360 Degree Feedback: Beyond the Spin
An Institute for Employment Studies study of 360 degree feedback in practice: a literature review, two in-depth case studies (a leisure company introducing a scheme, a local authority reviewing one it had run for years) and interviews in five other organisations, 113 people in all. Silverman, Kerrin and Carter found evaluation of impact sparse, and where it existed broadly positive but mostly of small, resource-intensive programmes; examples of improved performance or behaviour change were scant in their own evidence, and they conclude, in a phrase from Fletcher, that use still reflects faith rather than proven validity.
The local authority had chosen not to anonymise ratings, and the researchers met many examples of feedback withheld or not given honestly for fear of retribution; five colleagues agreed to write the same criticism of their manager so that none of them could be blamed. Yet most raters interviewed there were content to be identifiable, a view they trace to receivers' fears that anonymity would let personal agendas hijack the process. When one firm's sales department sought to use 360 data for bonuses, unions and raters resisted and it was withdrawn from appraisal. In the longest-running schemes, response rates and commitment fell over successive rounds while perceived dishonesty rose; they suggest organisations might consider a break after four cycles, and that many organisations adopt 360 on a whim when reminding people to give candid, regular feedback might serve.
The bridge to psychological safety is ours, though the report comes close in saying that organisational culture and climate will influence whether a scheme should be anonymised, and that if staff led to believe feedback will not affect pay or progression have even the slightest suspicion that it will, both the choice of raters and the ratings will be different. We read it as suggesting that 360 feedback depends on the safety to speak upward more than it creates it, though some LocalGov staff said upward feedback left lower grades empowered. Its limits: a qualitative practitioner study of two pseudonymised cases and five interviewed organisations, with no outcome measures of its own.
Save this paper to a bibliography, keep notes on it, and export citations. Create a free account →