Most employees want to do a good job; however, many are unaware of the impact that their behavior has on their job performance. Feedback can help employees identify what they are doing well and to build on those skills, correct problems, and develop new skills that improve the organizations in which they work (CCL, 2019b).

Feedback is usually defined as information provided to an employee related to the behavior of that person on the job and the results of that behavior. It’s usually intended to strengthen desired behaviors or to suggest changes in undesired behaviors. Feedback can be a powerful stimulus for change under the following conditions:

• The feedback tells the person something important is not as it should be.

• The person is able to focus their energy constructively.

• The person has the resources to turn this energy into action.

Almost all of us want to know how well we are doing our jobs. In fact, when we do not receive feedback, we often seek it on our own by asking others (managers, coworkers, and friends) to provide feedback on our performance. Receiving feedback is an important motivational factor that can lead to increased satisfaction. Feedback is important because it can enhance self-awareness by highlighting strengths and can facilitate growth by pointing out areas in need of development. We learn from the outcomes of our behavior, and feedback is an important factor in helping us improve our performance. That’s why 360 feedback has gained such popularity and importance for providing developmental feedback to leaders (Fleenor and Taylor, 2018). Further, the impact of 360 feedback can be significant when it is embedded in a larger leadership development process. A great deal of research has found that 360 feedback can improve performance and lead to behavior change over time (e.g., Atwater, Brett, and Charles, 2007; Dai, Meuse, and Peterson, 2010; Nowack, 2019; Smither, London, and Reilly, 2005; Walker and Smither, 1999).

Despite its potential to bring about positive behavioral changes and develop leadership across organizations, feedback remains a rare commodity in day-to-day organizational life. People generally don’t like to provide feedback to others, especially if it’s negative. Managers often consider conducting performance reviews, often the only feedback some employees receive about their work, as one of the most difficult and unpleasant aspects of their jobs (Taylor, 2014).

The History of 360-Degree Feedback

The 360-degree-feedback method began as a development tool for leaders. In the late 1970s, organizations began using standardized methods to collect behavioral feedback. In 1978, Morrison, McCall, and DeVries published a Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) report that reviewed 24 assessments in use at that time and offered advice about the strengths and weaknesses of each. This report has been updated periodically by CCL (Van Velsor and Leslie, 1991, Jan., Dec.; Leslie and Fleenor, 1998; Leslie, 2013). By the late 1980s, the term 360-degree feedback began to be linked with these procedures. Van Velsor and Leslie (1991, Dec.) refer to multirater assessment as “360-degree feedback” in Feedback to Managers, Vol. II. The first attempt to integrate existing knowledge about this process was provided in 1993 in a special issue of Human Resource Management that was edited by Walter Tornow, who was then CCL’s vice president of research. In 1998, Tornow coedited a volume with Manual London, Maximizing the Value of 360-Degree Feedback, which further documented CCL’s expertise on the topic.

After that, the field grew rapidly with 360 feedback gaining increasing acceptance and significance in organizations (Bracken, 2019; Silzer and Church, 2009). The process continues to grow internationally—it is currently used extensively in North and South America, Europe, and Australia and has gained acceptance in Asian countries.

The Qualities of 360-Degree Feedback

The primary purpose of 360-degree feedback is to provide accurate and useful feedback on leadership effectiveness to leaders and their organizations (Fleenor and Taylor, 2018). This process includes collecting and reporting coworkers’ (i.e., raters) ratings of a leader’s (i.e., participants) effectiveness and providing feedback and coaching for each leader. Traditionally in organizations, feedback has come from a single source: the manager. But that approach provides only a limited perspective of a leader’s effectiveness. Without the operational and technological advances of 360 feedback, receiving feedback from multiple sources would be impractical and too expensive for most organizations to implement.

Throughout the 360 process, behavior change that is valued by the organization is created in leaders (Bracken, Rose, and Church, 2016). The implementation of 360 feedback has been shown to improve the financial performance of organizations. For example, 360 feedback was found to have a positive effect on financial performance through increased knowledge sharing and employee effectiveness in organizations (Kim et al., 2016).

Using 360-Degree Feedback for Leader Development

A great deal of research has been published on the design and implementation 360-degree feedback for leader development (e.g., Bracken et al., 2001; Bracken and Rose, 2011; Fleenor, 2019; McCauley and Brutus, 2019). Many of these practices are designed to provide feedback to leaders on changes needed to increase their effectiveness and to motivate them to make these changes.

Because of its structure, thoroughness, and anonymity, 360 feedback is likely to be accepted by the individuals receiving the feedback (Atwater, Brett, and Charles, 2007). Organizations can use the feedback for developmental purposes, potentially resulting in more positive outcomes than traditional performance appraisals. To ensure the best use of 360 feedback, it should be implemented within a broader leadership development context. For example, 360 feedback should be integrated into the organization’s leader development and succession planning systems to help identify how leaders can become more effective in their organizations. This integration should create conditions that allow participants to receive ongoing feedback coupled with novel job assignments, stretching their current competencies. Additionally, coaches should be provided to help participants improve on their targeted competencies (McCauley and Brutus, 2019). In organizations where it is not feasible to provide formal coaching, the leader’s manager may serve as the coach.

What are organizations trying to accomplish when they implement a 360 feedback process? Their goals are as diverse as the organizations themselves. Each frames and focuses its efforts in different ways. Some organizations use 360 feedback primarily as an integral part of development processes for individual leaders (for CCL’s position, see below). For example, a leader is struggling with providing direction and vision. After completing a 360 assessment containing the item, “Brings up ideas about the future of the organization,” the leader realizes from the raters’ responses that there is too much focus on tactical issues. The raters thought the leader was not sharing enough long-range guidance. Armed with this new perspective, the leader can change behaviors and become more effective in setting direction for the group.

Even when people have solid insights about their own strengths and development needs, they may not be aware of how these qualities affect coworkers. Consider this scenario: A high-tech manufacturing firm sends individual leaders one at a time to a leadership development program conducted by an external provider. In this program, participants take part in a business simulation and receive feedback on their behavior from the other participants. After the simulation, they receive the results of their 360 assessment from their coworkers back home. The participants are surprised at the consistency of feedback from these two sources. They now have a clearer idea of how consistently their behaviors affect others.

CCL uses 360 feedback for developmental purposes to provide the most valid and reliable data possible to its participants (see Exhibit 1.1). CCL’s philosophy toward 360 feedback is shaped by three lessons it has learned from working with leaders and from its research on leadership development (McCauley and Brutus, 2019; McCauley and Moxley, 1996).

Organizations may focus on 360 feedback for developing individuals in particular subgroups (for example, employees with high potential for advancing to leadership and executive ranks) or at different times in a leader’s career (such as prior to a promotion or near the completion of a developmental assignment).

In addition to its use in developing individual competency, organizations also use 360 feedback to determine group strengths and development needs.

For example, by compiling individual feedback results into an aggregate group report, a company can focus on the skills that, as an organization, it wants to maintain or develop further. The resulting information is built into every leader’s developmental objectives for the upcoming year. Taking this example one step further, some organizations use the group reports to establish needs for organization-wide leader development activities.

Some organizations use 360 feedback initiatives to broaden awareness of valued and desired behaviors. The process of responding to the specific items on the assessment emphasizes these behaviors and usually triggers discussion throughout the organization. For example, a large insurance company decided that the key to its survival was to be less bureaucratic and more entrepreneurial. It used a 360 feedback assessment designed specifically to measure behaviors found in successful entrepreneurial environments. The company implemented this process first with its senior leaders and then cascaded it down through its new leaders.

Another example comes from the telephone industry. One service provider decided that it was going to pursue excellence in customer service for its subscribers. The company started a major initiative that included conducting internal customer-service workshops; individual coaching; pushing decision making downward in the organization; and completing 360 feedback to focus on decisiveness, customer focus, and responsiveness. As a result, the company was able to help its leaders see where their skills did or did not match the organization’s valued behaviors.

The use of 360 feedback can support three types of organizational values: open communication, valuing employee input, and setting expectations that people should take charge of their careers (see Exhibit 1.2).

Why 360 Feedback Is Needed

In busy organizations, people often find themselves lacking feedback. Two factors play into this. First, people become caught up in day-to-day pressures and fail to pick up the cues from others that provide ongoing feedback. Consider this all-too-familiar scenario: After a tough meeting, a manager gets a pat on the back from a colleague for handling a presentation well. The next day, a peer says the manager’s reaction to a sensitive question was unnecessarily defensive. These small bits of data—informal feedback—float around managers all the time, largely unattended in the rush of business concerns.

Formal 360 feedback provides something that informal feedback seldom does: a structured means of collecting and processing data and an opportunity to reflect on this valuable information (see Exhibit 1.3). It may be the only time some leaders consciously stop to take stock of their effectiveness in an organized way.

A second factor that impacts an individual’s access to meaningful feedback is that giving and receiving feedback can be perceived as threatening activities (they may actually be threatening, in some instances). Often people in organizations think that giving and receiving feedback is not worth the risk.

Contemporary organizations pay a lot of lip service to the need to increase communication in all directions; at the same time, many people are reluctant to give performance feedback to coworkers, especially to their superiors. The higher up in the organization one moves, the less feedback one receives (Kaplan, Drath, and Kofodimos, 1985).

Formal 360 feedback, by its nature, helps reduce the interpersonal threats of face-to-face feedback for both parties. The formalized structure and the neutral character of the assessments provide a format for objectivity. The formal feedback process also focuses on the valid assessment of behaviors that the organization values. Exhibit 1.4 is a model developed at CCL for delivering feedback and reducing the resistance to the message.

The Importance of Multiple Perspectives

In the context of the organization, feedback refers to the information employees receive from coworkers related to their work behavior. Aside from to day-to-day personal communication, the typical method for providing periodic feedback is the performance appraisal. Appraisal has multiple purposes—for example, setting goals and measuring the development of competence and the achievement of results. While these formal performance evaluations are tolerated, managers and employees often express their dislike of appraisals. They believe appraisals don’t do a very good job of developing skills or guaranteeing results (London, 1997).

Traditionally in organizations, performance appraisal has come from a single source, the manager. There are problems with this approach to collecting data on leader effectiveness. For example, assessment from a single source, such as a manager, provides a limited perspective. It is also subject to bias, which affects the quality and the accuracy of the feedback (London and Beatty, 1993). In the case of managers assessing direct reports, bosses often do not have the time or the opportunity to observe their employees in all possible situations. Employees may behave one way with their managers and a different way with their peers (McCauley and Brutus, 2019).

With peer feedback, coworkers at the same level in an organization provide input on an individual’s performance. Again, this approach provides ratings from only one perspective and may result in biased and inaccurate feedback. Peers often find themselves in competitive situations with their cohorts and may be reluctant to provide overly positive feedback. Peers may believe they will improve their own situation by providing negative feedback about their coworkers. The ratings from direct reports (sometimes called upward feedback) also provide a limited perspective of a leader’s effectiveness. Leaders often behave differently with their direct reports, which may result in low agreement among the reports.

Combining the ratings of peers and direct reports with the manager ratings, therefore, will result in more accurate feedback on a leader’s effectiveness. Coworkers, such as peers and direct reports, are serious about performance issues because these issues affect their own work as well as the productivity of the organization. Using 360 feedback becomes a relatively straightforward process to focus on specific behaviors and collect ratings and comments from a wide range of raters.

As discussed, receiving feedback from a single person is rarely sufficient to create positive change in the participant. Whether the message is about a strength or about an area for improvement, the participant may wonder whether one individual’s opinion constitutes valid and complete information. Yet the most common example of feedback in the workplace is that of a manager providing feedback to a direct report.

Even though interpreting their significance takes work, the multiple views from a 360 process are preferable:

• They reflect a more comprehensive representation of a manager’s reality, in which a multiplicity of views has to be taken into account.

• They reduce the potential for bias (see, for example, London and Beatty, 1993).

• The manager often does not observe the individual’s behavior daily, especially if the individual is in a distant location, a familiar situation that makes it difficult to provide an accurate ongoing assessment.

• The increase in team-based work and flatter organizations dictates the need for collecting and synthesizing feedback from team members and others who may not be members of the participants’ immediate work group.

• Previously untapped sources of feedback can be included; for example, the effectiveness of leaders can be rated by how well they work with people outside the organization, such as customers, suppliers, or clients.

• Ratings from the multiple perspectives (peers, direct reports) can be aggregated by the rater group, which allows participants to compare their self-ratings to the ratings of others. This allows participants to see clearly if they are rated differently by the various groups. Several methodologies have been developed to allow direct comparisons of the rater groups (e.g., Batista-Foguet et al., 2019).

Despite these advantages, 360 feedback can result in the leader receiving a variety of responses based on each rater’s perspective. Unanimous agreement, even if less than complimentary, is easy for the leader to understand. But such agreement is seldom the case. It is more common for leaders to be perceived differently by different raters (see Exhibit 1.5). This variance can cause considerable confusion for leaders unless they are able to think through the reasons with the help of a feedback coach.

The Purpose of 360 Feedback

An important factor to consider when implementing 360 feedback is the purpose for conducting the assessment. Will the results be used for performance appraisal, which has a decision-making component, or will they be used solely for developmental purposes? The types of decisions that will be made with the results will have a significant impact on how the process is carried out (Bracken, 1996).

In general, there are two schools of thought about the use of 360 feedback. Organizations that employ 360 assessments primarily for decision-making purposes use them to make decisions about hiring, promoting, identifying, or compensating employees. While 360 feedback administered for decision-making purposes usually has a developmental component, it is sometimes a secondary consideration. By comparison, organizations that use 360 feedback for development use the data primarily to help participants create a development plan to increase their effectiveness in the organization.

Feedback for Performance and Selection

The use of 360 feedback for decision-making purposes, such as performance appraisal, selection, and compensation, is becoming more commonplace (Campion, Campion and Campion, 2019). When 360 feedback is used for performance appraisal, competencies are assessed that are directly related to the job in question. The items on the assessment are focused on the participant’s current position rather than on developing competencies for future assignments. With performance appraisals, the instrument is usually shorter than one used for development. When using 360 feedback for performance appraisal, an organization should be able to readily demonstrate that the assessment is related to the job in question. One way to do this is to ensure that the competencies being measured are important for successful performance on the job.

When the 360 assessment is used for employee selection, the organization must deal with several legal issues (Scott, Scott, and Foster, 2019). For example, it will be necessary to conduct a validity study to demonstrate that the ratings are directly related to job performance and that the ratings have no adverse impact on protected classes of employees. This requires that the data be maintained so it’s easily accessible for these studies.

When a 360 feedback process is conducted for decision-making purposes, different people in the organization will have access to the data. If the purpose is for selection, the hiring manager and relevant human resources (HR) staff will have access to the data. If the purpose is succession planning, the executive team will be allowed to see the data. In any case, at the start of the process it should be made clear to the participants exactly who will have access to their data. Further, it is important to maintain the confidentiality of the data. Additionally, data privacy regulations are continually in flux and must be considered as a legal matter in the context of 360 feedback processes. Bottom line: only people who have a legitimate need to see the data should have access to it.

The confidentiality issue is not trivial. Evidence indicates that the raters’ responses change when they know the participant’s feedback data will be made public (London and Smither, 1995). The effects of allowing the ratings to be seen by the organization can be significant. For example, it’s easy to see that employees might rate themselves differently if they know their managers will see their data (Dalessio, 1998). There also may be similar effects on the ratings of others—managers may be less inclined to provide negative feedback if they know others in the organization will see their ratings.

For a 360 process to be its most effective, anonymity for certain rater groups is critical. Because anonymous raters have been found to be more honest than identified raters, more accurate ratings can be expected when anonymity is ensured (Kozlowski, Chao, and Morrison, 1998). If the raters begin to believe that their anonymity will be compromised, then less honesty can be expected in future. The bottom line is that 360 feedback processes must be carefully designed to suit the purpose of the assessment (Fleenor and Brutus, 2001).

Feedback for Development

Using 360 feedback for developmental rather than decision-making purposes differs importantly by the type of goals that are set with each. Developmental feedback most often supports learning goals that typically involve development of competence. On the other hand, goals set for performance appraisal usually involve meeting specific objectives directly related to the achievement of results on the job (McCauley and Brutus, 2019).

According to London (2001), 360 feedback can serve either purpose but works best when used, at least initially, for developmental purposes only. Organizations that initially use 360 feedback for decision-making purposes often find there is a lack of trust of the process among employees (Atwater, Brett, and Charles, 2007). Brett and Atwater (2001) suggest that organizations implementing 360 feedback should first focus on the developmental aspects of the process, then add the decision-making components later.

When 360 feedback is used only for developmental purposes, participants should receive the feedback in a psychologically safe environment. This includes a feedback coach who has been trained to present negative information with a great deal of sensitivity. Trained feedback coaches are also able to deal with any defensiveness or denial on the part of the participant.

The managers’ ratings are also a critical component of the development process. For example, managers are the best source of importance ratings for the competencies on which participants are rated. Additionally, managers may be in the best position to understand fully the organizational context in which a participant’s performance occurs. For example, the manager may be aware of certain constraints in the organization that prevented a participant from accomplishing some goals.

In a developmental 360 feedback process, participants are encouraged to share their feedback with their managers. For example, they may want to let their managers know on which competencies they were rated relatively high and on which they were rated relatively low.

Finally, it is important that 360 assessments used solely for development are reliable and valid measures of the competencies of interest. Assessments used for purely developmental purposes, however, do not face the same legal requirements that pertain to assessments used for decision-making purposes, such as employee selection.