A recent post by Marcus Buckingham here is worth a look at the thread of discussion it has prompted; he challenges the effectiveness of them with a focus on what he describes as 'bad data'.

The subjective nature of respondents offering their view on behaviour of the recipient is inherently flawed in his opinion and for them to be more effective, he suggests a focus on the outcomes experienced by the respondents i.e. "I know what the vision of this organisation is" as distinct to "Clearly articulates the vision of the organisation".

I am not so sure; I accept the subjective nature of feedback from respondents/raters but that's fine - we are looking to bring together a host of different world views and see how they stack up against the recipient's own self-evaluation and each other.

We don't subscribe to the idea that people should get scores such as "3.7 in communication"; it is meaningless and in this regard I take his point.

However, where one sees these different world views within a report, the ability to have a debrief conversation which asks 'does that matter?' becomes interesting - if it doesn't matter and these views can continue in relative harmony then fine; but if as the recipient looks at this and sees that, subjective opinion or not, such disparate views will have a negative consequence over time, then it is sensible that the they take note, accept and consider their options.

360 degree feedback is not about scoring or qualifying absolutely what someone is good or not good at, it serves to offer up feedback for consideration by the recipient which will aid their develoipment; it's not black or white, truth or false, right or wrong, it just is.

John