360 feedback is widely used to support manager and leadership development, but a common question remains: does 360 feedback actually work? In particular, does it lead to measurable improvement in leadership behaviour over time?
To explore this, we analysed comparative 360 feedback data from two organisations, tracking 40 leaders who completed the process twice. By examining both quantitative scores and written feedback, we identified real evidence of movement over time.
Although factors such as individual motivation, the difficulty of development goals, quality of support, follow-through, organisational culture, and leadership seniority can influence outcomes, we kept our data review as reliable as possible by:
Other research shows that when leaders complete 360 feedback for a second time, scores often remain the same or even fall. The main reasons for this are:
As a result, stable or lower scores are common, even when leadership behaviour may have actually improved. The results below should therefore be viewed against this backdrop, particularly when considering what constitutes real progress.
Across all 40 participants, the average change between the first and second 360 feedback was an increase of 5%.
Among the 20 leaders who started in the lower half of the performance range, the average change was an increase of 8%, indicating substantial development. This group accounts for the majority of positive movement observed across the full population, suggesting that development impact is strongest where there is the greatest scope to improve.
Among the 20 leaders who started in the upper half of the performance range, the average change was 3%, indicating broadly stable scores at a high level. This pattern is consistent with limited headroom for improvement and the effects of rising expectations and more discerning ratings over time, rather than a lack of development.
To understand where 360 feedback had the greatest impact, we analysed results across 12 competency areas within the questionnaire. For each behavioural area, we compared the average starting score from the first survey with the percentage movement between the first and comparative surveys:
| Competency/ Behavioural Area | Average start score | Movement (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Being an inspirational leader | 72% | 6.9% |
| Acting as a role model | 74.4% | 4.9% |
| Driving an ethical workplace | 70.3% | 4.4% |
| Driving excellence | 88.2% | 3.5% |
| Managing Self | 81.4% | 2.2% |
| Living our values | 88.8% | 1% |
| Strategic / Business Skills | 83% | 0.4% |
| Personal Effectiveness | 86.7% | 0.3% |
| Leading People | 80% | 0.2% |
| Relationships | 81.1% | 0.1% |
| Continuous Improvement | 82.5% | −0.4% |
| Being change resilient | 92.5% | −0.5% |
When comparing each competency’s starting score with its movement, a clear pattern emerges. The largest improvements were seen in competencies with lower starting scores, particularly those relating to visible leadership behaviours such as inspirational leadership, role modelling and ethical leadership. In these areas, average scores increased by between 4% and 7%, indicating meaningful behavioural change that was noticed by others.
By contrast, competencies with very high starting scores showed more limited movement, or small declines. This is consistent with ceiling effects and rising expectations in repeat 360 feedback, rather than a reduction in effectiveness. Where leaders were already performing strongly, maintaining performance resulted in broadly stable scores rather than large increases.
Overall, comparing starting scores with uplift helps explain why improvement is targeted rather than uniform. The data suggests that 360 feedback has its strongest impact where there is clear development headroom and the behaviours are people focused.
To test whether the uplift seen in the scores was reflected in lived experience, we reviewed the written feedback for each participant individually, comparing their initial and comparative rater responses. The analysis drew on over 3,000 written feedback comments, including all free-text and Continue / Stop / Start comments. We then combined the patterns observed at individual level to identify consistent shifts in emphasis and focus.
Key learning from the feedback comments included:
This analysis set out to answer a straightforward question: does 360 feedback actually work?
When you take into account known norms about raters tending to score more critically the second time around, the numerical data from this review (at both individual and competency level), and the strong anecdotal evidence from respondent comments, there is no question that, when used well, 360 feedback makes a measurable difference to management and leadership performance.
In addition to the above, some important insights were also drawn from the review, namely:
Taken together, the evidence indicates that 360 feedback is most effective when it focuses attention on the behaviours that matter most and is used to support targeted development, particularly for leaders in the lower to middle performance bands.
Q. Does 360 feedback actually work?
A. Yes, when used well. Our data shows that an average improvement of 5% + over 12 months is the minimum to expect.
Q. Who benefits most from 360 feedback?
A. Managers/ leaders in the lower to middle performance range benefit most from 360 feedback. Data shows that leaders in the lower half of the performance range improved by an average of 8%.
Q. What leadership behaviours does 360 feedback improve most?
A. 360 feedback research shows the greatest impact is on visible, people-focused leadership behaviours and particularly when these are not strong to start with.
Q. How long does it take to see improvement from 360 feedback?
A. Data shows that measurable improvement from 360 feedback was seen over a 12-month period between the first and second survey cycles.
Q. What makes 360 feedback most effective?
A. The data suggests 360 feedback is most effective when it is puts focus on the ‘people leadership’ behaviours that matter most and is used to support targeted development, particularly for lower to middle-band leaders.
