Can 360-degree feedback run the risk of being divisive and disengaging?

I've always quite liked the concept of 360 degree feedback however having yet to coordinate my own 360-degree survey I will reserve professional judgement. On a personal note, the idea of feedback being a multidimensional process is appealing to me and I believe it can be used as a catalyst for moving people from positions of ignorance to power in regards of self-assessment - Something along the lines of the Johari Window is what I have in mind. (The Johari Window model itself can be a discussion for another day!)

Lanning Bennet the founder and CEO of COI group appears to hold a differing opinion however in this article on HR Daily. He raises a number of points about the potential disadvantages of using 360 surveys and claims they can easily create more problems than they solve. Some of his key points are below:

• Many staff are reluctant to be totally honest and open with their assessment of a colleague. Responses are likely to be softer than what reality would tell you.
• Issues of what staff think of each other personally can colour feedback on how they actually perform the job. 
• Responses can be awfully confrontational and demotivating for leaders especially if it is from colleagues they have worked with for a long period. Leaders may take it on board and address issues, they may go into denial or even worse disengage with the organisation. 
• As a sub point to this Bennett notes that careful, sensitive and often expensive debriefing needs to occur with a 360. (I would be interested to know how many organisations properly invest in a 360's back end to address this.)
• A 360-degree survey tends to focus on negativity, not because it is an inherently negative process but that because "human nature being what it is, we easily dismiss the positives and things we're good at and we fixate on the things that people say we're not so good at." Bennett admits 360's does achieve both positive and negative feedback but the negatives do damage.

In my opinion, while Bennett makes some valid points he seems to be giving 360-degree surveys a bit of a bad wrap. Also his opinions seem to flow from an assumption that the responses are not confidential, something which in my experience should be the case. I've heard arguments that 360-degree surveys often simply confirm what many organisations already know. Consequently, if a leader in your organisation gets bombarded with negative feedback with on a 360, the 360 itself is probably the least of your problems. Although to be fair, part of Bennett's argument is the way in which a 360-degree survey can deliver this feedback does in itself has the potential to be damaging. 

To keep things interesting a discussion had taken place in the comments section of the article where Tim Baker challenged Bennett's advice: 

Bennett makes some false and inaccurate claims about 360 degree feedback. Firstly, it is not an assessment; it is supposed to be a developmental tool. Although based on perceptions, people's perceptions are reality in their eyes. Bennett states that "it creates more problems than it solves" which from my experience is untrue. My experience is that if people's feeback is confidential, which it should be, then people largely treat the exercise with respect and give accurate observations. It is the case that managers are often pleasantly surprised by the feedback in areas they least expect. I argue with the claim that feedback needs to be presented "carefully and sensitively". Most good managers go not believe they are "considered a real star". Another false claim is the assumption that feedback is often consistent from all three sources. It is not always the case. For instance, some team members may have conflicting perspectives about the manager. I think the article demonstrates a profound lack of understanding about management and the 360 degree process and outcomes. After all, the 360 report is simply a convenient way to communicate what people surrounding the leader are thinking. Surely that is useful data to build upon.

Lanning Bennett responded to Tim:

Hi Tim,
Thank you for your feedback.
There is plenty of evidence that 360's require careful and often professional feedback - half the coaching profession make their living out of doing just that.
I don't know any 360 tools that have any other components to them other than assessment. Where are the development tools that are provided with them? Development is left to either to coaches or the manager. This is a major problem with 360 tools. All they do is assess and leave the manager to deal with the development side or to get professional support. Finally lets look at alignment. What the leader needs to know is how can I best spend my time and use my skills to help my team perform at its best yet 360 tools never ask this simple but critical question.
That is all the leader needs to know and you don't need a 360 for that.

Bennett does offer an alternative to 360-degree surveys in the article however to be honest, I'm not exactly sure what he is referring to. He describes assessing leaders on outcomes rather than doing a personal assessment. Essentially he seems to shift the focus from an individual to a group KPI. A list of Bennett's example questions are below:

• How clear is the strategy of your team?
• Does the team have the resources it needs to do its job to the best of its ability?
• How well are values and behaviours of the team enacted in the workplace?
• How well trained and empowered is the team?
• How effective are its systems and processes, and the software and hardware that we use?

If you have a better idea of the process Bennett is describing please elaborate in the comments below. Being the first genuinely negative opinion of 360-degree surveys I've come across, I find Bennett's arguments interesting however I wouldn't say I'm convinced, particularly given the amount positive information I've seen regarding the surveys when done properly.

I look forward to conducting my own 360-degree survey in the future so I can come back to this subject with more personal experience to draw on.