Protocol
Facilitate multisource feedback before demanding an action plan
A pile of ratings is data, not yet an improvement plan.
When it fits
- A person receives a dense 360-degree report with conflicting scores and comments.
When to avoid it
- Multisource feedback can be biased or invalid; facilitation does not repair a poor instrument or unrepresentative raters.
Why it matters
First separate consistent themes, source-specific perspectives, outliers and unclear items. Let the receiver inspect examples and reactions before selecting one or two behavior targets. Where stakes are high, use a trained facilitator who can keep interpretation tied to evidence and context.
Steps
- Find repeated themes.
- Separate source-specific differences.
- Flag unsupported or unclear comments.
- Choose one behavior target.
- Define evidence for follow-up.
An example
Instead of reacting to the lowest single score, the receiver identifies a cross-source pattern in meeting handoffs and works on that.
Check your result
The action plan can trace each target to an interpretable evidence pattern.
Keep this limit in mind
- Multisource feedback can be biased or invalid; facilitation does not repair a poor instrument or unrepresentative raters.
Evidence and sources
Feedback evidence suggests credible sources, facilitated interpretation and follow-up actions can influence whether multisource feedback is accepted and used.
These factors come largely from health-care and multisource-feedback research and need contextual adaptation.
Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory · Mechanisms and context discussion