360 review.
aka 360-degree feedback, multi-rater feedback, peer review
Everyone rates you, not just your boss. Including the people who report to you.
What it actually means
A 360 review is a feedback process in which an employee receives structured input from all around them: their manager, their peers, the people who report to them, and sometimes clients, usually alongside a self-assessment. It is designed to show how a person is experienced by everyone they work with, not just from above.
The mechanics: a set of raters is chosen (typically 6 to 12), each answers the same questionnaire about the person’s behaviours (communication, collaboration, leadership), responses are anonymised and aggregated, and the person gets a report comparing how they see themselves with how others see them. The gaps are the point.
Done well, it is for development: a manager finds out their team experiences them as unavailable, and fixes it. Done badly, it is tied to pay or promotion, people game their ratings, and the anonymous comments turn into score-settling. Most HR guidance says keep it developmental and keep the raters anonymous.
Where you'll hear it
Your 360 opens Monday. Nominate eight raters including at least two direct reports, complete your self-assessment, and you’ll get your report in a debrief with your manager in three weeks.
Translation: choose raters who will be honest, not kind, because the useful part of the report is where their view and yours disagree.
Also in leadership development programmes, in coaching engagements (coaches love a 360 as a starting point), and in performance management debates about whether peer feedback should influence pay. The phrase has leaked into everyday speech: “I got a 360 from my friends on that decision” means everyone weighed in.
The pop-culture version
The judges are the manager: expert, but they only see the performance. The audience vote is your peers: they see how you behave in the house, not just on stage. The other contestants are your direct reports: they know whether you share the kitchen or hog the mirror.
Any one of those scores is partial. Combined, they tell you something no single panel can: whether you are a performer people want to work with, or just a performer.
The contestant who wins the judges and loses the house has a 360 problem. In a company, that is the brilliant manager whose team quietly transfers out.
The valuable moment in any 360 is the gap: you rate yourself a 5 on “listens to others” and your team averages 2. That number is not an insult. It is the most useful thing anyone has told you this year.
Say it like you mean it
“My 360 showed a gap between how I rate my communication and how my reports experience it, so I’m working on that this quarter.”
Shows you read the report for the gaps and did something with them.“My 360 was great, everyone said nice things.”
If everyone said nice things, you chose the wrong raters, or the process is not anonymous enough for anyone to be honest.If you are picking raters: include at least one person you have clashed with. Their feedback is the part you cannot get anywhere else.
How to design the questionnaire, choose raters, keep it anonymous and turn the report into an actual development plan.
Decoded next
Decoded by the Kurums editorial team. Kurums Decoded translates the language of business for people who are new to it. Definitions are kept short on purpose; the serious version above goes deep. Nothing here is financial, legal or career advice.
Discover more from Kurums | Business Intelligence
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
