What The Heck is a 720 Degree Feedback Report

Posted on May 06, 2020 by Jonathan Roberts PhD, One of Thousands of Executive Coaches on Noomii.

What is 720° Feedback? It’s 360° Feedback conducted 12 months apart. So, 360 × 2 = 720.

Why would anyone want to subject themselves to 360° Feedback two years in a row? Certainly, a good question and the better question is not why, but how do you conduct a 360 Feedback (° F) session two years in a row?

There are varying opinions of the efficacy of 360° F as a tool. The issue is not the tool but who uses the tool, how they use it and for what purpose are they using it. When properly implemented the 360°F can lead to a magnificent discovery of self. Unfortunately, many have used the 360°F as a tool of punishment, rather than a tool of empowerment.

Having conducted several 720° reviews, I have found the following to be very helpful:
Utilizing the Johari Window

Johari Window (Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham, 1955)

During the debrief period much of the focus is placed on the Blind Spots and the Unknown areas of the individual. During this discussion there are many “aha” moments that arise and encourage deep, meaningful conversations from the individual and the leader conducting the review. We all have blind spots, but to have them identified allows the person to recognize shortfalls and more importantly creates a consciousness of where improvements can be made. The Unknown space is equally as rich as participant’s and the leader discover areas of hidden talent or reasons for certain issues; the feedback provided allows for a broader contextual understanding of the behavior by using the Johari Window.

Bell Curve – Outliers

The usage of the bell curve is an effective way to explain the feedback. There will always be outliers to the extreme positive or negative. The proper focus on the individuals feedback relies upon the normal distribution of information.

If a participant has one or two wildly stated comments, it’s easy for the comment to be minimized or aggrandized. However, when you have the same comment repeated more than three times, you now have a trend and a perception. That perception needs to be addressed before it becomes a derailer for the individual.

Triangulation

Completing the 720° F process allows for the comparison of feedback over a 12-month timeframe. A useful tactic is to compare the top five strengths and opportunities from year to year. If the same items appear as opportunities (areas to improve) one year later, then obviously there is concern the individual did not make progress with the areas of concern. This now allows the conversation to focus on key drivers for the lack of development or change year over year.
In this process, it proved most effective to list the top/bottom 5 measures and draw lines to traits that were identical to the previous year and also establish relationships of one strength or opportunity (weakness) to another.

This is very effective if the participant is struggling to associate the relationship of the top five areas versus the bottom five. Amazingly when the data was viewed in this format, the association was clearly identified and the participant was able to determine their strength, if redirected, they could actually improve upon their opportunities and further enhance their leadership capabilities.
A clear finding in evaluating the top/bottom five areas depicted a common thread in all five areas. This common thread if focused upon has the potential to improve all areas of the top/bottom five, enabling the participant to make significant improvements.

The reality of any 360° F report is the items are forced ranked. One particular trait will be at the top and another one will be at the bottom, that’s just the way it is. The key is to not have the same bottom five items on the following 720° F process.

As indicated, there are varying opinions of the efficacy of the 360° F report, my only argument is not the value of the tool, but the value of the one that uses the tool. If properly executed, beautiful discourses can take place and individuals can grow significantly. The key to success is “how” the leader handles the tool and the participant and “what” the leader intends to use the tool for.