360° feedback

360° feedback, also called multi-rater or multisource feedback, gathers structured observations about an individual from several perspectives. These normally include the person’s manager, peers and direct reports, and may also include customers or other partners. The individual usually completes the same assessment, making it possible to compare self-perception with how others experience the person’s behaviour.

The method is most useful as a development process. It does not reveal an objective or complete truth about a person; it shows patterns of perception based on behaviour that different groups have had an opportunity to observe.

When to use it

Use 360° feedback when a leader or employee needs a broader view than a manager alone can provide, particularly for behaviours such as collaboration, communication, delegation and leadership. It can support coaching, leadership programmes, succession development and follow-up on a personal development plan.

The process should be available when development is timely, not used only as an annual administrative event. Before launching it, confirm that the organisation can protect confidentiality, explain the purpose clearly and provide support for interpreting and acting on the results.

Origins

Multisource assessment has roots in early twentieth-century military selection and leadership evaluation. One of the earliest documented corporate applications was at Esso Research and Engineering in the 1950s, where employees provided upward feedback on supervisors. The practice spread more widely in organisations during the 1980s and 1990s as leadership development, competency frameworks and computerised surveys made multi-rater assessment easier to administer. The term 360-degree feedback became a convenient description of the attempt to gather observations from all around an individual’s working relationships.

What it is

A sound 360° process has six elements:

1. A clear purpose, normally development rather than a hidden employment decision.
2. Relevant competencies and observable behaviours linked to the person’s role.
3. A balanced group of raters with enough direct experience to comment responsibly.
4. Confidential collection and aggregation so participants can respond candidly without exposing individuals unnecessarily.
5. A structured report that separates rater groups, highlights patterns and allows comparison with the individual’s self-assessment.
6. Interpretation and follow-through, ideally through a trained facilitator or coach and a specific development plan.

Scores are only part of the evidence. Written examples often explain why a behaviour is effective or problematic, while “not observed” should remain a valid response when a rater lacks relevant experience.