360-degree assessment

360-degree feedback, also called a 360-degree review, gives an employee a view of performance from several directions rather than from one manager alone. The circle can include direct reports, peers, supervisors, customers, suppliers and other stakeholders, usually alongside the employee's own assessment.

When to use it

• To understand how people around you experience your performance and management style, then convert that evidence into a personal development plan.

• To contribute to an organization's assessment of performance and, where policy permits, decisions about pay or promotion.

• To examine leadership standards or patterns in organizational culture across a wider group.

Origins

The broad principle of drawing on several observers has a long history. An imperial rating system in third-century China under the Wei Dynasty assessed people serving at court. During World War II, the German military used evaluations by peers, supervisors and subordinates to inform performance improvement.

Modern 360-degree assessment developed alongside the 1950s interest in motivation, job enrichment and intrinsically rewarding work. Organizational psychologist Clark Wilson is often credited with an early formal instrument, the Survey of Management Practices, which he used while teaching at the University of Bridgeport in Connecticut. DuPont adopted the instrument in 1973, followed by organizations including Dow Chemical and Pitney Bowes. By the 1990s, multi-source feedback had become common and numerous survey instruments and consulting services were available.

What it is

A traditional annual appraisal depends heavily on the immediate manager. If that person has limited visibility of the employee's work or poor judgement about people, the review can be superficial or biased. Multi-rater feedback broadens the evidence by gathering perceptions from the employee's working circle.

A typical assessment combines the employee's self-evaluation with feedback from supervisors, peers and direct reports. Customers, suppliers or other interested parties may be included when they observe relevant behaviour. The result is not an objective verdict on personality; it is a structured account of how the individual's behaviour and effectiveness are perceived by people in different roles.

How to use it

Most assessments contain four core perspectives:

• self-appraisal;

• superior's appraisal;

• subordinates' appraisal;

• peers' appraisal.

The self-appraisal records how you judge your achievements, strengths and development needs. The superior's appraisal evaluates delivery against agreed objectives. Direct reports comment on management behaviours such as clarity, delegation and coaching. Peers or internal customers assess collaboration across organizational boundaries, including responsiveness and willingness to support work outside your immediate remit.

A sound process follows these steps:

• The person being reviewed identifies supervisors, direct reports and peers who have enough contact to provide informed evidence. The administrator checks that the group is balanced and large enough to protect anonymity.

• Each rater receives a survey and a clear confidentiality explanation. Closed questions may ask, for example, how effectively the individual communicates with the team on a scale where 1 is very poor, 3 is average and 5 is very good. Open questions ask raters to explain the evidence behind a score.

• Responses are consolidated into a report containing average scores, differences among rater groups and anonymised written comments.

• A qualified coach helps the recipient interpret patterns, separate signal from isolated opinion and turn weaker areas into specific development actions.

Repeated at sensible intervals, often yearly, the assessment can show whether skills and management capability are improving. Many large organizations therefore use it primarily for development.

Using the results for pay and promotion remains controversial. The information may be relevant, but high-stakes use can encourage recipients to pressure employees for favourable ratings or otherwise game the system. That threat damages trust and data quality. Keeping the process developmental makes candid feedback more likely and keeps attention on improvement.

Top practical tip

Treat implementation as a design task, not merely a survey launch. If the organization has no experience with multi-rater feedback, use capable human-resources or specialist support to select raters, protect anonymity, aggregate responses and prepare coaches to interpret the results responsibly.

Top pitfall

Unexpectedly low ratings can be painful. Do not investigate who supplied them or dismiss the results because you disagree. The report captures employee perceptions, and those perceptions affect daily interaction. Examine recurring patterns with a trusted colleague or coach and change observable behaviour before the next review.

Further reading

• Bracken, D.W., Timmreck, C.W. and Church, A.H. (eds.) (two thousand and one). The Handbook of Multisource Feedback. Jossey-Bass.
• London, M. and Smither, J.W. (nineteen ninety-five). “Can Multi-Source Feedback Change Perceptions of Goal Accomplishment, Self-Evaluations, and Performance-Related Outcomes?” Personnel Psychology.