5 important questions and answers for HR developers and consultants on 360-degree feedback processes

360-degree feedback processes are being used more and more frequently in coaching and personnel development processes. It is therefore worth taking a look at some fundamental questions on this topic. In the following, we will explore the reasons for and against 360-degree feedback, what to keep in mind when putting it into practice, and which methods tend to work well—and which ones don’t.

Question 1: What are the arguments for (or against) conducting 360-degree feedback?

It is no exaggeration to say that few other HR development measures offer as much potential for growth as a well-executed comparison between self-perception and external perception, particularly in areas such as professional skills, work style, communication style, or conflict behavior. This potential is so significant because honest and systematic feedback is one of the most effective ways to reveal unconscious deficits—weaknesses that others may notice, but that the individual remains unaware of or intentionally ignores to protect their self-image. However, such processes should always be approached critically if they are not voluntary, are implemented poorly, or are misused as a means of undermining or disadvantaging others with the feedback.

Question 2: How and by whom should 360-degree feedback be conducted?

Be aware that a comprehensive 360-degree feedback process places high demands on the data collection tools used and the individuals involved. First of all, you need an instrument that can be used to record both the self-perception and external assessments in a valid and reliable manner. A variety of well-regarded tools are now available for this purpose. However, the process must also be competently moderated, as these processes can carry a significant potential for conflict—especially if the person being assessed struggles to engage with the feedback constructively or if the feedback itself is particularly critical.

Question 3: For whom should 360-degree feedback be carried out?

The primary target group for 360-degree feedback consists of managers and emerging leaders. For these individuals, aligning self-perception with external perception is particularly important, as discrepancies between the two almost inevitably lead to challenges in leadership. However, alternative feedback formats can also be valuable. For instance, a scaled-down version can be incorporated into annual employee appraisals, where the manager provides an external assessment and the employee conducts a self-assessment, followed by a discussion to compare perspectives.

Question 4: What requirements should be met for a successful feedback process?

First of all, such feedback processes should always be carried out voluntarily. Only then can the results be genuinely accepted and provide meaningful benefits. If resentment or apprehension exists toward the method, the entire process risks becoming counterproductive. As the person carrying out the process, you should assess whether the feedback recipient is able to deal with the results before the process is carried out. Similarly, feedback providers must feel free to respond honestly and without fear of repercussions; otherwise, the process may devolve into a purely positive exercise with no substantive value. In some cases, it may therefore be advisable to present the feedback anonymously in an overview. This approach still offers valuable insight into external perceptions while minimizing potential conflict.

Question 5: What should be measured?

A modern and holistic 360-degree feedback process should capture and present various aspects of an individual’s professional personality. While a well-structured skills profile is a core component, other relevant traits should also be assessed—particularly where there may be gaps between self-perception and external perception. Key areas to consider can include leadership style, work style, and communication style, as these can significantly impact professional effectiveness.

Yours, Dr. Ronald Franke