How to write a performance review from 360 feedback

Before you write: check you have enough

A review built on two responses is an anecdote. Before you start, check how many reviewers actually answered, and whether the ones missing are the ones who knew the person best. If key voices are missing, nudge them first. It is cheaper than writing a review you later have to revise.

Reread the person’s previous review and its action points. The new review should open with what happened to those, because it is the context everything else is read against.

Step 1: read everything once, without writing

Read all responses in one sitting before drawing any conclusion. If you start summarizing after the first three, the first three set the frame and later comments get bent to fit.

Step 2: group comments into themes

Write each distinct point on its own line and group them by competency or topic. A theme is worth including if at least two reviewers raised it independently, or if one reviewer gave specific, dated evidence for it.

Weigh each comment before you keep it

• Is it about behavior (“interrupted the client twice in the demo”) or a trait (“abrasive”)? Keep behavior, and translate traits into the behavior behind them.
• Did the reviewer work with the person closely enough to know? A comment from someone who saw one meeting counts for less than one from a daily collaborator.
• Does it match the ratings? When comments and numbers disagree, look into why before smoothing it over.
• Is it new, or does it match a point from the last cycle? Repeated points matter more.

Step 3: read the ratings alongside the words

Averages hide spread. A 3.5 average from five reviewers who all said 3–4 is a very different signal from one made of two 5s and two 2s. Look at the range per category, and at how the rating moved since the last cycle.

Also account for strictness. Some reviewers rate everyone high and some rate everyone low, so a 4 from one is not a 4 from another. If you can see a reviewer’s ratings across many people, adjust your reading accordingly.

Step 4: write the summary

Keep the structure simple and the same for everyone: what went well, what to develop, and what happens next. Lead each point with the conclusion, then the evidence.

A structure that works

1. Progress on last cycle’s points: which were met, partly met or not, with the evidence.
2. Two or three strengths, each with an example that reviewers gave.
3. Two or three development areas, each stated as a behavior and tied to the competency it belongs to.
4. Overall rating and the reasoning behind it, in two or three sentences.
5. Next steps: what you and the person agree to do before the next cycle.

Writing rules

• Paraphrase feedback; do not quote anything that could identify a reviewer unless they agreed.
• Use the same language for strengths and weaknesses: facts, not adjectives.
• Do not introduce a surprise. Anything serious should already have been discussed in a 1:1.

Step 5: turn development areas into points you can check

“Improve stakeholder communication” cannot be checked. “Share a written project update every Friday, and ask two stakeholders by the end of next cycle whether they know what is going on” can. Name the behavior, what changing it would look like, and who will see it.

Limit it to three or four per person. Every extra point lowers the odds that any of them are looked at again.

Step 6: schedule the check-in before you deliver the review

The step most processes skip. Put the date for the first check-in in the calendar before the review meeting ends, and decide where the evidence will come from. Our guide to following up on performance reviews goes into how to do this without turning it into admin.

Common mistakes

• Recency bias: the last month shapes the whole review. Look at the full period.
• Averaging away disagreement: if reviewers split, say so and explore why.
• Letting one loud comment dominate the summary.
• Copying the previous review and editing it, which carries old conclusions forward.
• Delivering it as a verdict rather than a conversation.