Purpose of the endeavor
This project aims to perform a 360-degree evaluation for Marcus Victor Grant and, by extension, for all his clients who wish to use this process. How this project is performed annually, for the previous year, is measuring the subjective perceptions of the persons from different networking categories with which Marcus Victor Grant has come into contact.
The hypotheses of this research are:
- The personal brand attributes resulting from summarizing the received answers largely remain the same from one year to the next.
- The positions of the attributes change from one year to the next
- The desirable (positive) attributes are connected to the undesirable (negative) attributes
- Based on their attributes and positions, one can define personal branding objectives, i.e., accentuate the positive attributes and reduce the weight of the negative attributes
- Based on the information received from 30-40 interviewed persons, one can draw conclusions regarding the noted changing directions (to which extent the past objectives have been fulfilled and which objectives can be set for the future).
- Of the list of positive attributes, one can extract the strengths of the subject, which can be confirmed using psychometric methods, and the weaknesses – which can be applied to personal branding and career management.
- Based on the findings, one can perform a SWOT analysis of the subject.
If these have been met, the study’s objectivity is granted by clearly setting specific positive attributes and certain negative attributes as an average of the respondents’ subjectivity. Thus, a 360-degree evaluation is performed.
Step 1. One sets professional and personal categories equal in terms of the number of people included.
Step 2. For each category, one sets a list of persons that are asked (via e-mail and telephone) the following: 4 positive features and 4 negative features that first come to mind, subjectively, related to the subject of the evaluation. Then, one writes down the answers of these persons in a compressed manner, such as a table (the participants in the workshop and the consultancy clients receive a table both in electronic and printed form).
The selection criteria for those who have responded. Respondents:
- Those who are predominantly included in a context (they have formed an impression of the subject from a particular viewpoint)
- With whom the issue has kept in touch during the time the evaluation has taken place
- Who has a high intuitive capacity to know others, either by the nature of their relationship with the subject or by the nature of their profession
- Who have not given feedback to a past evaluation (exception: maximum 3 persons in the previous years for each review, and those should preferably give their opinion from a perspective different from the previous one).
The classification of the major categories of respondents for the subject Marcus Victor Grant:
1a. Persons that have met the subject for a significant timeframe (e.g.: relatives, friends, clients, collaborators, colleagues)
1b. Persons whom the subject has met once or twice, on several occasions (networking events; courses, seminars, training sessions, short-term workshops; dating)
2a. Persons in the professional field (clients, web 2.0, trainers, coaches, master colleagues)
2b. Persons in one’s personal field (relatives, friends, buddies, acquaintances, roommates, dating, people met during hobby-related activities)
Step 3. One differentiates between the persons who have given complete answers (at least 3 positive attributes and at least 3 negative attributes, each distinctive and different from one other) and those who have given incomplete answers.
Step 4. One prepares a list of frequencies based on all answers.
Step 5. The success rate found using this initial approach is recorded to be 40-50 % (complete answers from real answers – so for 30-40 feedbacks, one must approach around 80 persons). If the number of persons required for a networking category has not been reached, it shall be supplemented by contacting other persons that fall into the same category.
Step 6. Rating the answers.
The complete answers shall be scored as follows for each attribute:
|The position of the attribute in the respondent’s list X1…..Xn (n complete answers)||No. of points|
The scoring for each positive attribute and each negative attribute for all the complete answers are added.
Step 7. Depending on how the attributes are defined (a series of words and expressions), the strengths and weaknesses are related graphically and transparently.
Step 8. A content analysis is performed based on the obtained results.
Step 9. The final answer is disseminated to all those who participated in the research while complying with the confidentiality of the correspondents (only their initials are written down in the file to be sent to them).
Step 10. Professional development objectives are defined for the following year (the evaluation for 2018 is performed in 2019, while the objectives are set for 2019)
- The analysis is performed in the first person by the subject of the evaluation and the one recording the answers (feedback).
- The methodology for evaluating the personal brand is performed by Marcus Victor Grant and perfected in time.
- In the end, a ranking of the persons who know the subject best is also performed, depending on how many and which attributes have been specified by each respondent. This ranking helps because these are the persons who know best the subject of the evaluation and can give relevant feedback on it in the future.
That being said,
I wish you Happy Self-Branding!
Text Copyright © Marcus Victor Grant 2010-present. Translation by Cristiana Brezeanu of the article “Evaluarea la 360 de grade – principii generale“, previously published in Romanian at the 19th of May 2013 on Discerne. Text Copyright © Marcus Victor Grant, all rights reserved. Originally written in 2010.