Part I of the Leadership 360 deliverable guides you through a review of your Leadership 360 Complete report in order to prepare you for completing Worksheet Part II. There is a lot of information to process, and following this guide step by step will help make reviewing your report much less overwhelming. If you have questions about interpreting your data, please first read page 4 of the report, which goes over frequently asked data interpretation questions. Then, as always, reach out to your Management professor or Lisa Green in Hughes 514 for statistics-related questions.
Important: there are several sections to this worksheet, each section dealing with a different part of the report. Please note the titles for each section to determine which kinds of feedback from the report to discuss (or not discuss) in that section.
Introductory Box Chart Pages Covering 8 Major Behavioral Domain Areas (Decision Making, Reading Others, Motivating Self & Others, Influencing Others & Communication, Managing Conflict, Working in Teams, Listening, and Assertiveness)B1. Looking at the first three box chart plots: Overall, did you have a pattern where you rated yourself higher or lower than your raters did, perhaps indicated general over- or under-confidence? If so, what was the direction? For most people, this comparison doesn’t highlight a primary issue. If your self rating is generally only slightly higher or lower (less than .5-1 point difference), or is mixed across areas, other comparisons are likely to be more central. However, consistently and significantly higher self ratings may signal overconfidence while consistently and significantly lower self-ratings may signal under-confidence. For some, this may be a critical issue affecting many other things.
B2. Based on the box charts, in which specific behavioral domain areas were your self-ratings roughly in line with others’ ratings of you?
B3. In which specific behavioral domain areas were your self-ratings higher or lower than others’ ratings of you? Differences of a half-point or more may be significant; differences of more than a point very often signal something meaningful. Note the direction of the difference.
B4. Which behavioral domain areas emerged as relatively weaker and/or relatively stronger compared to your other areas? For many people, they and others will both agree that some areas are weaker and stronger than others. Note which area or areas are generally rated lower and higher than others. Did you have any areas with mean scores below about 5? This usually indicates an area of weakness. Did you have any areas with mean scores of above 5.5? This may indicate an area of strength.
B5. Looking at the second box chart, in which areas did your ratings across the rater categories (e.g., “Personal Choice” vs. IP Teammates”) converge, or come out very similar? Convergent evidence may reinforce a message about strengths and weaknesses.
B6. In which areas did your ratings across the rater categories (e.g., “Personal Choice” vs. IP Teammates”) diverge, or look different? By how much? Disparities between the ratings’ groups shouldn’t be ignored. In some cases, they may signal differences in your behavior, or differences in people’s standards, or other differences across contexts. Such gaps can highlight important dynamics in people’s perceptions of you.
B7. Looking at the third chart, in the IP Team context, which areas emerged as relatively weaker and/or relatively stronger for you compared to the average ratings of other students from their IP teammates this term? As you’re interpreting this chart, if there’s a clear pattern of all your scores being above or below the class average score from IP teammates, it could be because your raters have different standards or survey response patterns than the average IP team member across the class. So, be thoughtful and careful about how you interpret such patterns. Where you have one or two particular data points that are significantly (over 1 point) above and/or or below the class average score from IP teammates, though, those areas are much more likely to warrant a closer look regardless of potential differences between your group of raters and others’ raters.
B8. Does anything else in these first overview charts draw your attention?
Item-Level Analyses The report proceeds after the box charts to review all individual item scores for each of the 8 major behavioral domains you were looking over above.
I1. Which were the specific items in which you got your highest and lowest mean scores? This analysis may help you drill down to identify what, more specifically, you’re doing really well – or not so well.
List your 5 Highest mean scores from your self-perceptions, along with the item text, and the domain area:
List your 5 Lowest mean scores from your self-perceptions, along with the item text, and the domain area:
List your 5 Highest mean scores from your raters’ perceptions, along with the item text, the domain area and the rater relationship (IP or Personal Choice), along with the score received for that item from the other rater group:
List your 5 Lowest mean scores from your raters’ perceptions, along with the item text, the domain area and the rater relationship (IP or Personal Choice), along with the score received for that item from the other rater group:
I2. Were the items you identified in the first part of the general behavioral domain areas you identified as key strengths and weaknesses when you analyzed the box charts in the previous section of the worksheet? If they weren’t technically labeled under one of those headings, do you see any relationships between those specific behaviors and the general domain areas you highlighted in the first section of the worksheet via your box chart analysis?
I3. Do you have a lot of low or high standard deviations (s.d.s.) across the items related to your key areas of strength/weakness, especially on the items you identified via I1? Low s.d.s mean that everyone within a rater group pretty much agreed with the mean score reported and rated you the same way. High s.d.s, by contrast, mean that different raters within that group perceived you very differently – making the mean score slightly less representative of the rater group as a whole. S.d.s of above 1 usually signify something meaningful. You may want to consider whether a high s.d. might be a result of you acting differently with different people within that group (i.e., to due to different relationships or contexts in which you have interacted) or because different people might have had different standards.
I4. For which items related to your key areas of strength/weakness did you get very similarly high or low mean scores across the two rater categories (Personal Choice vs. IP teammates)? Convergent evidence may reinforce a message about strengths and weaknesses.
I5. For which items did you get very different mean scores across the two rater categories (Personal Choice vs. IP teammates), or between your self-scores and those of others? Are these items related to key areas of strength/weakness? Disparities between the rater groups on items in your targeted areas shouldn’t be ignored. In some cases, they may signal differences in your behavior, or differences in people’s standards, or simply different contexts. Such gaps can highlight important dynamics in people’s perceptions of you.
I6. Does anything else in this detailed item-level portion of the report draw your attention? As just one example of other details to consider, you may want to look to see if there were any interesting items that a number of your raters skipped and didn’t answer for you. If there were, do you think that tells you anything meaningful?
Qualitative feedback analyses The qualitative comments include statements about strengths, areas for improvement, and advice for you. Remember that your raters were not required to leave this kind of feedback, so some of them may not have done so. Remember also that there is danger in anchoring your analysis of the report too much on this section. While this is usually the most engaging section to read, because it likely doesn’t represent the full set of your raters, be careful of getting hung up on one particularly vividly worded comment from one person that may or may not reflect what most people are perceiving. Be sure to go back and forth between these comments and the associated quantitative data from the items that will give you a better sense of how much the comment is representative of popular opinion about you. As a side note, if you had raters complete this in another language, be aware that we did translate their comments back to English for your report to try to preserve anonymity.
Q1. Were there any issues/themes about strengths that occurred repeatedly in your qualitative comments?
Q2. Were there any issues/themes about areas for improvement that occurred repeatedly in your qualitative comments?
Q3. Did any qualitative comments diverge from each other? Sometimes, raters give seemingly opposite comments (one saying “This person is a great listener” while another notes “Improve listening skills”). Such divergences can signal important variability in perceptions of you or your behavior; making sense of this kind of divergence sometimes leads to helpful insights.
Q4. Was there convergence between qualitative comments and specific item ratings? For example, did any of the comments help you to better understand your item scores? In many cases, students will find a vivid and provocative comment that spurs them to review the specific item ratings for confirmation or clarification.
Q5. Are there any other patterns in the qualitative feedback that draw your attention?
General impression analyses The section of the report involving feedback from others concludes with data on others’ general impressions of you on 4 of the “Big 5” personality dimensions (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience). Your raters did not complete the same exact items you did on these dimensions. They completed a very brief 2-item measure of each dimension, while you completed 10 totally different items related to the dimension. For this reason, your self-scores are reported separately rather than compared against each other in the same graph. This section will focus on others’ impressions of you.
GI1. Which domains showed the highest ratings from others?
GI2. Which domains showed the lowest ratings from others?
GI3. Which domains, if any, showed a difference in ratings across rater categories (Personal Choice vs. IP Teammates)? Note the domain(s) as well as the direction of the gap. If there is a difference, you may want to consider whether (and why) you might behave differently in one context vs. the other, and/or whether (and why) the two rater groups might have different standards they’re using to judge you on these dimensions.
GI4. Do you have any other comments about what you see with regard to others’ general impressions of you? You may want to comment here on any striking differences between perceptions of the average Gabelli student by their IP teammates with perceptions that your IP teammates had of you. Do you think this helps indicate where you differ, personality-wise from your peers? Or might it say something about how your team differs from the average Gabelli team this term? Or both?
Self-Evaluation Only Data: Personality & Work Values
The personality and work values section of the report contains data on what you said about yourself only. In this section, you find your results across the 50-item measure of the “Big 5” dimensions (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness to experience/intellect, and emotional stability). You also see the work values ratings of importance you provided.
PV1. On which personality dimensions did you score yourself highest? Do you see these dimensions as potential background factors to consider when explaining any of your scores on the behavioral domain areas
PV2. On which personality dimensions did you score yourself lowest? Do you see these dimensions as potential background factors to consider when explaining any of your scores on the behavioral domain areas?
PV3. On which personality dimensions did your self-report align OR differ significantly from others’ related general impressions of you spoken about in the previous section?
PV4. What do you note about the data in your values section (the last two pages of the report)? Do the work values you reported as holding most/least important relate at all to your personality? Do you think that the work values you reported to be most important to you relate to others’ perceptions of you on any of the areas across the report?
Sample Solution