observed the manager “challenging the process” (one of the leadership categories in the Leadership Practices Inventory).

Third, consistent with the higher Power Distance among these cultures, many students focused on the discrepancies between their ratings and their managers’ ratings. What was interesting was that of the 30 specific leadership practices, not one showed a statistically significant difference between self-ratings and managers’ ratings as well as for all observers’ ratings for the class as a group. Eckert et al. (2009) had reported in their comparisons of rating discrepancies from 31 countries that cultural values affected these discrepancies. For example, they found that self-ratings and observer ratings were more discrepant (with the former significantly higher than the latter) in high Power Distance cultures versus low Power Distance cultures.

In this small sample, I did not find this to be the case. Among my class, I also did not find differences in self-manager discrepancies among those from Confucian Asia and those from Southern Asia. There are several possible explanations for this. First, many of these students work in large companies with established performance management practices. While 360-degree feedback may not be universally practiced in these companies, regular performance reviews with one’s manager certainly are. Second, as some students explained to me, they tended to be “hard” on themselves and were downplaying their own self-ratings (similar to some research around gender issues that suggests that females tend to provide lower self-ratings then males). This was interesting, since another study (Gentry et al., 2010) found a “leniency bias” among its sample of Asian managers, and others have found such a bias in general when comparing self-ratings and observers’ ratings (e.g., Church, 1997); that is, self-ratings were more favorable than ratings by other sources. Third, as Gentry et al. (2010) have suggested, it might be that those with greater agreement on their ratings with their managers are in fact better performers. My class (most of whom were taking their executive MBA class with the approval of, and in some cases, the financial support of their companies) was most certainly reflective of this population of high performers. Fourth, especially for those in countries where Collectivism is a strong cultural value, supervisors, co-workers and others might have a tendency to inflate their ratings a bit in the spirit of preserving harmony. This might be the case especially for those who may believe that their ratings might not be anonymous.

Overall, I found receptivity to 360-degree feedback to be very positive. The students did not seem to go through the “SARA” feedback stages - from Shock to Anger to Resistance/Rejection and finally to Acceptance (Zenger and Folkman, 2010) – and were eager to move on and identify steps they could take to improve their leadership. Based on this small sample, there do not seem to be serious concerns about implementing 360-degree feedback in these cultures. In fact, use of 360-degree feedback is fairly common in many multinationals today, both Western and non-Western. In a study of over 650 organizations in the Asia Pacific region, for example (Mercer, 2013), 45% of organizations report that they do use 360-degree feedback; and 42% of them report that they provide individuals new in a global role with 360-degree feedback within the first year of their new assignment.

Unlike even say, twenty years ago, many Asian managers today are being constantly exposed to Western management practices, whether through their organizations, their formal education in school, or through the internet. This does not mean that cultural and contextual factors should be ignored, and that cultural preferences no longer exist. Some of these cultures are over two thousand years old, and their beliefs and assumptions are very deep-seated. It would be naïve to suggest that these values can change in a generation or two. Yet changes at least in work place practices are indeed coming, and perhaps accelerating. In the U.S. culture, for example, individualism has continued to be a very strong cultural value, yet we see collaboration and team work practices being emphasized and in many cases embraced in the work place. Companies such as Goldman Sachs and Accenture have implemented programs in their Japanese offices to help local employees interact more effectively with their Western colleagues and clients. With continued globalization, we will most likely see a greater evolution and transformation of work place practices around the world.

Church, A. (1997). Managerial Self-Awareness in High-Performing Individuals in Organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 281-292.

Eckert, R. et al. (2010). “I Don’t See Me Like You See Me, But Is That a Problem?” Cultural Influences on Rating Discrepancy in 360-degree Feedback Instruments. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19 (3): 259-278.

Gentry, W. et al. (2010). Self-Observer Rating Discrepancies of Managers in Asia: A Study of Derailment Characteristics and Behaviors in Southern and Confucian Asia. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18(1): 237-250.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences (2^nd Edition). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

House, R. et al. (2004). Culture, Leadership and Organizations: the GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kousez, J. and Posner, B. (2012). The Leadership Challenge (5^th Edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mercer Consulting Group. (2013). http://www.mercer.com/content/dam/mercer/attachments/global/Talent/Develop-APLdrshpDevPractStudyRpt.pdf

Ready, D. et al. (2008). Winning the Race for Talent in Emerging Markets. Harvard Business Review, 86, November.

Zenger and Folkman (2010). http://zengerfolkman.com/meet-sara-our-emotional-response-to-bad-news/

Are Narcissists Better Leaders?

We all know who they are – those narcissists who seem to rise quickly in organizations only to crash and burn eventually. We can point to failed corporate leaders such as Bob Nardelli of Home Depot, Tony Hayward of BP and Ken Lay of Enron as prime examples of such leaders. However, others point to leaders like Steve Jobs and Jack Welch, who are seen by some as narcissistic and yet have led their companies to great success. So how do we sort out the relationship between narcissistic leaders and team/organizational success or failure?

Some researchers say that not only do we like narcissists, but they tend to make for better leaders. Professor Jeffrey Pfeffer (2015) has argued that narcissism “helps people attain leadership positions in the first place and then, once in them, positively affects their ability to hold on to those positions, extract more resources (salary), and even helps in some, although not all, aspects of their performance on the job.” (pp. 71-72). In summarizing a meta-analysis of individual differences related to effective leadership, he points to four traits that he says narcissists have more of: energy, dominance, self-confidence, and charisma. He also explains that one of the reasons why women and Asian Americans are less frequently chosen for leadership roles is because they are on average more modest and self-effacing, and therefore less narcissistic than men. Finally, he claims that companies prefer “immodest, grandiose, and narcissistic leaders” (p. 83) and they continue to select and promote those who exhibit these qualities.

It’s important to gain some clarity on this concept of narcissism since there is much confusion about what it is in the first place. For example, Kets de Vries (1994) has pointed out that narcissism is not necessarily dysfunctional; there is a difference between healthy or constructive narcissism and unhealthy or destructive narcissism. He suggests that there are three different types of narcissists: the reactive one who is cold, ruthless and exhibitionistic, and has a sense of entitlement; the self-deceptive one who is Machiavellian and who lacks empathy; and the constructive one, who is ambitious and self-confident. In their view, the constructive narcissist can become a good leader; in fact, “a certain dose of narcissism is necessary to function effectively” … and … “we all show signs of narcissistic behavior.” (p. 588). Similarly, Maccoby (1990) refers to “productive narcissists” who may be good for an organization, although even they should not be left unchecked. However, in my experience, it is not always easy to distinguish between these different types of narcissists. Not all those who are energetic, dominant, self-confident and charismatic are pathological narcissists.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has a diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder and lists criteria such as the following: grandiose sense of self-importance, preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success or power, and a belief in one’s special or unique status. “Subclinical” or non-pathological narcissism is different; whereas pathological narcissism is associated with arrogance, a need for admiration, and a lack of empathy, subclinical narcissism is defined as having an inflated sense of self-importance and extremely high levels of self-esteem. A widely-used measure of subclinical narcissism is The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) scale, which scores people on narcissism based on their responses to statements such as: People always seem to recognize my authority, I really like to be the center of attention, I am apt to show off if I get the chance, and I always know what I am doing.  

An important contribution to this topic is a recent study by Grijalva et al. (2015), who did an extensive meta-analysis of the literature. They start out by stating that there is no consensus on the relationship between narcissism and leadership. Their meta-analysis focuses on studies of subclinical narcissism, and what they found was very interesting. First, narcissism is related to leadership emergence, although that relationship decreased over time; that is, the longer the leader spent time with followers, the weaker the relationship. We are attracted to individuals with “leader-like” qualities such as those that Professor Pfeffer has mentioned (e.g., dominance, self-confidence). However, according to these authors, to know them is not to like them too much. Second, they found that when the effects of extroversion were sorted out, that relationship weakened considerably. In other words, much of the reason for why narcissists are selected as leaders is because they are also extroverted.

Third, Grijalva and her colleagues also found a wide range of relationships between narcissism and leadership effectiveness. On average, narcissists were no more or less likely to become effective leaders. The authors in fact found an inverted U-shaped relationship; leaders who are weak as well as those who are very strong narcissists don’t tend to become effective leaders.

My own experience supports the research evidence that self-confident, sociable and likeable people are more likely to be selected and promoted into leadership positions. A recruiter I know once explained to me that his corporate client wanted him to find an executive with “gravitas” or “executive presence.” A self-confident and charming manager who is technically competent and gets results will in many Western organizations get promoted before the equally competent, results-oriented manager who is perhaps too self-effacing and introverted.

I also believe that productive narcissists can contribute to team and organizational success - to a point. Perhaps, as Grijalva et al. suggest, there is a level in which too much narcissism becomes dysfunctional. I would argue however that there are two elements of narcissism that if left unchecked, can be fatal in the workplace: an overriding interest in fulfilling one’s own needs versus the organization’s needs, and a lack of empathy or humility. I would not disagree with those who would argue for example that both Steve Jobs and Jack Welch were narcissistic; yet it was clear that both also subordinated their personal needs for the good of their organizations. This passion they had for putting their organization’s needs ahead of themselves (for the most part anyway) was important to their respective companies’ success.

How do narcissists fare in other cultural settings? There is evidence that displays of extreme self-confidence are not always welcome in non-Western contexts. In an interesting study, Zhang et al. (2015) suggest that paradoxical leadership behaviors are actually aligned with the Eastern yin-yang philosophy, where two opposing forces can be integrated. Among the paradoxical behaviors they identified are those associated with combining self-centeredness (certainly a component of narcissism) with other-centeredness. Others include the following:

·      Shows a desire to lead, but allows others to share this leadership role

·      Likes to be the center of attention, but allows others to share the spotlight as well

·      Insists on getting respect, but also shows respect toward others

·      Has a high self-opinion, but shows awareness of personal imperfection and the value of other people

·      Is confident regarding personal ideas and beliefs, but acknowledges that he or she can learn from others.

They found that among their samples of Chinese students, a combination of narcissism and humility was related to leadership effectiveness. While these authors suggest that humility may counterbalance narcissism, will different cultures accept lesser or higher levels of narcissism and humility depending on where their cultural values are in terms of power distance, individualism, and uncertainty avoidance? And what about context? When individuals perceive threats to their environment, do those who show narcissistic characteristics tend to be perceived as better leaders?

In the meantime, here are a couple of take-aways from all this research. First, individuals who wish to aspire to leadership roles would do well to adapt some leader-like skills such as energy and self-confidence. However, the extent to which these are displayed may depend on culture and context. For example, Cain (2012) has suggested that introverts and Asian-Americans can become successful leaders by using more of their soft power, such as having strong convictions and persistence. Note, however, that using soft power does not mean reducing one’s energy or self-confidence. Second, organizations should be careful in being seduced by those who may have the sizzle but not the steak (an expression I once heard from an executive when describing the dangers of picking style over substance). Learning to distinguish between constructive and pathological narcissists may be difficult, but it is important for organizations to avoid hiring and promoting the latter.

Cain, S. (2012). Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking. New York: Broadway Books.

Grijalva, E., Harms, P., Newman, D., Gaddis, B., and Fraley, R.C. (2015). Narcissism and Leadership: A Meta-Analytic View of Linear and Nonlinear Relationships. Personnel Psychology, 68: 1-47.

Kets de Vries, M. (1994). The Leadership Mystique. The Academy of Management Executive, 8 (3): 73-92.

Maccoby, M. (2000). Narcissistic Leaders: The Incredible Pros, the Inevitable Cons. Harvard Business Review, Janurary-February.

Pfeffer, J. (2015). Leadership BS: Fixing Workplaces and Careers One Truth at a Time. New York: HarperCollins.

Zhang, Y., Waldman, D., Han, Y., and Li, X. (2015). Paradoxical Leader Behaviors in People Management: Antecedents and Consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 56 (2): 538-566.