The problem is compounded when the leader is a woman or from a minority group. Women in general get less useful feedback about their performance in any position than do men. Similar studies show this to be true for Chinese and Indian executives as well.

Executives are often unaware of this dynamic. Many believe they are attuned to their environment because they ask questions and solicit feedback. They believe they are getting the truth. But people have difficulty delivering the complete truth when the message is less than favorable. And the more personal the message, the less chance it has of getting delivered at all.

Top executives typically get the least reliable information about how they are doing. A meta-analysis of 177 separate studies that assessed 28,000 managers found that performance feedback becomes more inconsistent the higher the person’s position.

Often the reason is simply that it makes people uncomfortable to be candid. They don’t know how to be frank without risking injury or backlash. Few people want to intentionally hurt another person’s feelings, and they certainly don’t want to be misinterpreted and accused of trying to do harm. Often silence is chosen rather than risk. People swing too far in the direction of "being nice" rather than being useful and providing accurate observations about behavior.

When people avoid giving honest feedback by sanitizing it to keep up comfort levels, they are actually doing a disservice. They are depriving their own leaders of valuable information.

Emotionally intelligent leaders will actively seek out negative feedback as well as positive. They understand they need a full range of information to perform better, whether it makes them comfortable or not.

How should leaders seek out the truth then? It is clear that it is up to leaders to actively cultivate feedback if they are to have the information they need to make changes and to adapt to the environment. Rare are those people who will dare tell a strong leader he or she is coming across as too commanding or harsh. People generally won’t stand up and let a leader know he could be more visionary or more democratic.

A study of 400 executives shows that the most effective leaders actively seek negative feedback. They let it be known that they are open to receive critiques either of their ideas or their leadership. The least successful executives most often solicit confirming feedback.

The 360-degree assessment method offers a fuller picture for anyone wanting to develop a plan for improvement. Asking input of many people, subordinates, colleagues, superiors, peers and even family members can offer multiple perspectives. This multiple perspective is designed to give a fuller picture of the "real" person. How accurate this is depends on 1) whether the respondents interact regularly with the person and 2) whether the person reveals himself to others.

Since a person can be different with each person, it is important that many respondents be involved. An overall consensus is then derived. Interestingly, one study shows that subordinates and peers are more predictive of a leader’s success than their boss. In this study of the effectiveness of leaders in a government agency, how subordinates assessed the leader proved most predictive of the leader’s success and effectiveness both two and four years following the assessment. Even after seven years, the subordinates’ assessments were predicting the leader’s success with far more accuracy than the boss’s own assessments.