Other names for 360-degree feedback are multi-rater feedback, multi-source feedback, full-circle appraisal, and group performance review. The term “360-degree feedback” has come to be synonymous with feedback from multiple sources, even though the data may not be gathered from every possible source. We will use the terms 360-degree feedback and multi-source feedback interchangeably throughout.

In the early 1950s, two ideas helped shape both the content of the feedback that people received and the way in which it was given. The wide acceptance and application of management by objectives helped to formalize and focus the feedback process. Bosses and workers were now able to establish and work toward specific productivity targets. At about the same time, research on employee motivation revealed that both productivity and job satisfaction increased when people received information regularly on how close they were to performance targets and what exactly they were doing that kept them on or off track. Consequently, periodic performance review meetings between individuals and their bosses became the norm.

Such “downward feedback,” while a valuable tool for monitoring performance and clarifying the behaviors that were contributing to a certain level of productivity, provided only one perspective and was necessarily limited. Furthermore, research has shown that a boss’s evaluation may depend more on unit performance than on observations of the individual employee’s behavior. In addition, if not handled effectively, or if the boss and direct report disagree about results and the cause of poor performance, these discussions can have a negative effect on employee motivation.

During the mid-1960s and early 1970s, academics and practitioners began exploring the question of how to provide people with a broader and more accurate picture of their performance. Researchers began to investigate the effect of feedback from direct reports—those most directly affected by the boss’s behavior—on managerial performance. Several studies substantiated the hypothesis that the perceptions of direct reports about a boss’s behavior were accurate and had a positive impact, once the manager learned how others perceived him or her. For that reason, companies like IBM have been incorporating feedback from direct reports into their performance discussions for more than thirty years.

In the mid-1980s, a study was conducted by the Center for Creative Leadership—a not-for-profit research and training organization headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina—and the researchers’ conclusions about management development are described in two books. One was written by Morgan W. McCall, Jr., Michael M. Lombardo, and Ann M. Morrison and entitled The Lessons of Experience: How Successful Executives Develop on the Job⁵ The other—Key Events in Executives’ Lives—is by Morgan W. McCall, Jr., Esther Lindsey, and Virginia Homes.⁶ These books helped get the idea of upward feedback into the mainstream.

Says Randall White, who was at the Center for Creative Leadership for fourteen years, “The work we were doing at the Center on the development of senior executives made it clear to us that people’s assessment of an individual varied depending on whether they were a boss, a peer, a direct report, or a customer. Our research also showed that people learned from experience—the events in their lives served as a classroom.”

Three key findings of the study focused people’s attention on the value of 360-degree feedback. The first was that feedback is an important element of a person’s professional and personal development. The second finding showed that the most effective executives were learners—they made everything into a learning experience. The third finding was that many people in organizations operated in feedback-poor environments.

In the case of middle and senior managers in particular, it was recognized that they often received very little feedback on their day-to-day performance; in many cases, they were evaluated in terms of financial results alone. Their personal development needs were seldom, if ever, addressed. But in the 1990s, two trends once again contributed to recognizing the importance of 360-degree feedback—increasing competition and the renewed focus on the customer.

The traditional hierarchical structure of most organizations had always made for a cumbersome approval process and limited sharing of information. As organizations attempted to succeed in an increasingly competitive environment and meet the expectations of a better informed and more demanding customer base, these weaknesses made it difficult to take advantage of new opportunities and respond quickly to changes in the marketplace. Therefore, many companies began evolving toward flatter structures that required communication and teamwork across organizational boundaries and empowered people at lower levels of the organization to make their own decisions. As this evolution progressed, organizational structures that had been designed to ensure that businesses and functions would be self-sufficient were replaced with structures that encouraged interdependence.

The result of these changes, and of the downsizing that has taken place in many companies, has been that managers at all levels often have more people reporting to them than ever before. In many cases, they are also required to work more closely with people in other parts of the organization over whom they have no direct authority but with whom they are expected to achieve results. In such circumstances, they are unlikely to witness an individual’s behavior personally for more than a few hours a week, and vice versa. Thus, the traditional forms of feedback, both downward and upward, yield less useful information than before.

Finally, neither upward nor downward feedback includes the perspectives of a significant population—colleagues, members of project teams, other senior managers, and customers—who depend on and are affected by the behavior of a given manager. These people are also in a position to observe a wide range of behaviors that might not be apparent to a direct supervisor or a direct report.

By including colleague feedback, insight can be gained into how the manager behaves in team situations; as teamwork becomes increasingly important for achieving organizational objectives, this information becomes key. Colleague feedback can also give unique insight into the use of influencing behaviors that serve to gain commitment when no direct authority can be exercised. At the same time, colleague feedback helps to foster and encourage teamwork by making employees aware that it is not just the boss’s expectations that are significant.

Feedback from customers and others outside the organization can provide yet another valuable perspective, since they are in a position to judge the extent to which an individual’s behaviors add value for the company. Their input can also serve to clarify any conflict the manager may be having between responsibility to the company and to the external client. In this way, barriers to responsiveness may be illuminated.

Fast forward to the challenges of today and tomorrow. In “The Changing Nature of Leadership,” an article published by the Center for Creative Leadership in 2006, Andre Martin identified several factors contributing to a required shift in leadership. Shifting competitive bases, globalization, increased expectations from various stakeholders, drive for innovation, and a need for reinvention will require aspiring and current leaders to respond to their external environments as well as their internal, or organizational, environments in new ways. And, within the last decade, rapid changes in technology have had an enormous impact on how people interact, the speed with which they work, and those people to whom they have access. Whether it is through the development of new skill sets, being more flexible and adaptable, or better leveraging diverse voices, individuals and organizations will need to know the degree to which they are effective in their work and roles.

All of this leads us to 360-degree feedback. By gathering information from many different people, it provides a complete portrait of behavior on the job—one that looks at people from every angle and every perspective, in their roles as direct reports, team members, managers of both internal and external relationships, and sources of knowledge and expertise. It is like having a full-length portrait, a profile, a close-up shot of the face, and a view from the back all in one.

When feedback from all these sources is presented within a framework that gives people the chance to practice key behaviors and plan for improvement, it can serve as a lever to bring about real, measurable changes in people’s behavior. Empirical research, as well as anecdotal evidence, has shown that 360-degree feedback can lead to improved performance in the areas evaluated.⁷

Your decision about which type of information to collect will depend on several factors—the business or leadership problem or opportunity to be addressed, the role and level of the individual who will receive the feedback, and the organization’s norms and values regarding what is considered acceptable and appropriate.

The most useful questionnaires request feedback about specific behaviors rather than asking for general judgments. For example, instead of asking, “Is this person an inspiring manager?,” the questionnaire might ask, “How often does this person present a clear and appealing vision of what can be accomplished with my (the respondent’s) cooperation and support?” By phrasing the items in terms directly relating to the person providing the feedback, you avoid asking the respondent to hazard guesses about the manager’s behavior toward others. Furthermore, the individual receiving the feedback will get a clear picture of which specific behaviors need to be changed or used more or less often.

Ideally, respondents should have a chance to rate not only how frequently and effectively each behavior is used, but also its degree of importance to them. Such information helps the individual receiving the feedback decide which behaviors it is most crucial to focus on when the time comes to map out a development plan.

Questionnaires. Compared to just ten years ago when the vast majority of our clients used paper-and-pencil applications, over 90 percent of those who participated in our survey reported they collect questionnaire data either electronically or online. Questionnaires, which generally take the form of a series of multiple-choice questions, ask people to assess an individual’s behaviors and actions in certain key areas. Some questionnaires also include open-ended questions that give respondents a chance to make comments or observations on subjects of their own choosing. There are hundreds of questionnaires on the market today, and identifying the one that will get at the things that are most important to you and your organization is no small feat. The questionnaire you choose will depend, in part, on what type of data you want to collect.

Fortunately, there are several resource guides available that provide descriptions of the most widely used instruments. One of the best guides—Feedback to Managers: A Review and Comparison of Multi-Rater Instruments for Management Development—is published by the Center for Creative Leadership. Feedback to Managers specifies which questionnaires collect data on job-related skills. And, Resource A at the end of this book provides examples to give you a head start in your thinking.

Ideally, if you are using questionnaires, the process of administering them will include these basic steps:

In a client organization where we were involved in their new 360 initiative, participating managers who had never had experience with multi-rater feedback found the questionnaire process to be straightforward and valuable. When “first timers” were asked why, they spoke about the importance of having the groundwork laid related to objectives and how the data would be used. This important step as well as a smooth administrative process enabled them to be open-minded to the experience. They also said that the instrument focused on areas that had real meaning to them given the organizational and business challenges they faced. All of this meant that they could realize the full potential of the 360 initiative—getting feedback from multiple perspectives and determining how that feedback could help them be even more effective in their roles. It also meant, at an organization level, that a large population could be moved through the process efficiently and effectively.

One-on-One Interviews. Ideally, if you are using individual interviews, the process will include these basic steps:

Individual interviews can serve as a stand-alone method of data collection or as a complement to the data collected by questionnaires. The interviews can be conducted at the same time the questionnaire is administered or as a follow-up activity to elaborate on or clarify the findings provided by the questionnaire.

Many practitioners believe that multiple data collection methods provide the best picture of an individual’s behavior. One proponent of this approach is David DeVries, formerly an executive vice president of the Center for Creative Leadership and presently partner of Kaplan-DeVries, a consulting firm that specializes in using 360-degree feedback for executive development. DeVries feels that “feedback should involve different sources and different modes or media. I would argue for the addition of interviews as an integral part of any 360-degree questionnaire method. When you hand out a questionnaire, you collect a certain kind of data that are helpful but tend to be more global. It’s awfully useful to complement that with interviews, which provide a very different kind of data. They don’t negate or contradict what is in the questionnaire but offer concrete examples.” Randall White agrees: “Interviews provide context, not just strengths and weaknesses. They flesh out the questionnaire data.” He adds, “But most organizations don’t have the resources to collect that kind of data.”