The 360 Split: Coaching a Resistant but Critical Leader
Renata leads a four-person talent development team at a 900-employee logistics firm. Her 360 feedback, collected last month, shows a sharp split: peers rate her collaboration 2.4 out of 5, while her manager rates her 4.5. Two stakeholders separately told her HR business partner that she 'shuts down ideas in meetings.' Renata disputes the pattern and has the transcript of one meeting where she believes she was simply enforcing the agenda. Her team is nine weeks from launching a leadership program, and she is the only person who has run the vendor negotiations for it. She asks you, her manager, how much weight to give the feedback.
1. Renata wants a ruling on whether the feedback is valid, pointing to her manager's high rating and the meeting transcript. How do you coach her to interpret the data?
Read the worked answer
Do not issue a verdict. Adjudicating 'valid' or 'invalid' lets her argue the data instead of examining behavior, and you do not have enough information either.
Reframe the question from is this fair? to what would explain the gap?
- Different vantage points. A manager sees outputs and deadlines; peers see how she handles disagreement in the moment. Both ratings can be accurate descriptions of different slices of her work.
- A transcript is a weak sample. It records words, not tone, pacing, or whether she invited dissent before stating her position. One meeting is also n=1.
- Intent versus impact. Enforcing an agenda is a legitimate need. The question is whether her method leaves others feeling their input was foreclosed - and that is testable.
Ask her to collect two or three specific behavioral examples from trusted peers, look for a pattern, and run a small experiment in the next three meetings: solicit input before stating her view, then summarize what she heard. Set a review date. This respects her skepticism while keeping the burden on evidence rather than self-defense.
2. Given that Renata controls the vendor negotiations and her manager rates her highly, what is your responsibility as her manager?
Read the worked answer
Treat this as both a development issue and a business-continuity risk, and act on both without using one to excuse the other.
- Do not let her critical-path role protect her from the feedback. Single-point dependency is exactly why the behavior matters: if peers disengage, the leadership program's adoption suffers even if the contract is well negotiated.
- Reduce the dependency. Ask her to bring a second team member into the negotiation status and documentation. Frame it as continuity planning, not demotion, and set a date by which someone else can run the next round.
- Set observable goals, not attitude goals. For example: in the next three stakeholder meetings, invite dissent before stating a position and restate others' points accurately.
- Do not overcorrect into formal performance action. The pattern is peer-level and recent; a formal process now would likely harden her defensiveness. But note the risk that her manager's 4.5 creates a blind spot, and gather your own observations rather than relying on either rating.
Schedule a six-to-eight-week pulse with two peers. If the pattern persists after specific coaching and clear goals, escalate to a documented development plan.