Once you’ve decided to implement 360-degree feedback, some critical decisions lie ahead.
Who will provide feedback?
What exactly will be evaluated?
How will you ensure the process is fair and useful?
These might seem like technical questions, but answering them properly will determine whether your project succeeds or fails.
Who will provide the feedback?
Selecting the right reviewers is your first major decision. You might think, “That’s easy — we’ll ask the manager and a few colleagues.” But in reality, it requires more nuance because each group of reviewers brings a unique perspective to the table.
Managers – the strategic perspective
A direct manager understands the employee’s goals, responsibilities, and what is expected in the role. They can assess how the employee contributes to team and company objectives, handles new challenges, and grows over time. Their feedback is often the most structured and aligned with business outcomes.
For example, a sales manager might evaluate how well someone plans team activities, communicates strategy, or handles customer conflicts. Their perspective is irreplaceable because they have the most complete overview of what’s expected from the employee.
Peers – the day-to-day reality
Colleagues on the same level see the person in action every day. They know how they communicate in meetings, share information, respond to stress, and support others. Their feedback is often the most authentic because there’s no hierarchy between them and the person being reviewed.
Here’s an example from a company I worked with: “We had a project manager whose boss thought he was a great communicator. But peer feedback revealed that while he gave great presentations, in day-to-day interactions he was impatient, dismissed others' ideas, and often changed requirements without consultation. That insight was crucial for his development.”
Direct reports – the bottom-up perspective
If the employee leads a team, feedback from their direct reports is invaluable. They’re the only ones who truly see the manager’s leadership style — how they delegate, motivate, support, and shape the work environment. This bottom-up view often reveals things that remain otherwise hidden.
Crucially, direct reports must be guaranteed anonymity. If they suspect even the slightest risk of being identified, they won’t be honest — and dishonest feedback is worse than no feedback at all.
Self-assessment – the mirror
Self-assessment isn’t just a box to tick — it’s a core part of the process. It allows a comparison between how the individual sees themselves and how others see them. These differences — the so-called “gap analysis” — often uncover the most valuable insights.
If someone rates themselves much higher in communication than their peers do, that might indicate a blind spot — an area they aren’t aware needs improvement. On the flip side, rating themselves lower may reveal untapped potential or low confidence.
How many reviewers is optimal?
A common question: “How many people should assess one person?” The answer depends on a few factors, but a general recommendation is:
1 direct manager
3–5 peers
3–5 direct reports (if applicable)
Plus self-assessment
Why these numbers? Fewer than 3 reviewers per group (e.g., peers) won’t ensure anonymity. You’d have to merge responses with another group or leave them out. More than 5–6 reviewers per group won’t add much insight but will slow down the process.
Tip: More reviewers ≠ better results. Going above 12–15 reviewers per person creates unnecessary administrative overhead without improving feedback quality. The goal is a balanced mix of diverse perspectives and practical efficiency.
What should be evaluated – choosing competencies
This is arguably the most critical decision in the entire process — and where most organizations go wrong. I’ve seen 360° reviews trying to cover everything from technical skills to leadership. The result? Overwhelmed reviewers and superficial feedback.
A two-level approach to competencies
I recommend a strategic approach that has worked well in practice:
Level 1: Role-based competency model
Start by building a complete competency model for each role. This includes technical, domain-specific, and soft skills. Use this model for recruitment, performance reviews, and career development.
Level 2: 360° selection – cultural competencies
In the 360° process, include only soft skills that impact team and organizational culture. Focus on competencies that:
Influence team atmosphere and collaboration
Shape how people communicate with each other
Define how the organization handles conflict and feedback
Foster trust and psychological safety
The power of 360° in soft skills
360-degree feedback uniquely captures soft aspects of work that are often the most crucial for team success — and the hardest to measure. For instance, you can evaluate a developer’s technical skills through a code review, but how do you know if they:
Share knowledge with junior colleagues?
Offer constructive feedback during peer reviews?
Communicate technical issues clearly?
Proactively suggest process improvements?
These are “soft elements of technical competencies” — and even a technically brilliant developer without them can be counterproductive.
Practical example from Sloneek
At Sloneek, we’ve defined five core cultural competencies for all employees:
Team Collaboration
Actively contributes to group work
Helps achieve team goals and successCommunication & Feedback
Communicates clearly, respectfully, and openly
Gives useful, specific, and constructive feedback
Contributes to a positive team atmosphereReliability & Consideration
Respects others’ time, responsibilities, and effort
Keeps commitments and is dependableInitiative & Ideas
Proactively suggests ideas and improvementsEffort & Motivation
Demonstrates dedication and consistent effort at work
For leaders, we add a Leadership section with role-specific competencies.
Why these competencies?
Each of these directly impacts how our teams function — it’s not just about individual performance but building a culture where:
People support each other and share responsibility
Feedback is seen as a gift, not an attack
Reliability creates trust
Initiative moves the whole company forward
How to define behavioral indicators
For each competency, define 2–3 specific behaviors. Avoid vague statements like “is a good communicator.”
❌ Poor: “Communicates effectively”
✅ Better: “Communicates clearly, respectfully, and openly with others”
❌ Poor: “Gives feedback”
✅ Better: “Offers feedback that is useful, specific, and constructive”
Optimal scope
Stick to 4–6 core competencies, each with 2–3 behavioral indicators. In total, your questionnaire should have no more than 15 rating-scale questions plus a few open-ended ones. More than that overwhelms reviewers and leads to shallow feedback.
Pro tip: Less is truly more. Companies that started with 10–12 competencies to “cover everything” often got vague, generic feedback. After reducing to 5–6 core cultural competencies, the quality of comments improved dramatically. Reviewers had the energy to be specific and constructive.
Sample: Competencies for Middle Management
Let’s look at an example for middle managers in a commercial company. The competencies could look like this:
People Leadership
Gives clear and understandable instructions
Delegates tasks based on team members’ skills
Motivates the team even in difficult situations
Provides constructive feedback
Communication
Actively listens to others’ opinions
Expresses ideas clearly and understandably
Adapts communication style to different people
Handles conflict constructively
Performance Management
Sets clear and achievable goals
Regularly tracks team progress
Recognizes and rewards good performance
Deals with performance issues in a timely and effective way
What to avoid
To wrap up this section, here are a few common mistakes that can ruin the entire project:
Overly academic competencies. Avoid language employees won’t understand. Instead of “initiates strategic synergies,” say “suggests ideas for improvement.”
Assessing personality traits. 360° feedback is about behavior, not personality. Don’t evaluate “is introverted” — evaluate “actively participates in discussions.”
Too broad a scope. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Better to assess fewer competencies well than try to cover everything superficially.
0 comments
Please sign in to leave a comment.