Back to blog

8 Reasons 360-Degree Feedback Fails

A Hand writing 360° Feedback with white chalk on a black board.

Not all man­age­ment trends stand the test of time — how does 360-degree feed­back fall short?

When it comes to mon­i­tor­ing and pro­mot­ing effec­tive per­for­mance, there are a num­ber of per­for­mance man­age­ment tools and tech­niques employed by com­pa­nies around the world. Some of these are new, while some have exist­ed for many years and con­tin­ue to be pop­u­lar today, despite stud­ies demon­strat­ing their innate draw­backs. In this blog, we’ll explore the con­cept of 360-degree feed­back and why we at Clear Review believe it is a man­age­ment trend that will con­tin­ue to fall in pop­u­lar­i­ty as the years go by. We’ll also dis­cuss why con­tin­u­ous feed­back results in a health­i­er feed­back culture.

What Is 360-Degree Feedback?

360-degree feed­back (also known as mul­ti-source feed­back and mul­ti-rater feed­back) dates back to the 1950s and quick­ly became pop­u­lar. By the 1990s, most organ­i­sa­tions were mak­ing use of the tool, although, over the years issues have come to light that call into ques­tion its effi­ca­cy. 360-degree feed­back seeks to pro­vide all employ­ees with the oppor­tu­ni­ty to receive feed­back from every­one they work with, includ­ing their peers, cus­tomers and super­vi­sors. In the­o­ry, this results in a more well-round­ed and infor­ma­tive per­for­mance review. In order to con­duct 360-degree feed­back, mod­ern com­pa­nies utilise soft­ware and lengthy forms.

1. You’re Pit­ting Employ­ees against Each Other

In order to cre­ate and main­tain a healthy com­pa­ny morale, employ­ees need to expe­ri­ence an atmos­phere of team­work and col­lab­o­ra­tion. 360-degree feed­back often flies in the face of this and has been described as com­ing from the same Godzil­la world as Forced Rank­ing and Bell Curve Per­for­mance Reviews and all that garbage.”

Accord­ing to a New York Times arti­cle, 360-degree feed­back has result­ed in hurt­ful and unpro­duc­tive com­ments such as stop using your looks and per­son­al­i­ty to get things done” and I nev­er real­ly liked you.” The same arti­cle points out that employ­ees being con­sid­ered for pro­mo­tion might invite envi­ous and dam­ag­ing com­ments in order to serve an agen­da. On top of this, peo­ple with an axe to grind might view 360-degree feed­back as an excuse to exer­cise revenge, while it also pro­vides man­agers with an oppor­tu­ni­ty to exer­cise their supe­ri­or­i­ty. None of this is help­ful when it comes to form­ing an accu­rate pic­ture of an employee’s performance.

2. They Take Far Too Long to Complete

Time is mon­ey in any organ­i­sa­tion and, for this very rea­son, annu­al appraisals are falling out of favour. For sim­i­lar rea­sons, 360-degree feed­back is sim­ply not a good use of com­pa­ny time. 

When we con­sid­er the timescale, the aver­age man­ag­er needs to be aware of the fact that it takes 1 – 3 weeks to com­mu­ni­cate the pur­pose of the 360, while explain­ing the process and how the feed­back will be gath­ered and used. It then takes a fur­ther 1 – 2 weeks to select raters. Dis­trib­ut­ing sur­veys takes up to one week, and com­plet­ing 360-degree ques­tion­naires takes rough­ly 2 – 4 weeks. After this, reports need to be pro­duced, which typ­i­cal­ly take 1 – 2 days and feed­back meet­ings need to be con­duct­ed, which take 1 – 2 hours per par­tic­i­pant. Final­ly, a devel­op­ment plan needs to be cre­at­ed, which takes a fur­ther 1 – 2 weeks. In all, the whole process can take between 6 – 12 weeks. This rep­re­sents a lot of man-hours for a process that also needs to be repeat­ed every year.

3. The Issue of Confidentiality

A core ele­ment of 360-degree feed­back is con­fi­den­tial­i­ty. Review­ers need to be able to deliv­er open, hon­est feed­back with­out the con­cern that a close col­league or friend might be hurt or angered by the feedback.

How­ev­er, this anonymi­ty presents some prob­lems. For exam­ple, if the 360-degree process is indeed com­plete­ly anony­mous, employ­ees might be more inclined to leave unhelp­ful com­ments or tar­get cowork­ers they have issues with.

On top of this, anonymi­ty means that employ­ees are com­plete­ly unable to respond to feed­back they find unfair or unhelp­ful. They are also unable to ask for clar­i­fi­ca­tion on com­ments, which means they are unable to make any mean­ing­ful improvements.

4. The Innate Lack of Objectivity

Objec­tiv­i­ty is always an issue in terms of per­for­mance eval­u­a­tions. You might assume that this prob­lem would be resolved, or at least alle­vi­at­ed, by hav­ing mul­ti­ple opin­ions or view­points on an individual’s behav­iour. After all, what­ev­er objec­tiv­i­ty one per­son lacks, it must sure­ly be com­pen­sat­ed by the opin­ions of mul­ti­ple oth­ers. How­ev­er, this sim­ply isn’t the case. Each indi­vid­ual rater is human and, there­fore, as unre­li­able as the next. The result is a poor data yield, which isn’t help­ful to the employ­ee, to the man­ag­er or to the company.

5. Employ­ees Are Asked to Change Too Much at Once

One of the biggest prob­lems with 360-degree feed­back is that once the ques­tion­naires are col­lect­ed and infor­ma­tion dis­sem­i­nat­ed, the employ­ee is left with a huge (and over­whelm­ing) amount of data. This means they will have a large num­ber of sug­ges­tions on how they can improve their per­for­mance in the com­ing months. How­ev­er, chang­ing behav­iour is dif­fi­cult. Employ­ees can cer­tain­ly change ingrained habits, but attempt­ing to do too much at once is a recipe for dis­as­ter. It is bet­ter for employ­ees to con­struct sim­ple SMART objec­tives, which they can track and steadi­ly work towards.

6. Gen­er­al­ly, Data from 360-Degree Feed­back Is Unreliable

Giv­en how long the 360-degree feed­back process takes and how many peo­ple are involved, you would hope that the result is a col­lec­tion of reli­able and infor­ma­tive data. Unfor­tu­nate­ly, this is rarely the case. As a Har­vard Busi­ness Review arti­cle states, data gen­er­at­ed from a 360 sur­vey is bad. It’s always bad.” The same arti­cle even goes so far as to say 360-degree sur­veys are, at best, a waste of everyone’s time, and at worst active­ly dam­ag­ing to both the indi­vid­ual and the organization.”

In fact, the US mil­i­tary has even crit­i­cised its own use of 360-degree feed­back, as it had ongo­ing prob­lems with reli­a­bil­i­ty and valid­i­ty. One study showed that the length of time a rater has known the employ­ee being eval­u­at­ed had a sig­nif­i­cant effect on the accu­ra­cy of a 360 review. The study found that if indi­vid­u­als knew employ­ees for one to three years”, they gave fair­ly accu­rate reviews. They gave inac­cu­rate reviews of those they knew for less than a year and more long-term employ­ees, who they tend­ed to gen­er­alise, either favourably or unfavourably.

7. 360 Reviews Haven’t Been Shown to Improve Performance

Giv­en the issues with objec­tiv­i­ty and inac­cu­rate data, it will come as no sur­prise that there is no evi­dence to sug­gest that 360 reviews actu­al­ly improve com­pa­ny per­for­mance. In fact, one study found that such feed­back was asso­ci­at­ed with a 10.6% decrease in mar­ket val­ue, fur­ther stat­ing that there is no data show­ing that [360-degree feed­back] actu­al­ly improves pro­duc­tiv­i­ty, increas­es reten­tion, decreas­es griev­ances, or is supe­ri­or to forced rank­ing and stan­dard per­for­mance appraisal systems.”

8. There Is Too Much of a Focus on the Negative

At Clear Review, we advise that man­agers focus on the pos­i­tive dur­ing coach­ing con­ver­sa­tions. Pos­i­tive feed­back has been linked to more favourable per­for­mance and pro­duc­tiv­i­ty lev­els. Unfor­tu­nate­ly, 360-degree feed­back focus­es far too much on the neg­a­tive, with employ­ees gen­er­al­ly dis­re­gard­ing strengths. This is usu­al­ly done with good intent — employ­ees want to high­light weak­ness­es, so they can address them. How­ev­er, an onslaught of neg­a­tiv­i­ty is not the best way to moti­vate and encour­age employ­ees, par­tic­u­lar­ly when they are feel­ing vul­ner­a­ble and judged.

Instead of 360-Degree Feed­back, Choose Con­tin­u­ous Feedback

Con­tin­u­ous per­for­mance man­age­ment offers an alter­na­tive to 360 feed­back. Instead of deal­ing with a mul­ti­tude of opin­ions and sug­ges­tions, the employ­ee and man­ag­er can meet fre­quent­ly to dis­cuss a per­for­mance action plan going for­ward, with spe­cif­ic SMART goals and learn­ing objec­tives set. This builds a health­i­er feed­back cul­ture in the long term and results in more con­fi­dent, capa­ble and con­tent employees.

Clear Review are experts in per­for­mance man­age­ment and can help you revi­talise and update your per­for­mance man­age­ment sys­tem. To find out how our per­for­mance review soft­ware can help you, book a free demo today.

Book a free demo of Clear Review

Relat­ed articles

Ongoing Feedback Definition: What Makes It Truly "Ongoing"?
As more and more businesses recognise the ineffectiveness of annual appraisals, ongoing feedback has become more and more popular — but not everyone agrees on what it means… Ongoing feedback’s definition varies according to the business implementing it. For some businesses, moving from an annual…
Read article
Is Continuous Feedback the Key to Motivating Millennials at Work?
Narcissistic, childish, demanding — the so-called ‘everybody gets a trophy’ millennial generation gets a bad rap. But are we making a mistake? We should be listening to millennials and taking time to understand their demands for regular continuous feedback to keep them motivated.
Read article