Traditional performance reviews have a blind spot: they only capture one perspective. A manager's view of an employee's performance is important but incomplete. 360 reviews solve this by collecting feedback from multiple sources including peers, direct reports, cross-functional collaborators, and the employee themselves.
The result is a richer, more accurate picture of how someone actually shows up at work.
Why 360 reviews matter. First, they surface blind spots. Most people have gaps between how they see themselves and how others experience them. A manager might rate someone highly on communication, while their peers find them difficult to collaborate with. Without multi-rater feedback, that gap goes unaddressed until it becomes a bigger problem.
Second, 360 reviews reduce bias. When feedback comes from a single source, the review is shaped by one person's preferences, recency bias, and relationship dynamics. Aggregating feedback from five or six people smooths out individual bias and produces a more balanced assessment.
Third, they build self-awareness. Employees who go through a well-run 360 process consistently report that it was one of the most valuable development experiences of their career. Seeing how their work is perceived across different relationships creates insights that no amount of manager feedback alone can produce.
How to run 360 reviews well. Start by selecting the right reviewers. Three to five people is the sweet spot. Include a mix of peers, direct reports (if applicable), and cross-functional partners. The employee should have input into who is selected, but the manager should have final approval to ensure a balanced group.
Use a consistent framework. Every reviewer should answer the same questions so responses can be compared. A mix of rated competencies and open-ended questions works well. For example, rate the person on collaboration, communication, and technical skills, then ask "What should this person keep doing?" and "What could they improve?"
Ensure confidentiality. Feedback from individual reviewers should be anonymized in the final report. If people fear that their comments will be attributed to them, they will soften their feedback to the point of uselessness. Anonymity is what gives 360 feedback its power.
Focus the debrief on patterns. When reviewing results with the employee, highlight themes rather than individual comments. If three out of five reviewers mention communication as a growth area, that is a pattern worth discussing. A single outlier comment is less actionable and can be distracting.
The common objection to 360 reviews is that they take too much time. And yes, they require more effort than a traditional manager-only review. But the investment pays off in better self-awareness, fairer evaluations, and more targeted development plans. Platforms like Culture Wheel streamline the process by automating reviewer selection, sending reminders, and compiling anonymized feedback into a single report so the administrative overhead is minimal.
If you are running 360s for the first time, start with a pilot group. Choose a team that is open to feedback and use their experience to refine the process before rolling it out company-wide. The teams that commit to 360 reviews consistently report stronger trust, better communication, and faster professional development across the board.