A 360 feedback survey gathers ratings and comments on someone's behaviour from the people who work with them: their manager, peers, direct reports and others. This guide explains how 360 feedback works, what research says about when it leads to real improvement, and practical steps for running a 360 that people value.

What 360 feedback is

Most people get feedback from one direction: their manager. But managers see only part of what someone does. Peers see how they collaborate, direct reports see how they lead, and customers see how they serve. A 360 brings these views together so that the person sees their impact from all around, hence the name.

In a typical 360, the person rates themselves on a set of work behaviours, and a group of colleagues rates them on the same behaviours. Raters also add written comments. The results are combined into a report showing where views agree, where they differ, and where the person sees themselves differently from others.

The Viewpoint 360 surveys

Viewpoint offers a set of off-the-shelf 360 feedback surveys, each untimed and taking about 10 to 15 minutes for a rater to complete:

• The Leader Benchmark 360 covers leadership behaviours, with benchmarking.

• The Manager Benchmark 360 covers management behaviours, gathering views from a manager's boss, peers, direct reports and others such as senior colleagues and customers, with benchmarking.

• The Professional Benchmark 360 covers professional behaviours, with benchmarking.

• The Improvement Benchmark 360 uses 20 behavioural statements plus open questions to track improvement over time.

Benchmarking lets the person see their ratings in the context of how others in similar roles are rated, rather than only as raw averages.

What research says

360 feedback is popular, but research shows it does not improve performance automatically. Smither, London and Reilly's meta-analysis found that, on average, performance improved after multisource feedback, but the improvement was small and varied a great deal [1]. Improvement was more likely when people saw a need to change, believed change was possible, set goals and took action, such as working with a coach.

More broadly, Kluger and DeNisi's review of feedback research found that feedback improved performance on average, but in around a third of cases it made performance worse, especially when feedback drew attention to the person rather than to the task [2]. The lesson is that how a 360 is run matters as much as the survey itself.

Running a 360 that changes behaviour

Practical steps that make a difference:

• Explain the purpose. 360s used for development usually get more honest ratings than those tied to pay or promotion.

• Choose raters who see the person's work regularly, and enough of them in each group to protect anonymity.

• Focus on behaviours people can observe and change, not personality.

• Give the results in a conversation, ideally with a trained facilitator or coach, rather than simply sending the report.

• Agree two or three development goals and a plan, then follow up.

• Repeat the 360 after a suitable interval, for example 12 months, to see what has changed.

A 360 is not a test, and there are no passes or fails. The aim is to help someone understand their impact and decide what to work on.

See our 360 feedback surveys, our consultancy services for facilitated feedback and coaching, or our pricing.

Frequently asked questions

How long does a 360 take to complete?

Each rater takes about 10 to 15 minutes. The survey is untimed.

Who should rate?

Usually the person themselves, their manager, and a selection of peers, direct reports and others such as customers who see their work regularly.

Are ratings anonymous?

Ratings from groups such as peers and direct reports are usually combined so that individuals can't be identified. The manager's ratings are often shown separately.

Should 360 results be used for pay decisions?

We recommend 360s for development. Linking them to pay or promotion can make raters less candid.

References

1. Smither, J. W., London, M. & Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 33–66.
2. Kluger, A. N. & DeNisi, 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.