Research Paper: Can 360 Feedback Strengthen Relationships and Motivate Performance Improvement?

Eva Fachria · Profixa: International Journal of Economic and Business Research · 2026 · Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 125–134 · DOI: 10.65310/xpkj2219 ·

The study set out to examine 360 feedback as a tool for improving employee performance while also exploring the barriers and challenges in implementing 360 feedback. The authors collected data through a structured questionnaire completed by 70 employees from two private companies and analysed the responses using percentage analysis. Alongside the survey findings, the paper considers how organisations can improve the effectiveness of 360 feedback by addressing common implementation challenges. Rather than focusing only on the feedback itself, the research highlights the importance of organisational support, participant preparation and adapting the process to the organisation's own culture and needs.

Introduction

This study looked at two things that shape whether 360 feedback actually motivates participants to improve:

• Fairness: How 360 feedback and fair appraisals affect participants' motivation to improve. "Fair appraisals" here means how fair participants felt the process was: whether it was applied consistently, whether the outcome matched their actual performance, and whether they were treated with respect and given a proper explanation.
• The quality of the relationship with their manager: The study specifically looked at whether the relationship between the participant and their manager helps explain why fairness and feedback boost motivation. This relationship quality is known in the research as Leader-Member Exchange, or LMX — essentially a measure of how much trust, respect and mutual support exists between the two people.

The authors used a quantitative, causal explanatory design and surveyed 207 employees at one point in time, all working in formal sector organisations that had implemented a 360 feedback system. Data was collected through a structured questionnaire and analysed using Structural Equation Modelling.

Key takeaways

• Perceived fairness affects a participant's motivation to receive and use the feedback: How fair participants felt the process was influenced their motivation to engage with and act on the feedback.
• Fairness has more than one dimension: Participants judge fairness not just by whether the process was applied consistently, but by whether they were treated with respect throughout.
• A good manager relationship helps convert feedback into action: The study found that a strong relationship between the participant and their line manager is a factor in whether feedback actually turns into meaningful commitments and follow-through, rather than just being received and set aside.
• The authors suggest people are more likely to act on feedback they trust: Participants were more willing to accept and use feedback when it came from sources they saw as credible - a point raised in the authors' discussion rather than a separately tested finding.
• Trust, respect and support are what make it work: The authors' overall conclusion is that these practices motivate people when participants feel genuinely trusted, respected, and supported by those involved in the process.

Recommendations

• Perceived fairness is very important: Take time to explain why the feedback process is being done, how the results will be used, and how consistently it will be applied to everyone taking part. We are strong advocates of providing a participant kick off session, which is very much focused on reinforcing fairness.
• A strong manager relationship strengthens the effect of 360 feedback and fair appraisals on motivation: In this study, feedback and fairness were more likely to boost motivation when the participant had a good relationship with their manager - though this was one factor among the many that can drive someone to improve, not a precondition for it.
• Allow the participants to select their own respondents: Participants are more likely to act on feedback when they see the raters as credible and relevant. Whilst we are strong advocates of allowing participants to choose their own respondents, we also believe they should be given guidance on how to do this well - see our article How to choose 360 feedback respondents.