360-degree feedback

360-degree feedback (also known as multi-rater feedback, multi-source feedback, or multi-source assessment) is a process through which feedback from an employee's colleagues and associates is gathered, in addition to a self-evaluation by the employee.

360-degree feedback can include input from external sources who interact with the employee (such as customers and suppliers), subordinates, peers, and supervisors. It differs from traditional performance appraisal, which typically uses downward feedback delivered by supervisors employees, and upward feedback delivered to managers by subordinates.

Organizations most commonly use 360-degree feedback for developmental purposes. Nonetheless, organizations are increasingly using 360-degree feedback in performance evaluations and administrative decisions, such as in payroll and promotion. When 360-degree feedback is used for performance evaluation purposes, it is sometimes called a 360-degree review. The use of 360-degree feedback in evaluation is controversial, due to concerns about the subjectivity and fairness of feedback providers.

History

The origins of 360-degree feedback date back to around 1930, with the German Reichswehr, when the military psychologist Johann Baptist Rieffert developed a selection methodology for 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. ^[1] From there, the idea of 360-degree feedback gained momentum.

Online evaluation tools led to increased popularity of multi-rater feedback assessments, due to the ease of use compared to physical pen-and-paper tools. ^[2] The outsourcing of human resources functions has also created a market for 360-degree feedback products from consultants. ^[3] Today, studies suggest that over one-third of U.S. companies use some type of multi-source feedback, ^[4] including 90% of all Fortune 500 firms. ^[5] In recent years, multi-source feedback has become a best practice in human resources due to online tools such as multiple language options, comparative reporting, and aggregate reporting. ^[6]

Guidelines

Certain guidelines emphasise establishing trust between raters and ratees to improve rater accountability and feedback accuracy. ^[7] At the same time, anonymous participation has also been found to result in more accurate feedback, in which case confidentiality among human resources staff and managers should be preserved. ^[7] The standardisation and optimisation of rating scales and data collection also affects assessment accuracy, including such factors like the time of day. ^{[7] [8] [9]}

Issues

Using 360-degree feedback tools for appraisal purposes has been criticised over concerns of performance criteria validity, ability of peers to give accurate feedback, and manipulation of these systems by feedback providers. ^{[10] [11] [12]} Employee manipulation of feedback ratings has been reported in some companies who have utilized 360-degree feedback for performance evaluation, including GE, ^[13] IBM, ^[14] and Amazon. ^[15]

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. ^[8] 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. ^[9] 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. ^{[8] [16]}

A key challenge in 360 degree feedback is role duality as the people evaluate and are evaluated. Research illustrates that people are strategic in their evaluation of others to improve their chances of being positively evaluated. ^[17]

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. ^[18] Other branches of the U.S. government have questioned 360-degree feedback reviews as well. ^[19] Still, these organizations continue to use and develop their assessments in developmental processes. ^[20]

A study on the patterns of rater accuracy shows that the length of time that a rater has known the individual being evaluated generally correlates with positive review favorability and lower accuracy of a 360-degree review, apart from raters who have known the individual for less than a year. ^[21]

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. ^[22] Studies have also indicated that self-ratings are generally significantly higher than the ratings given from others. ^[23]

Results

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. ^[24]

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. ^[25] A 1996 study found that performance increased between the 1st and 2nd administrations, and sustained this improvement 2 years later. ^[26] Additional studies show that 360-degree feedback may be predictive of future performance. ^[27]

Some authors maintain, however, that there are too many confounding variables related to 360-degree evaluations to reliably generalize their effectiveness, ^[28] arguing that process features are likely to have major effects on creating behavior change. ^[29] A 1998 study has found that the category of rater affects the reliability of feedback, with direct reports generally the least reliable. ^[30]

Multiple pieces of research have demonstrated that the scale of responses can have a major effect on the results, and that some response scales are better than others. ^[31] The evaluated individual following up with raters to discuss their results, which cannot be done when feedback is anonymous, often has a profound impact on results. ^[32] 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. ^[33]

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
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. ^[34]

Additional studies found no correlation between an employee's multi-rater assessment scores and performance appraisal scores provided by supervisors. ^[35] 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. ^[36] This research suggests that 360-degree feedback and performance appraisals get at different outcome, leading some executives to argue that traditional performance appraisals and 360-degree feedback should be used in evaluating overall performance. ^[37]

Notable 360-Degree Feedback Tools and Providers

A number of 360-degree feedback tools and assessment platforms have gained prominence in leadership development, supported by coverage in independent business and psychometric literature. The following providers are recognized for their contributions, widespread adoption, or advancements in AI for leadership assessment:

• Center for Creative Leadership (CCL): Widely cited for its Benchmarks® suite, CCL offers research-backed, certification-required 360 assessments for global organizations. CCL has also advanced in leveraging AI-assisted text analysis in coaching evaluation, aiding with deeper pattern recognition in open-ended responses, while emphasizing ethical and human-centric integration of AI. ^[38]
• The Leadership Circle: The Leadership Circle Profile® is internationally recognized, with independent validation and a framework that combines creative and reactive leadership dimensions for a comprehensive developmental view. While its core reports are highly developmental, the platform is also exploring ways to supplement feedback analytics with AI. ^[39]
• DDI (Development Dimensions International): DDI’s Leadership Mirror® is a competency-based, flexible 360-degree feedback tool, frequently referenced in HR literature for scalability, custom content, and clear links to development planning. ^[40]
• Zenger Folkman: The Extraordinary Leader 360-Degree Assessment focuses on a strengths-based approach, using a globally benchmarked multi-rater survey and validated competencies that link directly to improved business outcomes. ^[41]
• SHL: SHL’s 360-degree Multi-Rater Feedback System is psychometrically grounded in the Universal Competency Framework and applied internationally for talent and performance management. SHL’s enterprise platform is developing AI-powered features for faster insight extraction and predictive analytics. ^[42]
• Org360.app: Noted in nonprofit and sector reviews for its low-cost, open-access, and development-centric approach, Org360.app's surveys emphasize concise, actionable insights and offer AI-powered reporting that summarizes feedback patterns for tailored recommendations, with an emphasis on privacy and human-first values. ^[43]
• Modern SaaS platforms (e.g., SurveySparrow, Leapsome, Engagedly, Effy AI): Digital-first platforms such as SurveySparrow, Engagedly, and Effy AI are reviewed in HR and tech press for their AI-driven automation, including survey chatbots, automated sentiment analysis, instant reporting, and seamless integration with existing HR systems. ^[44]

360-degree feedback tools are used to systematically collect input on leadership behaviors and skills from peers, managers, direct reports, and other stakeholders, often feeding into development plans or talent pipelines. Selection among these tools depends on an organization’s size, maturity with AI, sector, and integration needs.

Selecting Tools for Different Audiences

The best 360-degree feedback tool depends on both organizational needs and intended outcomes:

• Independent coaches often use the Leadership Circle Profile® and Zenger Folkman’s Extraordinary Leader for developmental depth and coaching frameworks.
• Large corporations and enterprises frequently opt for Center for Creative Leadership (CCL), SHL, and DDI for enterprise-grade analytics, validated assessments, and evolving AI-enhanced reporting.
• Nonprofits and purpose-driven organizations benefit from Org360.app’s open access, affordability, and AI-powered feedback designed for smaller teams and consultancies.
• Startups and fast-growing companies prefer SaaS tools such as SurveySparrow, Leapsome, Engagedly, and Effy AI, thanks to rapid deployment, flexible setup, and advanced AI analytics that enable instant insight generation.

Which Tools Are Best for AI?

• Best-in-class for AI-powered insights:

 * Org360.app (accessible, privacy-first AI analytics suited to nonprofits and small organizations)  * SurveySparrow, Effy AI, Engagedly, Leapsome (advanced automation and instant analytics, ideal for startups and tech-forward companies)

• Leaders integrating AI with research-driven rigor:

 * Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) and SHL (combining decades of validation with AI-enhanced data analytics optimized for large enterprises)

References

1. Bracken, Dalton, Jako, McCauley, & Pollman, 1997
2. Atkins & Wood, 2002
3. Johnson, Lauren Keller (January 2004). "The Ratings Game: Retooling 360s for Better Performance". Harvard Management Update.
4. Bracken, Timmereck, & Church, 2001a
5. Edwards & Ewen, 1996
6. Bracken, Summers, & Fleenor, 1998
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Ainsworth, Elva R. (12 April 2016). 360° feedback : a transformational approach. St Albans. ISBN   978-1-78452-244-5. OCLC   1031336375.
10. Bracken, David R. (September 1994). "Straight Talk about Multirater Feedback". Training & Development.
11. Bracken & Rose, 2011; Maylett 2009
12. Waldman et al., 1998
13. (Welch 2001)
14. (Linman 2011)
15. (Kantor and Streitfeld 2015)
16. 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.
17. Klapper, Helge; Piezunka, Henning; Dahlander, Linus (July 2024). "Peer Evaluations: Evaluating and Being Evaluated" . Organization Science. 35 (4): 1363–1387. doi:10.1287/orsc.2021.15302. ISSN   1047-7039.
18. Lee, Gregory G. (July–August 2015). "Caution Required: Multirater Feedback in the Army". Military Review.
19. Bent, William (September 2015). "Speaking Out: The State Department Needs to Reevaluate Its Use of 360-Degree Reviews". The Foreign Service Journal.
20. Cerella, A. (2020). Multi-Source Feedback in the U. S. Army: An Improved Assessment, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
21. Eichinger, 2004
22. Vinson, 1996
23. Lublin, 1994; Yammarino & Atwater, 1993; Nowack, 1992
24. Hazucha et al., 1993; London & Wohlers, 1991; Walker & Smither, 1999
25. Walker & Smither, 1999
26. Reilly et al. (1996)
27. Maylett & Riboldi, 2007
28. Bracken, Timmreck, Fleenor, & Summers, 2001b; Smither, London, & Reilly, 2005.
29. Bracken et al. (2001b) and Bracken and Timmreck (2001)
30. Greguras and Robie (1998)
31. Bracken & Paul, 1993; Kaiser & Kaplan, 2006; Caputo & Roch, 2009; English, Rose, & McClellan, 2009
32. Goldsmith and Underhill (2001)
33. Bracken et al., 2001b
34. Peiperl, Maury (January 2001). "Getting 360-Degree Feedback Right". Harvard Business Review. Retrieved 6 April 2012.
35. Maylett, 2005 How 360 Feedback Builds High-Potential Talent
36. Maylett, 2009
37. Maylett, Tracy M. (2005). The relationship of multi-rater feedback to traditional performance appraisals (EdD thesis). Pepperdine Univ. Abstract. Retrieved 15 May 2009.
38. "AI and Leadership Development". Risely. Retrieved 6 August 2025.
39. "Best AI Tools for Analyzing 360-degree Feedback". Insight7. Retrieved 6 August 2025.
40. "Integrating AI into 360-Degree Feedback". Vorecol. Retrieved 6 August 2025.
41. "Integrating AI into 360-Degree Feedback". Vorecol. Retrieved 6 August 2025.
42. "Best AI Tools for Analyzing 360-degree Feedback". Insight7. Retrieved 6 August 2025.
43. "Best AI Tools for Analyzing 360-degree Feedback". Insight7. Retrieved 6 August 2025.
44. "Integrating AI into 360-Degree Feedback". Vorecol. Retrieved 6 August 2025.

Further reading

• 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 Feb 5, 2025 at https://web.archive.org/web/20161124182844/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.