A 360-degree feedback (also known as multi-rater feedback, multi source feedback, or multi source assessment) is a process through which feedback from an employee's subordinates, colleagues, and supervisor(s), as well as a self-evaluation by the employee themselves is gathered. Such feedback can also include, when relevant, feedback from external sources who interact with the employee, such as customers and suppliers or other interested stakeholders. 360-degree feedback is so named because it solicits feedback regarding an employee's behavior from a variety of points of view (subordinate, lateral, and supervisory). When 360-degree feedback is used for performance evaluation purposes, it is sometimes called a "360-degree review". There is a great deal of debate as to whether 360-degree feedback should be used exclusively for development purposes or for evaluation purposes as well. This is due primarily to feedback providers' subjectivity and motivations, inter-rater variations, and whether feedback providers have the ability to fairly evaluate attainment of work and organizational objectives. While these issues exist when 360-degree feedback is used for development, they are more prominent when employers use them for performance evaluation purposes, as they can unfairly influence employment decisions, and even lead to legal liability.

1. 360 Degree Feedback
Mentor: DR. MEENU SAINI
Present by: Komal Singh

3. 360 DEGREE FEEDBACK
A 360-degree feedback (also known as multi-rater
feedback, multi source feedback, or multi source
assessment) is a process through which feedback from an
employee's subordinates, colleagues, and supervisor(s), as
well as a self-evaluation by the employee themselves is
gathered. Such feedback can also include, when relevant,
feedback from external sources who interact with the
employee, such as customers and suppliers or other
interested stakeholders. 360-degree feedback is so named
because it solicits feedback regarding an employee's
behavior from a variety of points of view (subordinate,
lateral, and supervisory).

5. It therefore may be contrasted with "downward feedback"
(traditional feedback on work behavior and performance
delivered to subordinates by supervisory or management
employees only; see traditional performance appraisal), or
"upward feedback" delivered to supervisory or
management employees by subordinates only.
Organizations have most commonly utilized 360-degree
feedback for developmental purposes, providing it to
employees to assist them in developing work skills and
behaviors. However, organizations are increasingly using
360-degree feedback in performance evaluations and
employment decisions (e.g., pay; promotions).

6. When 360-degree feedback is used for performance
evaluation purposes, it is sometimes called a "360-degree
review".
There is a great deal of debate as to whether 360-degree
feedback should be used exclusively for development
purposes or for evaluation purposes as well. This is due
primarily to feedback providers' subjectivity and
motivations, inter-rater variations, and whether feedback
providers have the ability to fairly evaluate attainment of
work and organizational objectives. While these issues
exist when 360-degree feedback is used for development,
they are more prominent when employers use them for
performance evaluation purposes, as they can unfairly
influence employment decisions, and even lead to legal
liability.

8. ISSUES
Many 360-degree feedback tools are not customized to the
needs of the organizations in which they are used. 360-
degree feedback is not equally useful in all types of
organizations and with all types of jobs. Additionally,
using 360-degree feedback tools for appraisal purposes
has increasingly come under fire as performance criteria
may not be valid and job based, employees may not be
adequately trained to evaluate a co-worker's performance,
and feedback providers can manipulate these systems.

9. Employee manipulation of feedback ratings has been reported in
some companies who have utilized 360-degree feedback for
performance evaluation including GE (Welch 2001), IBM
(Linman 2011), and Amazon (Kantor and Streitfeld 2015).
Some members of the U.S. military have criticized its use of
360-degree feedback programs in employment decisions
because of problems with validity and reliability. Other branches
of the U.S. government have questioned 360-degree feedback
reviews as well. Still, these organizations continue to use and
refine their assessments that offer multi-rater feedback in their
development processes since they offer unique opportunities for
leaders to increase their self-awareness of how they are
perceived by their subordinates, peers, and supervisors.

10. ACCURACY
Adopting the 360-degree review approach is purported to be
superior to other traditional forms of evaluation and feedback for
evaluating employee performance. When successfully
implemented, this method initiates a vast positive change and
provides a more efficient, thorough, and accurate assessment of
performance reviews. Participants must feel the survey
instruments are reliable and valid otherwise this multi-source
approach can be viewed as problematic. Management has to
ensure their employees are aware of the context in the survey to
maximize accuracy and minimize bias in responses. Several
inconsistencies and errors can arise in the feedback depending on
whether or not:

11. The rater interacts with the employee regularly.
The rater lets their emotions influence their judgement.
The employee reveals themselves to the rater honestly and
completely.
The rating has been retained confidentially (if not the rater
may not provide an honest rating).
The rater has a high level of confidence in the accuracy of
their rating.
There is a personal relationship between the employee and
rater.