I spend a fair amount of time taking to leaders about how they and others see themselves on the back of 360 degree feedback (aka multi-rater feedback). In general terms people seem to fall into three broad comps: firstly there are those who have an over-inflated view of themselves relative to others, secondly, the ‘under-inflaters’, and lastly, those whose self image aligns pretty closely to others.

The ‘over’ and ‘under-inflaters ‘give coaches different challenges:  ‘over-inflaters’ often selectively pick up on positive messages that confirm their self-perception, rationalising away contrary messages. The coaching role is therefore to ‘hold up the mirror’ squarely and robustly to let a more balanced message in. For ‘under-inflaters ‘ the coaches role is reverse, helping the client see a more positive and rounded view of themselves even if they cling to a negative view.

These reactions can be neatly explained with an understanding of the ‘self-consistency’ and ‘self-enhancement’ motives – terms coined by social psychologist Dr Roy Baumeister. We all need a consistent or enduring sense of ourselves, and some of us need to feel we are better than the next man (or woman). For those with inflated self-esteem both motives apply, whereas for those with low self-esteem the consistency motive wins out – its less anxiety provoking to believe bad things as long as it is the same things!.

So as coaches we have an interesting paradox to contend with when debriefing 360 feedback – instead of increasing self knowledge and awareness we may inadvertently help people confirm their existing (erroneous) self-image rather than challenging it. Coaches need to have their wits about them to spot the give away signs and be prepared for some challenging conversations!

Given we walk around all day with ourselves for company you would think we would know ourselves pretty well . However the evidence would suggest otherwise – most of us seem to distort how we see ourselves, either inflating or deflating our capabilities and capacities out of line with how others see us.

Getting to know our real self is more than a bit tricky. Even systems such as 360 feedback are not infallible – we often present to different people in very variable ways and it is not uncommon for our bosses to view us differently from our peers or teams. Which one is the ‘true’ self? We are also skilled a selectively hearing messages from feedback, picking out those that confirm our self image and rejecting those that don’t

If this were not difficult enough, many of us are disconnected from our view of our ideal self – the self we would like to be – the reputation we would like, or the difference we want to make. However, according to leadership author Richard Boyatzis, this is the self view that can drive and propel change . Boyatzis believes that the more we are connected to our ideal self the more we are likely to accurately self-assess. Tackling our weaknesses (aka development needs) therefore become palatable when the ideal self provides the imperative.

Important stuff to remember if you work in the business of developing people.

Goleman, D, Boyatzis, R and McKee, A. (2001) Primal Leadership: the hidden driver of performance, Harvard Business Review

Having delivered a lot of 360 feedback to people over the years I’ve noticed how often people seem to selectively pick out the messages they want to hear and reject or rationalise away the rest. Not too surprising at one level, but given the intent of 360 feedback is (in part) to puncture our self-delusions not reinforce them, this form of selective hearing seems worth paying attention to.

William Swann*, US psychologist, talks about two competing motives that tend to preserve and reinforce our view of ourselves: the self-consistency and self-enhancement motives. Those with a stronger self-consistency drive need to see themselves as essentially unchanging – even if it means clinging to a poor self-image. So when faced with good feedback they will often diminish or minimise it, whilst lapping up the bad news. A stronger self-enhancement motive shows up as people wanting to enhance their view of themselves – so guess what – the good news gets heard and the bad news gets rejected. This makes it tough work for the coach trying to increase a client’s self-awareness but understanding these motives does help.

So what do you find harder – the good new or the bad news?

* Swann,W.B. et al (1999) The cognitive-affective crossfire: when self-consistency confronts self-enhancement, in: Roy F. Baumeister (Ed.), The self in social psychology, Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Click here for a link