Short answer
360 feedback software helps an organisation collect input from several work relationships around a defined development question. Choose it by the decision it must support, the rater experience, access and review controls, and what happens after feedback is shared. A long feature list cannot show whether the process will produce a useful development conversation or a defensible basis for action.
First decide whether multi-rater feedback is the right method
Use multi-rater feedback when the development question concerns observable collaboration across relationships: for example, how a new manager sets priorities with direct reports, peers and a project sponsor. It is less useful when the question is about a single incident, an objective business measure or a live employee-relations issue that needs a different process.
The CIPD treats appraisals and feedback as part of a broader performance-management approach, rather than a standalone event. Its performance reviews factsheet and performance-feedback evidence review provide useful context: feedback must connect to a real performance conversation and purpose.
The buyer worksheet
Take this sheet into product demonstrations and a pilot.
| Question | Evidence to request | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| What development decision will this inform? | One written use case and the people who will see the output | Stops the programme becoming a generic annual ritual |
| Who selects raters? | The selection workflow, exclusions and participant ability to query a list | Rater choice shapes the evidence before the form is sent |
| What is each rater asked to do? | A full preview, estimated effort and accessible/mobile route | Lets you judge burden and whether prompts seek examples |
| How are comments handled? | A sample output with identifiers removed and a reviewer role | Tests whether context can be reviewed without exposing people unnecessarily |
| What can a manager do with the output? | The development-conversation guide and follow-up fields | A report alone is not a development plan |
| What happens to the records? | Contractual data terms, retention settings and access controls | The buyer needs an answer suited to its own policy and jurisdictions |
Do not accept a vague answer to “we use AI.” Ask the vendor to show the exact workflow with test accounts and synthetic feedback.
A fictional pilot scenario
Fictional example: a UK operations group wants development feedback for eight first-line managers after a new handover process. It needs input from direct reports, peers and the manager’s own reflection. The buyer runs one small pilot using a single question set focused on priority clarity and handover practices. It checks whether invitations work for shift staff, whether raters can decline or flag a conflict, and whether the manager receives examples that can be discussed rather than a generic label.
At the end, the group does not ask whether the software “found the best manager.” It asks whether the process gave each manager an accurate, reviewable basis for one development action and a follow-up date.
Criteria that deserve a live demonstration
Bring these four checks to each demonstration:
- rater design and participation;
- question quality;
- review and follow-through;
- procurement and operating fit.
Rater design and participation
Ask how raters are nominated, invited, reminded, replaced and excluded. A product may support different relationship groups, but a buyer still needs its own rules for conflicts, small groups and accessibility. Check the language options relevant to your workforce rather than assuming a global label means every prompt and support route is suitable.
Question quality
Request the exact questionnaire and any configuration options. Strong prompts ask for a specific work situation and its effect, rather than only a broad trait. Use a limited set tied to the development purpose. More questions do not necessarily create better evidence.
Review and follow-through
Ask who can see the output, how an inaccurate summary is corrected, and how a manager prepares the follow-up conversation. Multi-rater input should be considered with other approved evidence and the employee’s own account. It should not become an unexamined numerical verdict.
Procurement and operating fit
Ask for the actual contract terms, implementation responsibilities, data locations relevant to your deployment, retention configuration and support model. These details vary by vendor and customer agreement. They cannot be confirmed from a marketing demonstration.
Where Lontra fits, and where it does not
Lontra is not presented as a full multi-rater 360 workflow or a replacement for its rater administration, reporting or integration features. It can support focused employee conversations and a manager brief where a team needs richer work context before or after a development discussion. Managers receive briefs, not raw conversations. That can complement a properly run 360 process; it does not turn Lontra into 360 feedback software. Explore the product.
Frequently asked questions
What is 360 feedback software for?
It coordinates multi-rater input to support an individual's development. It is not automatically suitable as the sole basis for a consequential employment decision.
What should a buyer test in a 360 feedback pilot?
Test rater selection, invitations, accessibility, how feedback is reviewed, the participant experience and whether a development conversation produces an owned next step.