I've just completed a 360 degree feedback analysis report for a client.  The analysis covers themes that have come out from the 360 feedback reports and the debrief sessions that we held of the recipients.  Most of the report is high level recommendations of the next steps that should be taken.  Effectively, the client is looking to maximise the benefits from the exercise.

As part of the analysis, I've looked at the questionnaire to ensure it has performed well as a method of gathering feedback.  One part of that analysis is to look at where we have a large number of "not applicable"s selected by respondents.

In general, if one respondent group (often peers) answers not applicable more than 20-25% of the time then I suggest you consider taking that question out of the pool of behaviours next time for that respondent group.  This tightens the questionnaire, improves the report, and reduces the burden on the respondents.

However, sometimes "not applicable" is more useful.  If the question you are asking really should be a behaviour that his group can respond on then "not applicable" can mean "not evidenced".  And that can be interesting.  Why are the direct reports unable to comment on delegation?  Why are the peers saying "not applicable" to sharing of knowledge?

Analysing the general output of 360 degree feedback iss always worthwhile - it gives you the opportunity to improve your next 360 and it offers you the opportunity to draw out the big lessons at a group level.


Brendan