Start a conversation

Are 360 degree feedbacks a good tool?

360s give the subject of an appraisal feedback from a variety of people and perspectives; e.g. supervisors, direct reports, co-workers and even customers. However, this arguably more rounded method is to be approached with caution if it’s being seen as “ the answer” because:

  • Any “evaluation” tool that’s widely adopted within status quo organisations is built on the assumptions those same organisations need to challenge to move forward. For example, it remains a process of judging and evaluating someone else - the new paradigm questions whether this is a good idea at all: we would never put our spouse through this, so why our colleagues?
  • They’re frequently based on the same components and methodologies that are so problematic of the annual appraisal: obligatory to undergo; standardised questions; rankings; kept on file; adopted organisation wide regardless of circumstance; delivered around the calendar rather than the work etc.
  • Allowing for a wide variety of personal perspectives doesn’t necessarily make for highly objective feedback: a group can be just as skewed or manipulative as an individual
  • The results are normally gathered and delivered by management; in which case, it’s still processed via the same management lens (and all its biases) – it doesn’t flow from peer to peer relationships and accountability
  • They tend to focus on an individual’s weaknesses as opposed to their strengths. The old paradigm is concerned with how we improve an individual to fit them into a role; the new paradigm is concerned with how we change a role to fit around an individual’s strengths
  • Lastly, 360s are normally done anonymously, which only perpetuates a culture that says “we aren’t comfortable having honest conversations out in the open”
Choose files or drag and drop files
Was this article helpful?
  1. John Featherby

  2. Posted
  3. Updated