Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
360-Degree Feedback/Evidence
Method evidence record

360-Degree Feedback

360-degree feedback, also called multisource feedback, gathers ratings of a focal person's work behavior from the full circle of people around them, self, supervisor, peers, and direct reports, and sometimes customers, rather than from a single boss. The aim is to give a more complete, less biased picture of performance and, especially, to prompt self-awareness and development by revealing how different observers see the same person. Manuel London and James Smither's 1995 article gave the practice a theoretical foundation, explaining when and why multisource feedback might change self-evaluations, goals, and behavior. Richard Lepsinger and Anntoinette Lucia's 1997 practitioner book laid out how to design and implement sound 360 systems. Conway and Huffcutt's 1997 meta-analysis documented the psychometric reality that different sources agree only modestly, which is precisely what makes multiple perspectives informative. 360-degree feedback became one of the most widely adopted leadership-development tools in organizations.

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Source record

Citations copied verbatim from the method’s source record. No claim-level verification is inferred from them.

360-Degree Feedback (Multisource Performance Feedback)
Taxonomic method record · process-pipeline / organizational-behavior
  • Lepsinger, R., & Lucia, A. D. (1997). The Art and Science of 360 Degree Feedback. Pfeiffer. · ISBN 9780787909581
  • London, M., & Smither, J. W. (1995). Can multi-source feedback change perceptions of goal accomplishment, self-evaluations, and performance-related outcomes? Theory-based applications and directions for research. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 803-839. · DOI 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01781.x
  • Conway, J. M., & Huffcutt, A. I. (1997). Psychometric properties of multisource performance ratings: A meta-analysis of subordinate, supervisor, peer, and self-ratings. Human Performance, 10(4), 331-360. · DOI 10.1207/s15327043hup1004_2
Open full method

Curated claims

Claims persisted in the evidence ledger, each with its own assessment.

No curated claims yet

This view does not invent a claim assessment when the ledger has none.

Related methods

Generated from the method graph and shown as machine-suggested relations — no evidence claim is inferred.

Same method familyAssessment Center Methodmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyBehaviorally Anchored Rating Scalesmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Used in the same domainPolynomial Regression with Response Surface Analysismachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.

Evidence status

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Bibliographic sources are present. Claim-level evidence review has not been performed.

Sources

3 recorded citations, copied from the method source record.

Actions

Open method page
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account