360-Degree Feedback: Free Multi-Rater Template with AI Analysis

Minimum 3 peers and 3 direct reports for statistical reliability and anonymity. The manager and self-assessment are always 1 each. Total: 8+ raters per subject. More raters produce more reliable aggregated scores. Industry research suggests 7-12 raters per person for optimal results.

Partially. Peer and direct report responses are fully anonymized (requires minimum 3 raters per group so no individual can be identified). Self-assessment and manager ratings are attributed since they are single-source. This hybrid approach protects honesty while maintaining accountability.

90-degree: direct reports rate their manager only (upward feedback). 180-degree: adds self-assessment. 270-degree: adds peer feedback. 360-degree: adds manager feedback for the complete picture. Each level adds a perspective and reduces blind spots. Start with 360 for the most comprehensive view, or 90 for a simpler first step.

Annually or bi-annually. 360 feedback is a development tool, not a performance review replacement. Allow 6-12 months between rounds for participants to work on their development areas before re-measuring. The follow-up round shows whether coaching and development efforts actually moved the scores.

In Germany, the works council has co-determination rights under BetrVG §87 Nr.6 (introduction of IT systems) and §94 Abs.2 (evaluation criteria). In Austria, similar rights apply under ArbVG. Best practice: involve the works council early, share the questionnaire for review, define anonymity thresholds and data retention in a Betriebsvereinbarung, and frame the process as development rather than performance evaluation.

Yes, when implemented correctly. Legal basis is typically Art. 88 GDPR in conjunction with §26 BDSG (employee data processing). Key requirements: minimum 3 raters per group for anonymity, data minimization, transparent procedures, defined retention periods, and respect for the right of access (Art. 15 GDPR). Evaluated persons may request their data, but individual rater assessments can be delayed until the evaluation cycle completes to protect rater anonymity.

Experts recommend starting with 360 as a pure development tool, not linked to compensation or promotion decisions. When 360 results affect pay or career, raters become less honest and the data quality drops. Once your organization has built a strong feedback culture (typically after 2-3 rounds), you can gradually integrate 360 insights into performance discussions.

AI computes average scores per competency for each rater group (self, manager, peers, direct reports), then calculates the self-other gap per dimension. It identifies: (1) confirmed strengths (high across all groups), (2) confirmed development areas (low across all groups), (3) blind spots (self-rated high, others rate low), and (4) hidden strengths (self-rated low, others rate high). Each person receives a unified narrative with behavioral recommendations.

Industry consensus is 15-40 questions. Fewer than 15 misses important competency dimensions. More than 40 causes rater fatigue (each rater evaluates multiple people). Our 15-question template covers 5 core competencies with 3 questions each, keeping each evaluation under 15 minutes while covering all key dimensions.

Yes, completely free. Includes multi-rater management, anonymous peer/report feedback, AI-synthesized development reports per person, self-other gap analysis, and organizational pattern detection. No credit card, no trial period.

270-degree feedback collects all internal perspectives — self-assessment, manager, own team and peers on the same level — and leaves out only externals such as customers. It is the default for managers with many interfaces, because the dashboard shows whether the peer view differs from the team view. The template on this page is exactly this variant: self-assessment, manager, peers and own team.

No. Every number of degrees is the same survey with different perspectives invited. The free template here scores each perspective separately per competency and compares it with the self-assessment — two outside perspectives for 180, three for 270. Peer and team answers are anonymous from three people per group, GDPR-compliant, no signup. AI condenses the gaps into a development report per person.