institute for employment studies

publications by IES authors

360 Degree Feedback
Beyond the Spin

Silverman M, Kerrin M, Carter A
Report 418, Institute for Employment Studies, April 2005

a study supported by the IES Research Networks

This report is directed at HR practitioners and senior managers responsible for either performance management or management development. The findings will be of interest to those implementing, or considering implementing, 360-degree feedback, and also for those who are already committed to the process in reflecting on whether the approach is delivering benefits for them.

Research aims

Three-hundred and sixty degree feedback, also referred to as multi-source multi-rater feedback, is where an employee receives feedback from a variety of stakeholders such as direct reports, colleagues, managers and customers.

The aim of the research was to review the area of 360-degree feedback and provide an independent analysis of some of the key issues that have emerged in both theory and practice. In particular, we focused on four key aims:

1. To make explicit the practical difficulties being faced by organisations implementing 360-degree feedback
2. To examine evidence of the impact of 360-degree feedback on the individual (in terms of behavioural change and improved performance)
3. To examine evidence of impact on the organisation (in terms of organisational effectiveness and added value)
4. To provide advice based on our findings so that practitioners can increase the likelihood of achieving positive impact in the future.

Research method

The project comprised three main phases: a large-scale literature review, a series of interviews and consultations with organisations, and two in-depth case studies. The literature review provided information regarding current issues and use, while the interviews, consultations and case studies illustrated more detailed analysis of evidence.

The first case study provided the opportunity to follow the implementation, in real time, of a 360-degree feedback scheme supporting personal development. This also allowed us to investigate implementation issues from the perspective of first-time implementation of a 360-degree feedback system.

The second case study is a review of a pre-existing 360-degree feedback system that was linked to an appraisal process at the organisation. The organisation’s experience with using 360-degree feedback totalled eight years. This allowed us to investigate outcome issues from the perspective of an experienced implementer.

The aims of the interviews in five other organisations were to examine why and how 360-degree feedback had been applied in the past, or was planned to be applied in the future within both development and appraisal. The interviews also focused on the evidence of the effects, in terms of outcomes and impact, on both the individuals taking part and the organisation as a whole.

In total we interviewed 113 people from seven organisations from a range of industries, including leisure, brewing, food production, financial services and local and central government.

Developmental value erodes

Our research indicates that over successive rounds of 360-degree feedback, the perceived value of the process declines.

‘It’s another tick box exercise. It’s that time of year again, let’s get it out of the way and get on with some real work.’ (feedback recipient)

Participants, managers and raters come to view the process as a chore and negative consequences become apparent eg declining response rates and lack of honesty. This in turn lessens commitment to the feedback process itself (see Figure 1) and participants are more likely to receive bland feedback which gives them little insight into how they may go about planning development in response.

Figure 1: Commitment to 360, over time

Source: IES, 2005

This raises the important issue of whether there is an optimal time frame in which 360-degree feedback is most effective. That is, do all stakeholders in the process eventually ‘build up a tolerance’ to 360-degree feedback? It may be that after four years or ‘cycles’ organisations should consider taking a break from 360.

Our evidence suggests that organisations would be well advised to think hard about whether they really need to conduct 360-degree feedback for development on a mandatory annual basis. There is a case for limiting its application to key groups (eg senior managers) or to certain times (eg after major role or team changes).

Using 360 for appraisal

The research to date does not demonstrate whether it is a ‘good thing’ or a ‘bad thing’ to apply 360-degree feedback to performance appraisal rather than development. Rather, it is reasonable to infer that trying to address both purposes with one scheme can be problematic. The ideal design and implementation arrangements for a 360-degree feedback scheme differ, depending on which aspect is most important: development or appraisal. It may therefore be that organisations should consider that fully addressing both aspects may be unrealistic in practice.

There seems to be a high degree of acceptance that 360-degree feedback is suitable to support appraisal, but only where schemes have not already been introduced exclusively for development. The difficulty of shifting ‘expectations’ once 360 is in place will, at the very least, merit considerable effort and should not be underestimated.

Time for evaluation and review

The report suggests that 360-degree feedback is an inherently delicate process, much more so than is typically espoused by external providers and some HR staff responsible for its administration. We encountered a great deal of attention to implementation of the system with inadequate attention being paid to what will happen post-feedback and what outcomes to expect.

The level of developmental support that the participants received after they received their feedback was generally reported to be quite poor. Many participants reported having received only limited support:

‘I have received no further support, other than an arranged date to discuss the report and feedback in a couple of weeks.’ (feedback recipient, two months after the feedback)

IES suggests that, too often, organisations adopt 360-degree feedback systems on a whim, without having considered the potential consequences.

‘I filled in eight forms this year, and perhaps that’s about the average over the last eight years, so the quicker the process is, the better. It is hard to give value to those people I have to do time and again. I am forced to question whether there is enough value any more for individuals or the organisation, where there has been no change to someone’s job or context, and where they were rated really high last time anyway.’ (rater and line manager)

Organisations that have evaluated and reviewed their systems and reactions ‘on the ground’ found it an enlightening and useful exercise. IES suggests that organisations must look beyond the spin from the host of external providers now pushing the process and advocating its benefits and consider if such a process is really what is needed.

It may be that organisations can more often remind employees that they should be giving candid and regular feedback anyway as good practice, regardless of any 360-degree feedback process.

360 Degree Feedback: Beyond the Spin, Silverman M, Kerrin M, Carter A. Report 418, Institute for Employment Studies, 2005.
ISBN: 978-1-85184-348-0. £19.95. [PDF price: £8.00]

• How to obtain this publication