360 feedback synthesis

Purpose

Convert completed 360-degree assessments into an anonymized view of competency results. Separate self-ratings from eligible observer ratings, show response denominators, identify repeated behavior themes, and turn evidence-backed gaps into a coaching agenda.

Scope

Cover one participant, one review cycle, the survey response table, competency rubric, role profile, and a prior-cycle report when its competency IDs and rating scale match. Include self, manager, peer, and direct-report groups. Excluded: promotion or compensation decisions, protected-characteristic inference, diagnosis, and comment attribution.

Data basis

• Survey table with participant_id, rater_group, competency_id, rating, comment, response_status, cycle_id, and response_id.
• Competency rubric with scale anchors and behavioral indicators.
• Role profile describing expected behaviors.
• Prior-cycle score table with cycle, competency, mean, denominator, and citation.

Result

Produce a competency comparison sheet with self mean, observer mean, group means, denominators, gap, and citations; a masked theme register with supporting response IDs; and a coaching agenda linking each focus to a competency and observable behavior.

Quality criteria

• Exclude blank, withdrawn, and draft responses from every denominator.
• Suppress any rater group with fewer than three eligible responses.
• Show the rating scale, denominator, and response count beside every mean.
• Require two independent comments or two rater groups before naming a theme.
• Cite response IDs, rubric sections, role-profile sections, or prior-cycle pages for each finding.

Instructions

Group by participant_id, cycle_id, and competency_id. Treat rater_group=self as the self score and other eligible groups as observer evidence; never mix them into one mean. Calculate the self-versus-observer gap only when both means have denominators. Mask names, email addresses, distinctive incidents, and recognizable writing patterns in comments. Keep observed wording, interpretation, and coaching proposal separate. A prior-cycle comparison is valid only when competency IDs, scale anchors, and participant scope agree.

Adapt before use

• Add the approved competency rubric and rating-scale anchors.
• Confirm the anonymity minimum and local response-status vocabulary.
• Map rater-group labels and the review-cycle identifier.
• Define the coaching-agenda format and audience.