360-feedback has been a buzzword in performance management for over a decade. The idea is simple: instead of relying solely on a manager’s perspective, feedback is gathered from peers, direct reports, and cross-functional collaborators.
In theory, this creates a more holistic, fair, and balanced view of someone’s contribution. But in practice? The results are mixed.
Let’s break down what 360-feedback actually delivers — and where it often falls short.
What’s Great About 360-Feedback
✅ It acknowledges that performance is multi-dimensional.
Not all work is visible to your direct manager — especially in today’s cross-functional, project-based environments. 360-feedback can uncover how someone collaborates, influences, or supports others beyond the formal reporting line.
✅ It can surface blind spots — gently.
Hearing the same theme from multiple colleagues carries more weight than hearing it from one person. It can help individuals reflect without feeling singled out, especially when feedback is anonymized and framed constructively.
✅ It democratizes feedback — in theory.
By giving team members a voice, 360-feedback can help rebalance power dynamics and invite reflection on leadership behaviors that may go unnoticed from the top.
Where the Hype Fizzles Out
⚠️ It often lacks context.
Without knowing the situation behind the feedback — the role someone played, the power dynamics at work — it’s easy to misinterpret the message. Was the person truly “uncooperative,” or were they raising necessary pushback?
⚠️ It can become a popularity contest.
When scores are given numerically, people may rate based on personality, not performance. Quiet contributors or challengers of the status quo may be unfairly penalized in a system that favors likeability.
⚠️ It creates anxiety without clarity.
Receiving a vague comment like “needs to improve communication” without any examples or path forward isn’t helpful — it’s frustrating. And when aggregated feedback feels faceless, it can undermine trust rather than build it.
Where Libra Draws the Line
At Libra, we believe that feedback should be context-rich, pattern-aware, and forward-moving.
Instead of relying on static forms or numerical ratings, Libra uses voice reflections and AI to understand why someone might be struggling or where they’ve quietly gone above and beyond. We focus on relational signals over rigid ratings.
It’s not about removing 360 entirely — it’s about evolving it into something more thoughtful, more humane, and more useful.
Looking to learn more about the performance review process? Check out our posts on the 3 reasons why performance reviews feel pointless and why traditional performance metrics miss invisible work.
Bottom Line
360-feedback isn’t dead — but it’s not perfect either.
When done right, it opens up a more honest, inclusive view of team dynamics. But without context, structure, or trust, it can easily backfire.
The goal isn’t just more feedback. It’s better feedback — the kind that actually helps people grow.