This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (March 2019)
A 360-degree feedback (also known as multi-rater feedback, multi source feedback, or multi source assessment) is a process through which feedback from an employees subordinates, colleagues, and supervisor(s), as well as a self-evaluation by the employee themselves is gathered. Such feedback can also include, when relevant, feedback from external sources who interact with the employee, such as customers and suppliers or other interested stakeholders. 360-degree feedback is so named because it solicits feedback regarding an employee's behavior from a variety of points of view (subordinate, lateral, and supervisory). It therefore may be contrasted with "downward feedback" (traditional feedback on work behavior and performance delivered to subordinates by supervisory or management employees only; see traditional performance appraisal), or "upward feedback" delivered to supervisory or management employees by subordinates only.
Organizations have most commonly utilized 360-degree feedback for developmental purposes, providing it to employees to assist them in developing work skills and behaviors. However, organizations are increasingly using 360-degree feedback in performance evaluations and employment decisions (e.g., pay; promotions). When 360-degree feedback is used for performance evaluation purposes, it is sometimes called a "360-degree review".
There is a great deal of debate as to whether 360-degree feedback should be used exclusively for development purposes or for evaluation purposes as well. This is due primarily to feedback providers' subjectivity and motivations, inter-rater variations, and whether feedback providers have the ability to fairly evaluate attainment of work and organizational objectives. While these issues exist when 360-degree feedback is used for development, they are more prominent when employers use them for performance evaluation purposes, as they can unfairly influence employment decisions, and even lead to legal liability.
The origins are with the German Reichswehr around 1930, when the military psychologist Johann Baptist Rieffert developed a methodology to select officer candidates. One of the earliest recorded uses of surveys to gather information about employees occurred in the 1950s at the Esso Research and Engineering Company. From there, the idea of 360-degree feedback gained momentum, and by the 1990s most human resources and organizational development professionals understood the concept. The problem was that collecting and collating the feedback demanded a paper-based effort including either complex manual calculations or lengthy delays. The first led to despair on the part of practitioners; the second to a gradual erosion of commitment by recipients.
However, due to the rise of the Internet and the ability to conduct evaluations online with surveys, multi-rater feedback use steadily increased in popularity. Outsourcing of human resources functions also has created a strong market for 360-degree feedback products from consultants. This has led to a proliferation of 360-degree feedback tools on the market.
Today, studies suggest that over one-third of U.S. companies use some type of multi-source feedback. Others claim that this estimate is closer to 90% of all Fortune 500 firms. In recent years, this has become encouraged as Internet-based services have become standard in corporate development, with a growing menu of useful features (e.g., multiple language options, comparative reporting, and aggregate reporting). However, issues abound regarding such systems' validity and reliability, particularly when used in performance appraisals.
Many 360-degree feedback tools are not customized to the needs of the organizations in which they are used. 360-degree feedback is not equally useful in all types of organizations and with all types of jobs. Additionally, using 360-degree feedback tools for appraisal purposes has increasingly come under fire as performance criteria may not be valid and job based, employees may not be adequately trained to evaluate a co-worker's performance, and feedback providers can manipulate these systems. Employee manipulation of feedback ratings has been reported in some companies who have utilized 360-degree feedback for performance evaluation including GE (Welch 2001), IBM (Linman 2011), and Amazon (Kantor and Streitfeld 2015).
Some members of the U.S. military have criticized its use of 360-degree feedback programs in employment decisions because of problems with validity and reliability. Other branches of the U.S. government have questioned 360-degree feedback reviews as well. Still, these organizations continue to use and refine their assessments that offer multi-rater feedback in their development processes since they offer unique opportunities for leaders to increase their self-awareness of how they are perceived by their subordinates, peers, and supervisors.
Adopting the 360-degree review approach is purported to be superior to other traditional forms of evaluation and feedback for evaluating employee performance. When successfully implemented, this method initiates a vast positive change and provides a more efficient, thorough, and accurate assessment of performance reviews. Participants must feel the survey instruments are reliable and valid otherwise this multi-source approach can be viewed as problematic. Management has to ensure their employees are aware of the context in the survey to maximize accuracy and minimize bias in responses. Several inconsistencies and errors can arise in the feedback depending on whether or not:
- The rater interacts with the employee regularly
- The rater lets their emotions influence their judgement
- The employee reveals themselves to the rater honestly and completely
- The rating has been retained confidentially (if not the rater may not provide an honest rating)
- The rater has a high level of confidence in the accuracy of their rating
- There is a personal relationship between the employee and rater
The amount and level of training in 360-degree feedback for both the rater and ratee can affect the level of accuracy of the feedback. If no guidance is given, individual bias may affect the rater's ratings and the ratee's interpretation of the feedback. However, even with training measures in place, unconscious bias may still occur due to factors such as the cultural influences or relationship quality between the rater and ratee. Additionally, if there are potential consequences from rater feedback, rater motivation may shift from providing accurate feedback to providing feedback based on self-motivated reasons such as promoting or harming a particular individual. Therefore, it is imperative that a baseline of trust be established between the raters and ratees to improve rater accountability and feedback accuracy.
Furthermore, it is important to recognize who will receive the data collected and who will maintain the confidentiality of that data. The manager or HR employee who manages the collection of data will need to ensure its confidentiality. When participants remain anonymous, they are more likely to provide more accurate feedback because their fear of being reprimanded is eliminated thereby strengthening the accuracy of the review. Moreover, the data should only be available to the employee who has been reviewed and the manager who will be facilitating the feedback for developmental purposes.
It is also vital to standardize how information is collected during the review process. 360-degree feedback may be susceptible to decreased accuracy based on the style of survey used. Research has shown that feedback results may change based on the rating scale used in the survey as well as the length of the survey. Furthermore, rater feedback may change based on the time they completed the survey.
A study on the patterns of rater accuracy shows that the length of time that a rater has known the individual being evaluated has the most significant effect on the accuracy of a 360-degree review. The study shows that subjects in the group "known for one to three years" are the most accurate, followed by those "known for less than one year," followed by those "known for three to five years" and the least accurate being those "known for more than five years." The study concludes that the most accurate ratings come from those who have known the individual being reviewed long enough to get past the first impression, but not so long that they begin to generalize favorably.
It has been suggested that multi-rater assessments often generate conflicting opinions and that there may be no way to determine whose feedback is accurate. Studies have also indicated that self-ratings are generally significantly higher than the ratings given from others. The motivations and biases of feedback providers must be taken into account.
Several studies indicate that the use of 360-degree feedback helps to improve employee performance because it helps the evaluated see different perspectives of their performance. In a 5-year study, no improvement in overall rater scores was found from the 1st year to the 2nd, but scores rose with each passing year from 2nd to 4th. Reilly et al. (1996) found that performance increased between the 1st and 2nd administrations, and sustained this improvement 2 years later. Additional studies show that 360-degree feedback may be predictive of future performance.
Some authors maintain, however, that there are too many confounding variables related to 360-degree evaluations to reliably generalize their effectiveness. Bracken et al. (2001b) and Bracken and Timmreck (2001) focus on process features that are likely to also have major effects on creating behavior change. Greguras and Robie (1998) tracked how the number of raters used in each particular category (direct report, peer, manager) affects the reliability of the feedback. Their research showed that direct reports are the least reliable and, therefore, more participation is required to produce a reliable result. Multiple pieces of research have demonstrated that the scale of responses can have a major effect on the results, and some response scales are better than others. Goldsmith and Underhill (2001) report the powerful influence of the evaluated individual following up with raters to discuss their results, which cannot be done when feedback is anonymous. Other potentially powerful factors affecting behavior change include how raters are selected, manager approval, instrument quality, rater training and orientation, participant training, supervisor training, coaching, integration with HR systems, and accountability.
Some researchers claim that the use of multi-rater assessment does not improve company performance. One 2001 study found that 360-degree feedback was associated with a 10.6 percent decrease in market value, and concludes that "there is no data showing that [360-degree feedback] actually improves productivity, increases retention, decreases grievances, or is superior to forced ranking and standard performance appraisal systems."
One group of studies proposed four paradoxes that explain why 360-degree evaluations do not elicit accurate data: (1) the Paradox of Roles, in which an evaluator is conflicted by being both peer and the judge; (2) the Paradox of Group Performance, which admits that the vast majority of work done in a corporate setting is done in groups, not individually; (3) the Measurement Paradox, which shows that qualitative, or in-person, techniques are much more effective than mere ratings in facilitating change; and (4) the Paradox of Rewards, which shows that individuals evaluating their peers care more about the rewards associated with finishing the task than the actual content of the evaluation itself.
Additional studies found no correlation between an employee's multi-rater assessment scores and his or her top-down performance appraisal scores (provided by the person's supervisor). They advise that although multi-rater feedback can be effectively used for appraisal, care needs to be taken in its implementation or results will be compromised. This research suggests that 360-degree feedback and performance appraisals get at different outcomes. Therefore, traditional performance appraisals as well as 360-degree feedback should be used in evaluating overall performance.
- Bracken & Rose, 2011; Maylett 2009
- Waldman et al., 1998
- Bracken, Dalton, Jako, McCauley, & Pollman, 1997
- Atkins & Wood, 2002
- Johnson, Lauren Keller (January 2004). "The Ratings Game: Retooling 360s for Better Performance". Harvard Management Update.
- Bracken, Timmereck, & Church, 2001a
- Edwards & Ewen, 1996
- Bracken, Summers, & Fleenor, 1998
- Bracken, David R. (September 1994). "Straight Talk about Multirater Feedback". Training & Development.
- Lee, Gregory G. (July–August 2015). "Caution Required: Multirater Feedback in the Army". Military Review.
- Bent, William (September 2015). "Speaking Out: The State Department Needs to Reevaluate Its Use of 360-Degree Reviews". The Foreign Service Journal.
- Cerella, A. (2020). Multi-Source Feedback in the U. S. Army: An Improved Assessment, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
- Bracken, David W.; Rose, Dale S.; Church, Allan H. (December 2016). "The Evolution and Devolution of 360° Feedback". Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 9 (4): 761–794. doi:10.1017/iop.2016.93. ISSN 1754-9426.
- Ainsworth, Elva R. (12 April 2016). 360° feedback : a transformational approach. St Albans. ISBN 978-1-78452-244-5. OCLC 1031336375.
- Bracken, David W.; Rose, Dale S. (June 2011). "When Does 360-Degree Feedback Create Behavior Change? And How Would We Know It When It Does?". Journal of Business and Psychology. 26 (2): 183–192. doi:10.1007/s10869-011-9218-5. ISSN 0889-3268. S2CID 145745127.
- Fleenor, John W. (2020). Leveraging the impact of 360-degree feedback. Taylor, Sylvester; Chappelow, Craig (Second ed.). Oakland, CA. ISBN 978-1-5230-8835-5. OCLC 1159679868.
- Eichinger, 2004
- Vinson, 1996
- Lublin, 1994; Yammarino & Atwater, 1993; Nowack, 1992
- Hazucha et al., 1993; London & Wohlers, 1991; Walker & Smither, 1999
- Walker & Smither, 1999
- Maylett & Riboldi, 2007
- Bracken, Timmreck, Fleenor, & Summers, 2001b; Smither, London, & Reilly, 2005.
- Bracken & Paul, 1993; Kaiser & Kaplan, 2006; Caputo & Roch, 2009; English, Rose, & McClellan, 2009
- Bracken et al., 2001b
- Pfau & Kay, 2002
- Peiperl, Maury (January 2001). "Getting 360-Degree Feedback Right". Harvard Business Review. Retrieved 6 April 2012.
- Maylett, 2005
- Maylett, 2009
- Maylett, Tracy M. (2005). The relationship of multi-rater feedback to traditional performance appraisals (EdD thesis). Pepperdine Univ. Abstract. Retrieved 15 May 2009.
- Atkins, P., & Wood, R. (2002). Self-versus others' ratings as predictors of assessment center ratings: Validation evidence for 360-degree feedback programs. Personnel Psychology, 55(4), 871–904.
- Bracken, D.W., and Paul, K.B. (1993). The effects of scale type and demographics on upward feedback. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Society Annual Conference, May, San Francisco, CA.
- Bracken, D.W., Dalton, M.A., Jako, R.A., McCauley, C.D., & Pollman, V.A. (1997). Should 360-degree feedback be used only for developmental purposes? Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
- Bracken, D.W., Summers, L., & Fleenor, J.W. (1998) High tech 360. Training & Development, August.
- Bracken, D.W., Timmereck, C.W., & Church, A.H. (2001a). The handbook of multisource feedback. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Bracken, D.W., Timmreck, C.W., Fleenor, J.W., & Summers, L. (2001b). 360 degree feedback from another angle.Human Resource Management, 40 (1), 3–20.
- Bracken, D.W., and Timmreck, C.W. (2001) Guidelines for multisource feedback when used for decision making. In Bracken, D.W., Timmreck, C.W., and Church, A.H. The Handbook of Multisource Feedback. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Bracken, D.W., Rose, D.S. (2011) "When does 360-degree Feedback create behavior change? And How would we know when it does?",
- Cannon, M.D., & Witherspoon, R. (2005). Actionable feedback: Unlocking the power of learning and performance improvement. Academy of Management Executive, 19(2): 120-134.
- Caputo, P. and Roch, S. (2009) Rating formats and perceptions of performance appraisal fairness. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Annual Conference, April, New Orleans, LA.
- DeNisi, A., & Kluger, A. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved? Academy of Management Executive, 14(1): 129-139.
- DeNisi, A., & Kluger, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2): 254-284.
- Edwards, Mark R., & Ewen, Ann J. (1996). 360° Feedback: The powerful new model for Employee Assessment & performance improvement. New York: AMACOM American Management Association.
- Eichinger, Robert. (2004). Patterns of Rater Accuracy in 360-degree Feedback. Perspectives, 27, 23–25.
- English, A.E, Rose, D.S. & McClellan (2009). Rating scale label effects on leniency bias in 360-degree feedback.Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Annual Conference, April, New Orleans, LA.
- Fleenor, J. W., & Prince, J. M. (1997). Using 360-degree feedback in organizations: An annotated bibliography. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
- Goldsmith, M., & Underhill, B.O. (2001). Multisource feedback for executive development. In Bracken, D.W., Timmreck, C.W., and Church, A.H. The Handbook of Multisource Feedback. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Greguras, G.J., & Robie, C. (1998). A new look at within-source interrater reliability of 360-degree feedback ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 960–968.
- Hazucha, J. F., Hezlett, S. A., & Schneider, R. J. (1993). The impact of 360-degree feedback on management skills development. Human Resource Management, 32(2–3), 325–351.
- Johnson, L.K. (2004). The Ratings Game: Retooling 360s for Better Performance. Harvard Management Update, Vol. 8(1). Retrieved May 7, 2016 at http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/3935.html.
- Kaiser, R.B., and Kaplan, R.E. (2006). Are all scales created equal? Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Annual Conference, May, Dallas, TX.
- Lee, G.G. (2015). Caution Required: Multirater Feedback in the Army. Military Review, July–August 2015, 58-67.
- Maylett, T. M., & Riboldi, J. (2007). Using 360° Feedback to Predict Performance. Training + Development, September, 48–52.
- Maylett, Tracy (2005). The Relationship Of Multi-rater Feedback To Traditional Performance Appraisal. Doctoral Dissertation, Pepperdine University, Los Angeles, California.
- Maylett, Tracy (2009). 360-Degree Feedback Revisited: The transition from development to appraisal. Compensation and Benefits Review, September/October 41(5), 52–59.
- Nooravi, S. Sherry (2010) Transforming high-silo, low-feedback organizational cultures: Using 360-degree feedback and coaching to maximize potential in individuals, groups, and cultures. "Dissertation Abstracts International" 70(12-B).
- Pfau, B. & Kay, I. (2002). Does 360-degree feedback negatively affect company performance? Studies show that 360-degree feedback may do more harm than good. What's the problem? HRMagazine, Jun 2002. 47, 6; 54–60.
- Reilly, R., Smither, J.W., & Vasilopoulos, N. (1996). A longitudinal study of upward feedback. Personnel Psychology, 49(3), 599–612.
- Seifert, C., Yukl, G., & McDonald, R. (2003). Effects of multisource feedback and a feedback facilitator on the influence of behavior of managers toward subordinates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 561–569.
- Smither, J.W., London, M., and Reilly, R.R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis and review of empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 58, 33–66.
- Theron, D. & Roodt, G. (1999). Variability in multi-rater competency assessments. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 25(2): 21-27.
- Vinson, M. (1996, April). The pros and cons of 360-degree feedback: Making it work. Training and Development, April, 11–12.
- Waldman, A. D., Atwater, L. E., & Antonioni, D. (1998). Has 360-degree feedback gone amok? The Academy of Management Executive, 12(2), 86–94.
- Walker, A., & Smither, J.W. (1999). A five-year study of upward feedback: What managers do with their results matters. Personnel Psychology, 52(2), 393–423.
- Wilkie, D. (2016). "Are Anonymous Reviews Destructive?" Society of Human Resources Management Online. Retrieved May 7, 2016 at www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/employeerelations/articles/pages/360-degree-reviews-.aspx.
- Yammarino, F. J., & Atwater, L. E. (1993). Self-perception accuracy: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management, 32(2&3), 231–235.