No one forum for presenting the feedback is perfect. We will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each approach from three points of view: the participant’s perspective, delivery considerations, and the resources available.

Participant’s Perspective. In group sessions, a recipient may have to compete for air time or engage in discussions on issues of no particular relevance to him or her. A one-on-one presentation, on the other hand, can be personalized to focus on the specific needs and interests of a single recipient, including the impact of personal style and preferences. We recommend that a one-on-one session begin with a review of the recipient’s key challenges and achievements during the past four to six months to see how they might have affected the feedback. We also have the participant look forward—what are his or her upcoming challenges, what key events are anticipated, what will be the likely expectations related to business performance. The coach or facilitator can then help the recipient interpret the feedback within the context of his or her work environment and consider how development goals should be integrated into the normal course of events of the job.

Confidentiality is another advantage. With no one else in the feedback session, the recipient can feel secure that the results will not become generally known. Organizations frequently prefer to have an outside consultant conduct the one-on-one feedback session to ensure an even greater level of confidentiality. In addition, the outsider presents an opportunity for “true confessions”—admissions of weaknesses or discussions of problems that the manager might not want to reveal to an inside person. Finally, a one-on-one meeting provides a context for recipients to talk about specific behavior changes required back on the job and to brainstorm about realistic next steps.

In a recent session conducted with a senior executive responsible for running several diverse businesses in three countries, the executive determined that priority setting was a key area for development. After a lengthy conversation about how, exactly, he needed to improve and what got in the way of his effectiveness, he admitted that in fact he knew how to set priorities but somehow rarely took the time to do it. Instead, he allowed himself to focus on the businesses he was best at and considered most enjoyable. Only then did he identify his real need: managing his calendar to establish plans for all the businesses and allocate his own and others’ time to each. The session ended with the executive pulling out his calendar and plugging in blocks of time over a three-month period to do what for him was priority setting; in fact, what he was doing was establishing a discipline and a method for planning how to manage each business. It is unlikely that this kind of solution would have resulted from a group session.

Delivery Considerations. Because most people’s behavior patterns are well entrenched, especially if they have led to success, hearing the messages of change that the feedback may suggest and determining what to do about them can require the special attention of a coach. The person presenting the feedback can act as a sounding board and confidant to help get the recipient through what could be an arduous process of self-examination and soul searching.

Because the coaching role is so important, having the right chemistry between the facilitator and the feedback recipient is crucial to success. The facilitator of a one-on-one feedback session must be able to gain the recipient’s trust and help him or her use the feedback to bring about meaningful change. In particular, the facilitator must have a sure sense of when to confront a recipient with painful truths and when to back off. In a recent feedback session, one of our clients was delighted to learn that she was considered a competent professional with unique technical skills, viewed as results-oriented and committed to do her job well, and respected for her ability to challenge the status quo. She was not happy to learn that she was considered impatient and that her impatience was obvious in her words, tone, and body language. Having received this feedback, she looked at the facilitator and said, “Is that really true? Are you sure about that? Was that one person who is holding a grudge about a conflict we had months ago?” In fact, the feedback was unanimous—the person would raise her voice and be perceived as overly assertive when she disagreed with others. Given the facilitator’s relationship with the individual and the first-hand knowledge of the feedback, the facilitator, with permission from several raters, was able to cite specific incidents when this had occurred. With trust in the facilitator and the process, the client moved into finding ways to address the behaviors and also mend relationships that might have been damaged unintentionally.

Resource Considerations. One-on-one sessions are easy to schedule, since there is only one participant’s time to consider. Given the demanding work schedules most people must deal with, this is an important consideration.

On the other hand, meeting with people one-on-one requires a lot of time, especially when you are dealing with a large number of recipients. If you assume that each session will last about two to three hours, it is difficult to meet with more than two people a day. In addition, more than one meeting may be necessary to help the person internalize the data and develop next steps.

Participant’s Perspective. A group workshop provides a supportive environment and serves to reassure people that they are not the only ones receiving negative feedback. Some managers actually become more receptive to their feedback when they see that people they respect respond to feedback in a positive manner.

When someone is particularly affected or surprised by negative messages, a group can often help that person think through those messages, understand the reasons for the feedback, and put it into proper perspective. They can also make suggestions for development. Receiving negative feedback is a highly emotional experience for many people, and it helps boost overall team morale to experience it together. As Nieroth says, “The workshop setting allows them to support each other, as well as to explore and validate the messages that came through the feedback.” Laura Daley-Caravella, an experienced feedback giver, observes, “It can be important for people to realize that they are not alone; they are not the only ones experiencing this. Also, they often have an opportunity to see someone they really respect receive less-than-perfect feedback—it makes them realize that everyone has weaknesses.” In some workshops, we have seen participants take it upon themselves to form sub-groups to follow up on their progress and provide advice after the workshop.

Despite the benefits to be derived from the support and insight of group members, however, some people will feel uneasy at the thought that others will know about their weaknesses. Although an individual’s feedback should never be distributed for group consumption, people may still feel uncomfortable asking questions aloud that could give clues to the messages they received. Thus, a lack of privacy may mean participants will not have their feedback clarified as much as they need to. To some degree, the problem can be solved by holding small-group or breakout sessions in which individuals can spread out and work with others or privately.

Delivery Considerations. One advantage of group workshops is that they provide an opportunity to practice the skills being evaluated. People have a chance to use these skills in a controlled setting and to receive additional feedback on their effectiveness before applying them back on the job. This often gives them more confidence both in the data and in themselves and increases the likelihood that they will change their behavior.

Another advantage of this method of delivery is that most feedback workshops designed to support a purchased questionnaire are easily adapted to fit into an organization’s training curriculum. A feedback workshop can take from three hours to two days to deliver and can be integrated into a longer training session encompassing other development goals of the organization or team.

While a conscientious facilitator will always try to work with each person individually at some time during the session, time constraints and the number of people at the program limit the amount of individual attention any one person can receive. People may not get the most out of their feedback without someone asking the right questions to help them draw the right conclusions. If you anticipate that a group of people will have a difficult time digesting their feedback, consider extending the session to allow time for personal attention, or invite people to sign up for one-on-one sessions during breaks, at lunch, or in the evening.

Resource Considerations. Scheduling a one- or two-day workshop for a group of fifteen to twenty busy people can be difficult. A way to work around potential scheduling conflicts is to break the workshop into modules. In the first module, present the feedback and have each person identify strengths, behaviors in need of development, and preliminary development goals. Then schedule skills-training workshops that address specific development needs. Managers can fit the appropriate workshops into their schedules.

Offsetting the scheduling problems inherent in the group delivery method is its cost-effectiveness. Obviously, working with up to twenty people simultaneously is much less costly than holding twenty one-on-one sessions, especially if the organization is using outside facilitators.

At MetLife, a well-designed self-study approach is at the heart of their “360 On Demand” feedback process. “360 On Demand” provides anyone at the director level and above the opportunity to request an online 360. With the requirement for participation being the generation of a development plan that is linked to the performance management process, individuals initiate the process by choosing their own raters, with subsequent approval of those raters by their manager. Individuals receive quantitative and qualitative feedback on their use of key competencies and, after the questionnaires are completed by raters, the individuals are provided with their results directly. The process is streamlined, with quick turnaround on the results, and the reports are easy to interpret. They are packaged in such a way that individuals receiving feedback can easily cull out relevant development activities by applying a user-friendly roadmap to their results. Individuals also have the opportunity to consult with an internal cadre of “On Demand” coaches. These coaches are available to review the results, provide help on interpretation, and give guidance on building the development plan.

Deb Capolarello, senior vice president, human resources, people practices, and chief talent officer, describes both the popularity and the value of this process. “In addition to collecting data to monitor how the “On Demand” process is viewed, individuals are able to repeat the process after a minimum of one year to monitor progress on their development objectives. The relevance of the competencies and the candid feedback ensure targeted focus for development and the straightforward process makes for a good investment on the participants’ part.”

Participant’s Perspective. Self-study guides that accompany or are part of a feedback report are useful when people do not want to take more time out of their busy schedules than necessary. The recipient can take the report and the guide home or to a quiet place to review the feedback at his or her convenience. These guides, whether booklets or electronic programs, work best with people who have had prior experience with receiving and analyzing 360-degree feedback.

For this process to be effective, organizations must be diligent about the resources they provide and understand the potential downsides of poorly designed support materials. A set of predetermined questions to aid in the interpretation of the data must be specific enough to start people thinking about the work context in which the feedback was given and other subtleties and implications of the feedback. Especially for those receiving feedback for the first time, neither a computer program nor a feedback report alone can help people work through the emotions they are likely to feel when they receive their feedback.

Delivery Considerations. The unstructured nature of the self-study method requires managers to be responsible for finding the time to review the feedback. Although some managers appreciate the flexibility, others find that the pressure of other, higher-priority activities leads to long delays. Some never get to the task until so much time has passed that the data’s usefulness is eroded. In addition, left to their own devices, people may not take the feedback as far as it can go in helping them overcome behavioral weaknesses. Development plans may be incomplete or weak when no one else is there to offer suggestions, ask questions, and serve as a sounding board. Additionally, recipients have no chance to practice the skills that are the focus of their development plans.

This delivery method also carries with it a risk that the feedback will be misinterpreted. All the personal issues and questions that can turn into barriers to acceptance cannot be anticipated or addressed in even the most user-friendly feedback report, or interactive computer program. For that reason, it is vital that the report or guidebook be especially clear and easy to understand, although even then there is a danger that, with no one available to answer questions about interpreting the data, they may be ignored or misused.

Resource Considerations. One obvious advantage of the self-study delivery method is its low cost. Eliminating facilitators and the need to bring a group of people together for a day or more greatly reduces the expense of delivering the feedback.

Your answers to these questions, along with the information about the delivery options summarized in the chart shown in Exhibit 7.1, should enable you to select the method that will work best for you, the recipients, and your organization.