When upward feedback is not feasible: testing supervisors’ perspective-taking ability as a sustainable alternative
Glauco Cioffi, Cristian Balducci, Stefano ToderiPurpose
Upward feedback (UF) is a key and evidence-based mechanism for leadership development. When supervisors are confronted with gaps between self-views and team-ratings, developmental needs are specified and concrete adjustments follow. However, organisational constraints (e.g. low maturity) or individual factors (e.g. limited feedback orientation) can hinder its feasibility, creating implementation gaps. Despite its importance, the literature has largely overlooked this issue, and viable alternatives to UF are lacking. The purpose of this study, building on the established role of meta-cognition in leadership development, is to propose one of its core sub-dimensions (i.e. perspective-taking ability) as a potential substitute when UF is not available. The authors hypothesised that supervisors, engaged in a structured prediction exercise, would accurately estimate how their teams perceive their management style.
Design/methodology/approach
In a field training context, 44 supervisors first self-assessed their management competencies and then predicted how their teams would rate such behaviours; self-perception and predictions were compared with team-aggregate ratings from 233 employees. Agreement was assessed using Bland–Altman analyses controlling for systematic disagreement and practical limits of agreement of ≈±1 Likert point
Findings
Conversely to self-assessed competencies, supervisor predictions showed no systematic disagreement compared to team ratings, and the limits of agreement overall fell within the ≈±1 threshold.
Originality/value
This study offers a practice-ready, low-cost proxy for upward feedback in feedback-constrained settings. Supervisors’ perspective-taking, operationalised through a structured prediction exercise, emerges as a sustainable alternative for identifying developmental needs and as a catalyst for supervisors’ reflective thinking.