Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The process in which you evaluate yourself on a set of criteria, your manager evaluates you, as do your peers
and direct reports. You receive a gap analysis between how you perceive yourself and how others perceive you.
Effective 360-degree feedback processes also include develop planning and coaching sessions.
The terms ratee (the person being evaluated) and rater (the person doing the rating) can be cumbersome. Team
Builders Plus utilizes the phrase "feedback recipient" instead of "ratee" and "respondent" instead of "rater".
To the individual:
Perception is reality and this process helps individuals to understand how others perceive them
Uncover blind spots
Feedback is essential for learning
Individuals can better manage their own performance and careers
Quantifiable data on soft skills
To the team:
To the organization:
Styles tools measure traits or behavioral preferences, while 360 measures competence
Style explains how you are likely to behave, while 360 explains how you actually behave
While there’s no ‘master list’ or way to know for sure, given the anecdotal evidence gained through the many
articles on 360 published over the years it would seem likely that by now nearly all Fortune 1000 companies have
either already implemented a 360 process or plan to shortly. The increasing affordability of 360 has allowed many
small to mid-size companies to undertake 360 for individuals and groups within their organizations. In fact, 360
has become so well established that often individuals in companies without a formal process in place will seek
outside means to run 360 on themselves.
Given that people need time to make changes and then, it takes a little while before others perceive that change
has taken place, we have found that nine to twelve-month intervals are most appropriate. This allows people to
create change and then get feedback on their progress so that they can develop next-level goals and action
plans. However, some organizations prefer to conduct surveys of just ten to fifteen questions, focusing on a
specific topic, such as Running Effective Meetings. These mini-360s are done monthly in conjunction with training
on that topic.
There are a variety of methods to gather data but primarily this now a web-based process. However, it is also
possible to utilize paper surveys and face-to-face interviews to gather data.
The feedback recipient is the only person who gets a copy of the report. The manager gets group and
organizational data, but no individual data.
While giving the data does increase accountability and allows the manager to quantifiably track progress, there
are a variety of pitfalls to giving the manager a copy of the report, such as:
To ensure that people take an adequate time to consider each question and provide positive and constructive
feedback, the survey should be contain as few questions as possible. If survey items are carefully researched to
ensure relevance, the number of questions should not exceed 50.
A standard survey can be utilized effectively if all of the questions are relevant and all of the critical behavioral
areas are included. On average, it takes one minute to answer each question and provide comments. If questions
are not appropriate given the organization's culture or individual's role, the respondents waste much time. If
someone is being rated by twelve people and five questions are not relevant, one hour of time is wasted. Now,
consider a project in which 200 people are rated. A custom-designed survey will fit your needs and support the
organizational culture and mission. Pre-work in designing an appropriate survey pays-off in the long-run.
Confidentiality is important to both the feedback recipient and the respondents. If the feedback recipient is not
guaranteed that the results will remain confidential, they will tend to feel anxiety about the purpose of the process
and the use of the data. If the respondents are not guaranteed that their names will not appear on the report or
be linked to specific comments or ratings, then they may not provide accurate responses and be completely
open. To ensure confidentiality:
360-degree feedback and performance appraisals can complement each other, but should not be linked. If 360 is
linked to compensation decisions, it loses its power as a development tool. When compensation is the outcome,
individuals will quickly learn how to play the game, "I'll scratch your back, if you scratch mine." Further, if people
do not get satisfactory ratings, morale can decrease when 360 is linked to performance appraisal mode, but low
scores when 360 is used purely for development tend to be viewed as constructive feedback.
Is 360-degree feedback data legally defensible if linked to performance appraisal and utilized for merit
increase, bonus, promotion or firing decisions?
As William Swan & Philip Margulies summarize in their book “How to Do A Superior Performance Appraisal”,
EEOC guidelines state that "an org. must demonstrate that its appraisal process is valid, that it is job related, and
that it accurately measures significant aspects of job performance. The organization must demonstrate that the
appraisal system is the best available method, that no other system is less discriminatory." This in turn requires
that the raters can be identified with the ratings they provide. Given that raters are anonymous in the 360-degree
feedback process, revealing raters would violate confidentiality. Ultimately, organizations could be at risk if 360-
degree feedback scores are utilized for decisions arising from an appraisal process.
How can you verify the validity and reliability of a 360 survey?
Questions about validity are most important with instruments that were developed in the tradition of psychological
tests with the purpose of measuring things that cannot be observed directly, such as values, attitudes, styles and
traits. 360-degree feedback survey items should always be based on concrete, observable behaviors.
To establish face validity, show the survey to a representative group of people who will be giving and receiving
feedback and ask the following questions:
Are the questions clear or ambiguous? (Have each person restate the questions to see if
interpretation is consistent)
Are the questions relevant to the feedback recipient's job?
Are the major items addressed?
Just because a survey was validated in the context of another population, does not mean that it will be valid for
your organization. For this reason, customizable assessment platforms are the state of the art, because they can
be adjusted to align with local conditions.
Every organization, even those within the same industry, has a distinctly different culture and set of values. What
important in one organization may be relatively unimportant in another. Additionally, most participants affirm that
comments, not numeric ratings, give the most meaningful feedback. For these reasons, we have found that
comparing individual results to national norms, while indeed is interesting to consider, is not as relevant as
comparing one's scores to local norms (the scores of one's direct peers and organization as a whole).
We have found that scales of five-points or less are too small to provide a clear delineation between core
strengths and behavioral challenges. Raters should have access to at least seven rating options, and a ten-point
scale provides for an even greater spread of responses. Further, raters should be encouraged to utilize the entire
range.
Yes, when:
Lyle Spencer and Charles Morrow in The Economic Value of Competencies: Measuring ROI, found that 360-
degree feedback systems could yield a Return on Investment as high as 700 percent.
How can I get more information on the 360 process?
Check out the 360 Process page on this site, submit a question to the 360 Coach, check out the 360 Services
offered by Team Builders Plus, or call us at +1-856-596-4196, 9-5 Eastern (-5hrs. GMT).
Selecting raters is one of the most important parts of the 360 degree feedback process. If you don’t select
enough, the feedback will not be as comprehensive and valid. Too many, and the feedback becomes diluted.
360 Degree Feedback Rater Selection Instructions
The number of raters will vary based on job responsibilities and the frequency of interaction with 360 degree
feedback participants. We recommend selecting between 7 to 15 raters total. It is important that each rater can
1. Raters should be selected based on their working relationship with the participant.
2. Raters should know the participant’s work and have frequent interactions.
3. Avoid raters that are known only through casual interactions, brief meetings, or a one-time, short-term
project or presentation.
4. Include a balanced set of raters that can provide objective feedback, both positive and critical.
6. A rater may decline to provide information if they have not had sufficient interaction with the participant
7. All rater feedback except that from the participant’s immediate manager will be reported as a group. No
8. If only one rater responds from a rater group, their responses will be combined with another group to
maintain anonymity.
360 Degree Feedback Rater Groups
All 360 degree feedback raters will be assigned to one of the following rater groups:
Supervisor: The participant’s immediate supervisor. If the supervisor changed in the past three months, we
months.
Peer: Choose three to five peers that work with the participant on a regular basis.
Other (optional for internal or external clients, etc.)
Multi-Rater 360-Degree Feedback
An exceedingly popular and powerful means for managers and employees to get information
on their performance is the multi-rater 360-degree feedback instrument . Used independently, or
as part of a management development program, multi-rater 360-degree feedback can enhance self-
awareness by highlighting what supervisors, peers, subordinates, and customers see as an
individual's strengths and development needs. It is an exceptionally effective tool for change. No other
organizational action strategy has more power for motivating employee behavior change than candid
feedback from work associates. Multi-source assessment creates accountability and service to all
stakeholders: supervisor, external and internal customers, including coworkers and direct reports. In
recognition of the importance of human capital, organizations are spending billions of dollars to
enhance human performance using multi-rater 360-degree feedback tools.
All of the available evidence suggests that the greatest power residing in multi-rater feedback
is in development . However, its' use in performance appraisals is increasing. A wide range of tasks
are important in organizations, and some of them may be informed by the use of multi-rater feedback,
including selection, performance appraisal, compensation, promotions, team assignments, transfers,
downsizing, and succession planning.
establish value in the minds of its customers. A customized set of competencies for a specific position
is developed and individuals are assessed on how well they demonstrate the desired competencies.
Individuals are evaluated both on how they do the job and the results or outcomes achieved. Using
360-degree feedback instruments, employees can compare their own perceptions of their skills,
abilities, and styles with the perceptions of others.
The multi-rater 360-degree feedback process typically consists of the following steps:
Where 'regular' performance appraisals provide 'single-source' (top-down) feedback, i.e. normally
from an employee's direct line manager only, 360-degree feedback appraisals are 'multi-source' -
involving behavioral feedback from a variety of sources such as Peers, Direct Reports
('subordinates'), Customers (internal and/or external) as well as Managers. These are called Rater
Groups, consisting of three or more Raters per Rater Group (except for the Rater Group 'Manager/s'
where an employee may only have one line manager).
The employee receiving the feedback (called 'Appraisee'), gets rated by 360 Raters (also called
'Multiraters'). Only Raters having worked with the Appraisee for a period of minimum three months
should be asked to provide behavioral feedback to the Appraisee.
The Appraisee also fills out a self-rating that includes the same questions that Rater Groups receive
in their questionnaires.
Why 360 feedback? Simply put - it is harder to discount the views of several of your colleagues or
customers than the views of just one person. The 360 process also provides a much more complete
and richer picture of an employee's performance. In addition, it gives people an opportunity to provide
anonymous feedback to a colleague, which they might otherwise be uncomfortable to give face-to-
face.
360 feedback from peers and direct reports is frequently the only way that senior executives can get
feedback on their performance, as there may just not be anybody else to do it.
When managers are new to the organization, and especially if they have many direct reports, it will
normally take a while to get to know them well. 360 feedback could be the ideal process to use to
gather behavioral information on them very fast and effectively.
The data gathered from 360-degree feedback throughout the organization can be very useful in
providing insight into organization-wide behaviors and competency (or the lack thereof), and what
development and other interventions may be necessary to address weaknesses.
NOTE: Because of its very power as a behavior modification tool, 360-degree feedback - if not
implemented sensitively and professionally - can do a lot of harm to both individuals and the
organization. For it to be successful there must be a mature organizational culture of openness,
honesty, and mutual trust.
go to top
go to top
At first used primarily as a leadership developmental system for managers and executives, 360-
degree feedback is now used successfully with employees at all organizational levels.
go to top
go to top
Should 360 appraisals be mandatory or voluntary?
go to top
What is a Rater?
A Rater, also known as a Multirater, Respondent or Observer, is the person providing 360-degree
feedback to the Appraisee (feedback recipient).
Raters are classified into different Rater Groups, the most common being Peers, Manager/s, Direct
Reports ("subordinates") and Customers (internal or external).
go to top
What is a Peer?
A Peer is a "colleague" of the Appraisee - frequently a fellow team member. A Peer is an "equal" of
the Appraisee, with an equivalent level of stature in the organization. They may not necessarily work
closely together, but are reasonably familiar with each others' job requirements.
Peer feedback is normally very effective, as peer approval is important to most employees.
Employees also tend to regard Peer feedback as highly credible when their joint feedback points out
specific behavioral trends.
Peer feedback with self-directed work teams is indispensable as a behavior modification and
development tool.
go to top
Firstly, you need a large enough sample to ensure the validity of feedback results. If it is too small,
there is a real danger that the views of one rater may play too big a role in the overall results, when
the ratings get averaged.
Secondly, you need enough Raters in order to best protect the identity of individual Raters.
A minimum of three to five Raters per Rater Group is required, except with line manager feedback of
course, where there may only be one person.
With Direct Report feedback the recommendation is a minimum of four Raters, to sufficiently protect
the anonymity of employees, and to reduce their fear of being identified by the line manager. Where a
manager has more that four direct reports, involve ALL of them if realistically possible.
If there are only one or two direct reports, either do not involve them at all, or add them to a mixed
Rater Group category such as "Other" (which could also include Peers for example).
go to top
Only individuals who have worked with (or know) the Appraisee sufficiently long (three months
minimum) should be considered as Raters. The amount of contact potential Raters had with the
Appraisee over this period, and their understanding of the nature of what he/she does, should also be
considered. Another consideration is that Raters will need to be credible to the Appraisee for the latter
to accept their feedback.
It is good practice to involve 360 Appraisees in the selection of their Raters - even leaving it fully up to
them - depending on your 360 feedback philosophy and aims.
A further approach is to have the line manager and Appraisee making separate nominations, then
integrating their lists to provide the final selection. This will also help disguise Rater identities.
With Direct Report feedback, employees who have recently (or are currently) been involved in
performance or disciplinary action, or are in known conflict with their line manager, should not be
included.
Organizations that are busy with restructuring or downsizing should also consider the possible
prevailing feelings of insecurity and distrust, and whether some Raters should best not be included
(and even whether the timing for 360 appraisals would be suitable at all).
Furthermore, 360 appraisal programs will not work in dysfunctional departments, or in organizations
where there is a lack of openness and trust, and an unwillingness or fear to give and receive
feedback.
go to top
It is important that the anonymity and confidentiality of 360 Raters be guaranteed to ensure that they
cannot be identified by the Appraisee. Without this assurance, Raters may either not respond, or they
may fudge their responses to avoid potential friction.
Smart360 provides a secure solution to ensure such anonymity and confidentiality. Raters' feedback
are merely averaged and included along with others in a Rater Group.
Exception to this rule: In close-knit teams where a high maturity level in respect of giving and
receiving feedback exists, the 360 process may be enhanced if the individual Raters and their
feedback are revealed to Appraisees (with everybody's upfront knowledge and buy-in of course). The
Appraisee will then be able to ask a Rater more in-depth, clarifying questions about their feedback,
which will enhance the behavior modification and development power and potential of the 360
feedback program.
go to top
The more accurate question items describe an employee's expected work performance, the easier
Raters will be able to answer them, and the more relevant and actionable the feedback results will be.
Question items typically cover job-relevant dimensions and/or competencies (such as Leadership,
Communication, Teamwork, Customer Focus, etc.) with related behavioral indicators. They should
also be in line with the organization's vision, goals, culture and values.
Focus on the most important competencies and behaviors only (Pareto 80-20 Principle). Countless
steps, tasks, procedures, processes, and other behaviors are involved in any one position. It would be
impractical to try and include them all. The best approach is to focus on those that are crucial in the
working relationship with a specific Rater Group.
It is important to collect both quantitative (numeric) and qualitative (narrative) data. Numeric data are
ratings (normally 1 to 5) per competency/behavior that are averaged across all Raters in a Rater
Group, to give an overall "grand" average, which can also be used to compare the relative
performance of different employees. Narrative comments will offer insights into specific strengths,
weaknesses, and issues that are often missed by quantitative data alone.
Even though it takes more time to complete a survey that asks for comments, and more time to
analyze the results, the extra effort pays off in the richness of the data that will be gathered. As a
tradeoff, limit the number of questions in the 360 questionnaire (i.e. go for quality as opposed to
quantity).
Pilot the Questionnaire: Once you have added the questions/competencies to your 360
questionnaire, ask a small group of people to complete it as if they were rating a colleague that they
know well. This is your opportunity to identify redundant, confusing and missing items, and to
establish the face validity of the question set. Ask them to consider the following:
NOTE: 360-degree feedback should only be used for behavioral aspects of performance, and not also
for quantifiable outputs such as sales targets, or the like (which should rather be covered via "regular"
Performance Appraisals).
go to top
Below are some 5-point Rating Scale options. Smart360 adds the additional "rating" option"Unable to
rate; N/A" automatically.
Developmental
5. Exceptional Strength
4. Strength
3. Fully Competent
2. Development Need
1. Significant Development Need
5. Exceptional Strength
4.
3. Competent
2.
1. Weak
Performance
5. Outstanding
4. Exceeds Expectations
3. Meets Expectations
2. Below Expectations
1. Unsatisfactory
5. Exceptional
4. Superior
3. Meets Expectations
2. Needs Improvement -
1. Unsatisfactory
Comparison
Frequency
5. Always
4. Regularly
3. Sometimes
2. Rarely
1. Never
5. Almost Always
4. Most of the Time
3. Often
2. Sometimes
1. Seldom
Quality
5. Outstanding
4. Very Good
3. Good
2. Fair
1. Poor
Extent
5. Strongly Agree
4. Moderately Agree
3. Neutral
2. Moderately Disagree
1. Strongly Disagree
go to top
Most 360-degree feedback systems use the same set of around 25 to 100 questions for ALL Rater
Groups. The problem with that is that from each Rater Group's unique perspective (context), a certain
portion/percentage of these questions will not be relevant, e.g. how well can a PEER answer
questions about customer service (especially external customer service), or a CUSTOMER about
teamwork?
Most systems try to overcome this problem by using very generic questions - to fit all Rater Groups -
but with equally generic and bland results.
The context-targeted technology of Smart360 enables highly targeted question sets for each
individual Rater Group - covering its unique working relationship and involvement with the employee.
These Rater Groups can include, among others::
This leads to dramatically more useful and actionable feedback for the feedback recipient, with
resultant hugely enhanced behavior and performance improvement.
Smart360 allows for 20+ (no upper limit) Raters per 360 appraisal. Below are examples of how these
can be distributed in practice:
Educational Institutions:
(The above are examples only, as any number of raters per Rater Group and 360 can be assigned)
The number and types of Rater Groups will depend on who you want feedback from, and can
therefore be different combinations for your employees (feedback recipients).
Also consider this: because of their context-targeted focus, fewer questions need to be asked per
Rater Group, minimizing rater resistance to complete their 360 questionnaires.
go to top
The safest and most desirable option would be to only allow the Appraisee and a neutral feedback
facilitator access to 360 feedback reports. Also read the next FAQ in this regard.
At most, the direct line managers of 360 Appraisees may also be allowed access. Employees will
most likely fear the process if their line managers are given access to their feedback reports, unless
both parties have been properly informed and trained in their respective roles in the process.
Managers should, as a rule, not be allowed to interpret the results and handle the feedback and
development discussion with employees themselves. However, they should have access to the
resulting Development Plan so that they can assist employees in achieving their development goals,
and act as ongoing coaches. In this regard, management training in coaching skills is highly
recommended.
go to top
The effective feedback of 360 appraisal results is crucial for the process to succeed.
VERY IMPORTANT: Do not provide feedback in a vacuum by just letting employees get their 360
appraisal results in the form of printed or even online reports.
The feedback should be interpreted and presented by professionals who are experienced in delivering
360-degree feedback, and coaching employees to improve. This could be a suitably competent
Human Resources staff member or an external consultant.
If feedback is negative, it can be very demoralizing; so it is important that employees have access to a
neutral and experienced person who can help them understand and internalize their feedback.
It is common for feedback recipients to focus on the negative, even though they are generally doing a
good job. A professional feedback facilitator and coach can help employees identify both their
strengths and weaknesses, and create a Development Plan that encourages them to build on their
strengths and eliminate or reduce their weaknesses.
It speaks for itself that a Development Plan without the necessary support mechanisms and resources
(funds, training courses, on-the-job coaches, etc.) will not only be a waste of time, but will certainly
also do a lot of harm to the credibility of your 360 program.
go to top
This should be done as soon as possible after all the Raters have completed their respective 360
questionnaires (the latter also to be done in the shortest time span possible).
This will ensure that the feedback is still relevant when Appraisees receive it, and that their motivation
to receive it is still high.
go to top
If 360 feedback is linked to performance appraisal and compensation, it loses its power as a
development tool. Especially with peer feedback, the danger arises where individuals may quickly
learn how to play the game: "I'll scratch your back, if you scratch mine."
Appraisees are also likely to become unduly defensive during the feedback process to protect their
income levels and prevent poor raises and bonuses.
Rather adopt a positive and optimistic mindset that performance WILL improve as a result of stress-
free learning and development, based on valid 360 feedback.
For the same reason, do not place undue emphasis on comparing the 360 results of employees,
except for confidential consideration with promotion and succession planning decisions.
The 360 feedback process as a performance appraisal tool should only be considered if there is a
very strong existing performance appraisal system in place, as well as an open and mature
organizational culture where constructive feedback is readily given and accepted in a spirit of
continuous improvement and non-blaming.
go to top
The following training should be considered to ensure a successful 360 program implementation:
Line Managers: Training in coaching skills, and how to assist employees with implementing
their Development Plans, and giving ongoing feedback on progress.
Appraisees: Training in how to constructively accept feedback and effectively manage their
own Development Plans.
Raters: Training in how to provide useful positive and constructive feedback.
EVERYBODY should be informed about the concept and practice of 360-degree feedback, and how
the process will work in the organization. Cover the following during such information/training
sessions:
If employees do not trust your intentions, they will most likely sabotage your 360 initiative through
their resistance to participate. So let them know that they are not going to be dismissed, demoted, or
penalized in any way based on the results.
While receiving 360 feedback from others (especially one's peers) can be extremely intimidating, the
providing of feedback can be equally daunting for raters, as they may fear identification and even
victimization. People have to have the right mindset and skills to do it well - i.e. receiving AND giving
feedback.
The more information and training you provide upfront, the more willing everybody will be to
participate fully and appropriately.
go to top
Let them participate as 360 feedback candidates themselves, thereby setting a "visual"
example for others to follow.
Ask them to support the process in writing (e.g. in a memo to all staff), and verbally (by
opening the 360 information and training sessions).
Ask a senior manager to be the guardian of the program, and to sit on the 360 steering
committee.
go to top