I was listening to Radio 5 in the UK.  There was a debate about class - a standard fixation.  Initially a couple of experts in the field discussed the issues around class and social mobility, with the presenter facilitating the debate.  All good so far and I was learning stuff.  Then "Chris from Manchester" called in.  It is a feature of many news avenues now that we are all invited to contribute.  Chris wasn't an expert, he was a perfectly fine person with an opinion and I was now listening to it.  It wouldn't be long before another 20 people would call in with their opinion and I began to learn less and less.

In 360 degree feedback we seek feedback - opinion - from a variety of people.  We sometimes get a desire to garner feedback from many, many people.  The concern is that if we don't ask everyone possible then 1) someone will feel left out and 2) we will miss a piece of valuable feedback.  At times, for certain clients, these are valid concerns and the solution is to get feedback from 20-30 people.  But usually, getting feedback from too many people has two problems.

First, we get the "Chris from Manchester" problem.  Chris feels the need to offer an opinion even though he's not an expert (read; he doesn't actually know this person that well).  Chris writes a lot of commentary and his scoring gets equal weight with people who spend every day with the 360 feedback recipient.

Second, when we get the 360 feedback report back, we can't see the wood for the trees.  It's like spending the day on Twitter.  You know something important must be in here but you can't find it because of the volume of data that is coming to you.

So - unless you have specific reasons (normally cultural concerns) that you have to be aware of - be selective in who gives feedback.  The quality of your knowledge will improve.


Brendan