Recently   on a platform I regularly patronize called Business Leaders Network, we emphatically discussed the promise and perils of employing 360-degree as an assessment tool.

It is recognized that 360-degree feedback, is a widely employed method for assessing performance and leadership. In fact one of the renowned leadership guru, John Maxwell has written a book on this subject. It is an assessment that combines input from peers, managers, and supervisees and some leaders take it to another level and include clients to provide a comprehensive evaluation.

While it may appear promising, a closer examination reveals inherent flaws, which if not addressed may amount to throwing the baby out with the bath water. As a human resource specialist, I have personally experienced the downside of a 360-degree performance appraisal. My fate lay in the hands of individuals who rarely interacted with me appraised my rules of engagement with the organization. It is in that regard, that I would like us to lift the veil on this tool.  Am compelled to persuade readers that this feedback method has its drawbacks.

Drawing on insights from Marcus Buckingham in his article, The Fatal Flaw with 360 Surveys published on the Harvard Business Review on 17^th October 2011, “The data generated from a 360 survey is bad. It’s always bad. And since the data is bad, no matter how well-intended your coaching, how insightful your feedback, how coherent your leadership model, you are likely leading your leaders astray” he posited.

Why did Buckingham come to that conclusion? 360-degree feedback is susceptible to bias. People give feedback influenced by their own agenda, personal interests, or feelings of threat. This implies that respondents may harbor concealed agendas or prejudices, undermining the impartiality and accuracy of the feedback.

According to Levy and Williams (2004), “If participants do not perceive the system to be fair, the feedback to be accurate, or the sources to be credible then they are more likely to ignore and not use the feedback they receive.”

While anonymity fosters honesty, it can also lead to hurtful and damaging comments. Marcus Buckingham rightly warns, “Anonymity allows for cruelty, and cruelty destroys trust.” This breakdown of trust hampers collaboration within teams and will definitely have an effect on the performance and productivity of teams.

Further, conventional 360-degree feedback places excessive focus on weaknesses. Marcus Buckingham argues that “leveraging strengths is the best way to change behavior.” An obsession with flaws may not yield the desired performance improvements.

Often, if the feedback is lacking in specificity and fails to provide actionable suggestions. As Susan Cain puts it, “Vague, insipid feedback serves no one.” When there isn’t a well-defined improvement strategy in place, employees encounter difficulties in achieving substantial growth. In contrast to other feedback methods, such as one-on-one sessions, the 360-degree feedback model does not clarify gaps or what we commonly refer to as areas for improvement.

It is not uncommon for various raters to provide contradictory ratings, causing confusion. Jack Zenger stresses, “There’s often a huge difference in how others perceive us and how we perceive ourselves.” Inconsistent input hinders the development of self-awareness.

With the complexities and limitations of 360-degree feedback, I would encourage leaders to reconsider its role in fostering organizational growth and embrace alternative approaches and innovative ideas for performance reviews and leadership development to achieve effective outcomes.