720 Feedback

720 Feedback® provides a comparison of a participant's results over a period of time, often 12-18 months. This comparison informs participants of their developmental progress and gives them an opportunity to update and change their individual development plan.

Why we recommend 720 Feedback®?

So, why do we recommend 720 Feedback®? First off, we know it works. We pioneered the "pre-post" concept of feedback in the early 1970's, documenting measurable improvement among participants who had completed their development plans through 12-18 month re-evaluations. In addition, regular reassessment of one's skills is widely regarded as an industry 'best practice', common among high-performing leaders.

Of course, statistically validated surveys are the backbone of our 720 Feedback® programs. Comparing results over time is only effective if the instrumentation is psychometrically sound and accurate. Our 360 surveys have the following attributes:

• Expert authorship, with factor analyzed competencies, ensuring measurement acuity.
• Role-specific dimensions and questions.
• Concurrent validity through third party research.
• Research indicating which competencies drive success in each role.
• A reliable and valid theory of leadership development called the Task Cycle®.
• Support material and resources, such as feedback workshops, online development tools, and coaching to help maximize ROI.

Why use reliable assessments?

Good measurement is crucial to your change initiatives. You need to know where you stand at the start and when you finish. Otherwise, you have no accountability. To do this, your assessments must meet two basic criteria:

• They must yield operational relevance. The dimensions must make sense to all participants, and executives concerned. They must also demonstrate practical validity, meaning that scores on the instruments must relate to performance.
  
  Otherwise, if the instruments have face validity only - acceptable because they look right - but have not been shown to relate to measured performance, then you have a problem justifying investments in your programs. If you do not have good assessments of performance, you should use instruments whose validity can be demonstrated on comparable jobs.


• They must be sufficiently reliable over time to assess any change resulting from your programs. If the measures are less reliable than necessary, any change can be mistakenly interpreted. Change may appear to take place when in fact, it does not; or conversely, good change programs may be evaluated negatively because real differences are unreliably measured.