360-degree Feedback Definition
360-degree feedback is an evaluation method that incorporates feedback from the worker, his/her peers,
superiors, subordinates, and customers. Results of these confidential surveys are tabulated and shared
with the worker, usually by a manager. Interpretation of the results, trends and themes are discussed as
part of the feedback. The primary reason to use this full circle of confidential reviews is to provide the
worker with information about his/her performance from multiple perspectives. From this feedback, the
worker is able to set goals for self-development which will advance their career and benefit the
organization. With 360-degree feedback, the worker is central to the evaluation process and the ultimate
goal is to improve individual performance within the organization. Under ideal circumstances, 360-degree
feedback is used as an assessment for personal development rather than evaluation.
360-degree Feedback, or multi-rater feedback, was used by 90% of Fortune 500 companies last year
(Carruthers, 2003). It is generally believed to be a highly effective performance evaluation tool yet there
are many who doubt its benefits. Considering factors for the success and the failure of this popular
method will provide guidelines and suggestions for its use.
Using 360 performance appraisal
Advantages:
● Could provide more balanced and constructive feedback
● Mainly used for the developmental purpose, less appropriate for deciding reward
● Greater validity
● Could facilitate open communications
Disadvantages:
● Cost
● Might produce an overwhelming amount of information
● Might be hard of get full participation from all parties involved
● Need to consider cultural and institutional constraints
What is a 360 degree review?
A 360 degree performance review is a formalized process whereby an individual receives feedback from
multiple individuals or “raters” who regularly interact with the person being reviewed, commonly
referred to as “the learner”. The objective is to provide the learner with feedback on their performance
behaviors and outcomes as well as their potential, while identifying and establishing development goals.
As a result of this feedback, the learner is expected to be able to set goals for self development which will
support the advancement of their careers and in turn benefit the organization. The raters typically
represent the learner’s boss, peers, subordinates, customers and sometimes even their significant others.
Their own self assessments complete the circle.
An organization needs to decide up front if the purpose of the feedback is developmental only, or if it will
be evaluative and linked to promotion and reward. A 360 degree process is most often used as an
assessment tool for personal development rather than evaluation and experts warn that linking 360 degree
,feedback to administrative actions such as selection or pay could skew the feedback and become
detrimental to the process. (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1998) For example, if the results of a 360 degree process are
tied to an employee’s eligibility for advancement either in pay or position, the raters, who may see
themselves as competitors, may become motivated to provide negative feedback. The process would be
seen as a control tool, negatively impacting its reliability and validity within that organization. Raters
respond to a variety of standardized questions evaluating the learner’s competencies, performance
behaviors and performance outcomes either by inputting feedback into a computerized system or by
recording responses using a paper format. Although the learner actively selects who the raters are, the
author of the specific feedback is anonymous. The feedback is typically collected and compiled into a
report for the learner, breaking the feedback down into a series of ratings and scores on a numerical scale
indicating areas of strengths and opportunities for development.
Factors Linked to Failure
Many organizations have rushed into 360-degree feedback without laying the foundation for success.
Typical errors include:
● Feedback tied to merit pay or promotions
● Comments traced to individuals causing resentment between workers
● Feedback not linked to organizational goals or values
● Use of the feedback tool as a stand alone without follow-up
● Poor implementation of 360-degree tool negatively affects motivation
● Excessive number of surveys are required of each worker with few tangible results
provided to individuals (Clark, S., Whittall, A., 2003)
Dr. John Sullivan, of San Francisco State University, states his concerns about 360-degree feedback:
"There is no data it actually improves productivity, increases retention, decreases grievances or that it is
superior to forced ranking and standard Perormance Appraisal systems. It sounds good but there is no
proof it works other than a lot of companies have tried it."
Weighing the Pros and Cons
Reviewing comments from practitioners and corporate use of this method will provide further
understanding of the pros and cons of 360-degree feedback. Alan Hoffmanner (personal communication,
February 1, 2004) of AGILEdge, has facilitated the use of 360-degree feedback programs with dozens of
companies. He lists many positive results to using the 360-degree method:
"I received frequent feedback that it had an overall positive effect on the organization since as employees
broadly evaluated their managers on people, personal effectiveness and attitudes; it raised the
consciousness on these issues such that they observed changes/improvements in their
culture/relationships..."
Hoffmanner's comments are supported in the literature (Tornow, 1998, Heathfield, S., 2001) that highlight
the human benefits of "connectivity" where workers feel more linked with each other as a result of
focusing on common goals for the benefit of the organization.
, A. Randel (personal communication, January 26, 2003), formerly of Hewlett-Packard and Agilent
Technologies, distributed 360-degree surveys frequently and rarely had any surprise information revealed.
Typical comments received showed respect and appreciation of co-workers but seldom any negative
remarks. This perplexing result can be explained by the open methodology of the survey (they were not
confidential), and the fact that the workers usually made their complaints verbally to her. Organizational
climate indeed plays a large role in the effective use of this assessment tool (Tornow).
IBM provides an interesting example highlighting a shift in use of assessments. Until recently, IBM used
360-degree feedback as part of their annual performance review. This practice was halted as the reviews
had become politically charged and were no longer reliable. Since IBM appreciated the value of multiple
perspectives, a new employee satisfaction survey was implemented to regain the benefits found in using
the survey without the pitfalls (Carruthers, and Hoffmanner).
Why 360 Programs Fail:
a. The Boss doesn’t get involved or discounts
the program’s importance. 360 programs that get driven by
HR without much attention from the boss are not effective.
Whatever the boss gives importance to gets the attention of
his/her reports. The boss has to be a believer that this stuff
helps the team.
2.
a. The 360 tool/questions are too vague. A lot of
360 programs consist only of personality profiles. “Are you
an ESTJ or an INFP?” “Are you a red or blue color?” It’s
amazing how popular personality profiles have become.
Some people get to be “true believers” in them. However, if
that’s the extent of your 360 questionnaire, you’re likely
going to have a hard time translating your team’s profiles
into specific and measureable actions. Make sure that the tool
you select is going to give back actionable information.
3.
a. People offer comments that are personal in
nature rather than constructive. Some people have had really
bad 360 experiences. These are usually what gets depicted in
Dilbert and they usually turn people off on the process going
forward. This is a shame. You’ve got to ensure that everyone
understands the purpose of the exercise is to be constructive,
360-degree feedback is an evaluation method that incorporates feedback from the worker, his/her peers,
superiors, subordinates, and customers. Results of these confidential surveys are tabulated and shared
with the worker, usually by a manager. Interpretation of the results, trends and themes are discussed as
part of the feedback. The primary reason to use this full circle of confidential reviews is to provide the
worker with information about his/her performance from multiple perspectives. From this feedback, the
worker is able to set goals for self-development which will advance their career and benefit the
organization. With 360-degree feedback, the worker is central to the evaluation process and the ultimate
goal is to improve individual performance within the organization. Under ideal circumstances, 360-degree
feedback is used as an assessment for personal development rather than evaluation.
360-degree Feedback, or multi-rater feedback, was used by 90% of Fortune 500 companies last year
(Carruthers, 2003). It is generally believed to be a highly effective performance evaluation tool yet there
are many who doubt its benefits. Considering factors for the success and the failure of this popular
method will provide guidelines and suggestions for its use.
Using 360 performance appraisal
Advantages:
● Could provide more balanced and constructive feedback
● Mainly used for the developmental purpose, less appropriate for deciding reward
● Greater validity
● Could facilitate open communications
Disadvantages:
● Cost
● Might produce an overwhelming amount of information
● Might be hard of get full participation from all parties involved
● Need to consider cultural and institutional constraints
What is a 360 degree review?
A 360 degree performance review is a formalized process whereby an individual receives feedback from
multiple individuals or “raters” who regularly interact with the person being reviewed, commonly
referred to as “the learner”. The objective is to provide the learner with feedback on their performance
behaviors and outcomes as well as their potential, while identifying and establishing development goals.
As a result of this feedback, the learner is expected to be able to set goals for self development which will
support the advancement of their careers and in turn benefit the organization. The raters typically
represent the learner’s boss, peers, subordinates, customers and sometimes even their significant others.
Their own self assessments complete the circle.
An organization needs to decide up front if the purpose of the feedback is developmental only, or if it will
be evaluative and linked to promotion and reward. A 360 degree process is most often used as an
assessment tool for personal development rather than evaluation and experts warn that linking 360 degree
,feedback to administrative actions such as selection or pay could skew the feedback and become
detrimental to the process. (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1998) For example, if the results of a 360 degree process are
tied to an employee’s eligibility for advancement either in pay or position, the raters, who may see
themselves as competitors, may become motivated to provide negative feedback. The process would be
seen as a control tool, negatively impacting its reliability and validity within that organization. Raters
respond to a variety of standardized questions evaluating the learner’s competencies, performance
behaviors and performance outcomes either by inputting feedback into a computerized system or by
recording responses using a paper format. Although the learner actively selects who the raters are, the
author of the specific feedback is anonymous. The feedback is typically collected and compiled into a
report for the learner, breaking the feedback down into a series of ratings and scores on a numerical scale
indicating areas of strengths and opportunities for development.
Factors Linked to Failure
Many organizations have rushed into 360-degree feedback without laying the foundation for success.
Typical errors include:
● Feedback tied to merit pay or promotions
● Comments traced to individuals causing resentment between workers
● Feedback not linked to organizational goals or values
● Use of the feedback tool as a stand alone without follow-up
● Poor implementation of 360-degree tool negatively affects motivation
● Excessive number of surveys are required of each worker with few tangible results
provided to individuals (Clark, S., Whittall, A., 2003)
Dr. John Sullivan, of San Francisco State University, states his concerns about 360-degree feedback:
"There is no data it actually improves productivity, increases retention, decreases grievances or that it is
superior to forced ranking and standard Perormance Appraisal systems. It sounds good but there is no
proof it works other than a lot of companies have tried it."
Weighing the Pros and Cons
Reviewing comments from practitioners and corporate use of this method will provide further
understanding of the pros and cons of 360-degree feedback. Alan Hoffmanner (personal communication,
February 1, 2004) of AGILEdge, has facilitated the use of 360-degree feedback programs with dozens of
companies. He lists many positive results to using the 360-degree method:
"I received frequent feedback that it had an overall positive effect on the organization since as employees
broadly evaluated their managers on people, personal effectiveness and attitudes; it raised the
consciousness on these issues such that they observed changes/improvements in their
culture/relationships..."
Hoffmanner's comments are supported in the literature (Tornow, 1998, Heathfield, S., 2001) that highlight
the human benefits of "connectivity" where workers feel more linked with each other as a result of
focusing on common goals for the benefit of the organization.
, A. Randel (personal communication, January 26, 2003), formerly of Hewlett-Packard and Agilent
Technologies, distributed 360-degree surveys frequently and rarely had any surprise information revealed.
Typical comments received showed respect and appreciation of co-workers but seldom any negative
remarks. This perplexing result can be explained by the open methodology of the survey (they were not
confidential), and the fact that the workers usually made their complaints verbally to her. Organizational
climate indeed plays a large role in the effective use of this assessment tool (Tornow).
IBM provides an interesting example highlighting a shift in use of assessments. Until recently, IBM used
360-degree feedback as part of their annual performance review. This practice was halted as the reviews
had become politically charged and were no longer reliable. Since IBM appreciated the value of multiple
perspectives, a new employee satisfaction survey was implemented to regain the benefits found in using
the survey without the pitfalls (Carruthers, and Hoffmanner).
Why 360 Programs Fail:
a. The Boss doesn’t get involved or discounts
the program’s importance. 360 programs that get driven by
HR without much attention from the boss are not effective.
Whatever the boss gives importance to gets the attention of
his/her reports. The boss has to be a believer that this stuff
helps the team.
2.
a. The 360 tool/questions are too vague. A lot of
360 programs consist only of personality profiles. “Are you
an ESTJ or an INFP?” “Are you a red or blue color?” It’s
amazing how popular personality profiles have become.
Some people get to be “true believers” in them. However, if
that’s the extent of your 360 questionnaire, you’re likely
going to have a hard time translating your team’s profiles
into specific and measureable actions. Make sure that the tool
you select is going to give back actionable information.
3.
a. People offer comments that are personal in
nature rather than constructive. Some people have had really
bad 360 experiences. These are usually what gets depicted in
Dilbert and they usually turn people off on the process going
forward. This is a shame. You’ve got to ensure that everyone
understands the purpose of the exercise is to be constructive,
