Organisational behaviourKPI / metricModelAccessible

360-degree feedback score

How should 360-degree feedback score be measured and interpreted?

AccessibleTacticalIndividual3 min read

Contents

Helps managers answer: How well are our people performing in the eyes of those who have a stake in their performance?

A 360-degree feedback score summarizes how an individual's performance is perceived by people with a legitimate stake in it. Raters can include the supervisor, direct reports, colleagues, customers and suppliers. The recipient normally completes the same questionnaire, allowing self-ratings to be compared with the views of others on a defined scale such as 1–10. The resulting gaps and patterns can guide training and development.

When to use it

Answer the key performance question: “How well are our people performing in the eyes of those who have a stake in their performance?”
Assess this KPI within the Employee perspective.
Plan data collection, formula use, reporting frequency, and data-source requirements for this KPI.
Compare results against the targets, benchmarks, examples, or trend guidance available for this KPI.

Origins

Multi-source assessment has precedents in military evaluation. In business, Esso Research and Engineering made an early documented use during the 1950s by asking employees to rate their supervisors. The method expanded through leadership development in the 1980s and 1990s. Mark Edwards and Ann Ewen reported that they introduced the term “360° Feedback” in the mid-1980s as an alternative to “multirater.”

A consolidated score should prompt reflection, not conceal disagreement. A manager, peer and direct report can each observe different behaviour, so differences among rater groups may be more useful than one overall average.

What it is

Perspective: Employee perspective.

Key performance question: How well are our people performing in the eyes of those who have a stake in their performance?

Some organizations also use the results when considering pay or promotion. This can provide a broader basis than a purely top-down appraisal, which may depend excessively on one supervisor's personal judgement. However, using anonymous developmental feedback for administrative decisions is controversial because high stakes can distort ratings, participation and trust.

How to use it

Measurement

Select role-relevant, observable behaviours and obtain ratings from a balanced set of people who have enough direct experience to judge them. Report group averages, score distributions and differences between self and other groups rather than relying only on a single composite number.

Data collection method

Data are commonly gathered once a year through a questionnaire completed by the recipient's raters. Web surveys are now typical, although paper forms and structured interviews can also be used. Protect anonymity and explain how responses will be stored, aggregated and used before collection begins.

Formula

There is no universal formula because instruments and providers vary. A practical questionnaire normally includes these fields:

Key skill or capability: Communications, planning, reporting, creativity, problem solving or another capability required by the role.
Skill component: A specific element within the capability, such as “active listening and understanding” under communications or “generates ideas/options” under creativity and problem solving. A capability may contain one element or five or six.
Question number: A reference that supports administration and analysis.
Feedback question: One observable behaviour, such as whether the person listens carefully and understands others when they speak.
Rating box: A defined Likert-type scale, often very poor to excellent on a 1–5 or 1–10 range. Give respondents precise definitions so scores mean the same thing across a group.

Consider this as a sample 360-degree feedback questionnaire.

See also the example on the following page.

Frequency

The measure is usually collected annually, leaving enough time for the recipient to act on a development plan before reassessment.

Source of the data

The data come from the people rating the individual's performance, together with the individual's self-assessment.

Cost/effort in collecting the data

The process can be expensive because rating, administration, analysis, feedback and coaching require substantial time. Electronic collection and suitable software reduce administrative effort, but simplifying the process should not compromise confidentiality or interpretation.

Target setting/benchmarks

An overall result can be calculated as the average of applicable ratings, but retain separate group results. Compare the individual with people in similar roles, with their own earlier results and with future development targets. A benchmark is useful only when roles, questions, scale definitions and rater composition are sufficiently comparable.

Example

An example published on www.360-degreefeedback.com presents extracts from the report for “Steve Kane.” It begins with category summaries showing an overall average and separate self, manager, peer and direct-report scores. Categories include “leading change,” “results oriented” and “team leadership,” measured on a 1–10 scale.

Open questions then identify Steve's strengths and priority development opportunities. Detailed items compare each rater's score with the project average for behaviours such as contributing to team, departmental and organizational goals, communicating respectfully under stress and questioning accepted practices and assumptions.

Top practical tip

Anonymous feedback can leave recipients unable to clarify a confusing score or comment. Train neutral coaches—such as supervisors, HR professionals or experienced managers—to help recipients interpret patterns and create action plans. Use a neutral administrator, produce one controlled report per recipient, protect access with individual credentials and store encrypted response data on a secure server.

A strong item uses an ACTION VERB, describes an OBSERVABLE and IMPORTANT behaviour, covers ONLY ONE behaviour, uses CLEAR LANGUAGE, states the POSITIVE desired behaviour and contributes with the other items to a SUFFICIENT definition of its category.

Top pitfall

Confidentiality protects both recipients and respondents. Recipients need confidence that results will not be exposed or misused, while raters need assurance that names will not be attached to comments or scores. Weak guarantees create anxiety and guarded responses. Keep the questionnaire focused as well: carefully researched items should normally total no more than 50 so respondents can give considered, constructive feedback.