Majority of Employees Reject 360-Degree Reviews, Citing Bias

Most employees are disillusioned with 360-degree assessments, a popular HR tool used for employee feedback, development, and performance management. 

360-degree reviews — a process in which managers, direct reports, peers, and co-workers contribute anonymous evaluations of an individual’s performance — are broadly used by HR, especially at large organizations.   

The measurement is designed to collect organizational feedback or help managers deliver comprehensive performance reviews. However, a recent survey from LiveCareer, a resume and career service, showed that many workers believe the model amplifies personal biases and workplace politics. 

According to LiveCareer, 79% of the 1,000 workers surveyed would opt out of 360-degree feedback if given the choice, with 74% saying they feel the results are unfair, biased, or inaccurate. 

Specifically, employees said 360-degree reviews raise serious concerns about objectivity and fairness: 

• 79% of employees suspect colleagues of using feedback to settle personal grudges.  
• 48% believe 360-degree reviews amplify office politics rather than provide honest evaluations. 
• 48% feel feedback is tainted by personal bias. 
• 39% experienced strained workplace relationships due to 360-degree feedback. 
• 35% reported increased stress and self-doubt. 
• 30% noted decreased productivity and motivation following 360-degree reviews. 

SHRM Members-Only Toolkit: Managing Employee Surveys

“360-degree feedback is a powerful tool for employee development, but it’s not without its challenges,” said Jasmine Escalera, career expert at LiveCareer. “Our study reveals that while it can foster growth and collaboration, it also risks amplifying office politics and personal biases. Organizations need to be mindful of how they implement and interpret feedback to truly benefit their teams.” 

Untying 360-Degree Feedback from Compensation

Carolyn Troyan, president and CEO of Leadership 360, an HR consulting and leadership coaching firm in St. Helena, Calif., said she gets nervous about the way in which many companies conduct 360-degree assessments.  

“I’ve seen 360 reviews work well and have the most impact when they are meant for development and do not affect compensation,” she said. “Performance management is broken and should be untied from comp.” 

Troyan said that compensation could instead be determined by evaluating skills and where the employee sits in the pay range. She said learning agility should be a major component of promotion.  

“Because 360-degree performance reviews are tied to compensation, you get people picking friends who will give positive feedback. It becomes political and feels like high stakes,” she said. “People are just trying to game the system.” 

One Piece of the Performance Assessment

Jay Jones, SHRM-CP, lead, talent and employee experience at SHRM, said that 360-degree assessments must be executed at a high level to be effective.  

“It’s one of the best ways to get feedback from staff, but HR needs to ensure that bias and personal grudges are not affecting the process,” he said. “Not putting measures in place to dissuade these things is an easy way to break trust with staff.”  

Jones added that if 360-degree feedback is used directly for performance management, it’s important that it only be a piece of the assessment and not the deciding factor.  

“For any organization doing that, it would be important to have additional training for everyone to understand why this is happening and how the information will be used,” he said.   

Troyan said that 360-degree feedback itself isn’t the problem but is inadequate if limited to annual review cycles.  

“Feedback should be timely,” she said. “A lot of the time, these 360 reviews are months apart. Most traditional performance management processes are conducted too far apart. If you get feedback months later, you feel angry and a lack of trust. ‘Why didn’t you tell me so I could have fixed that behavior?’ ” 

Additional problems with 360-degree evaluations are a lack of actionable focus and inadequate follow-up.  

“With any survey, if you are collecting feedback from staff and then that feedback is not reflected anywhere and leadership does not take that and have outcomes based on that feedback, you get survey fatigue,” Jones said. “Make sure the 360s are clear about what is being asked, both for the person taking it and the person receiving it. And ensure there is a follow-up process.” 

SHRM Members-Only Toolkit: Managing Employee Performance  

Should Feedback Be Anonymous?

Anonymous feedback is intended to encourage candor and protect reviewers. But while 62% of the LiveCareer survey respondents said they believe anonymous feedback encourages honesty, 28% said it leads to vague and unconstructive criticism. 

“Anonymity in feedback can create a safe space, but it can also be a shield for passive-aggressive comments,” Escalera said. “Striking the right balance between candidness and accountability is crucial for constructive feedback.” 

However, Jones is a proponent of anonymous feedback. “Ensuring anonymity is kept protects the process,” he said. “It allows staff to give a true opinion — and, hopefully, a constructive opinion. HR must guard against retaliation against those providing feedback.” 

Troyan believes that anonymous feedback lacks context and doesn’t provide enough detail to change one’s behavior or follow up on a highlighted behavior.  

“The more cutting-edge companies are training employees on how to give feedback,” she said. “They are putting peer-to-peer recognition programs together where co-workers are providing both positive and constructive feedback in the moment. And managers are giving monthly feedback on things employees are doing well, things to work on, and asking what support they need.” 

Issues are getting addressed swiftly with quick, direct feedback, she said, adding, “The younger generations particularly want this. I’m very excited for what this could evolve into.”