Wrong angles on 360-degree reviews

Reader 1: Recently, our nonprofit's new leader implemented a 360-degree evaluation procedure that allows for anonymous rating of all employees' performance. We supervisors must share all comments with employees, whether we agree with them or not. I spend a great deal of time soothing the feelings of employees who feel unjustly criticized. The few hurtful comments strike me as cruel and also potentially damaging. The new leader has instructed us to "toughen up."

Reader 2: Our team has had trouble integrating two new assistants. HR announced 360-degree reviews for our team to figure out what's going on. No other group in our large firm is doing these reviews. We do need to figure out the integration issue, but it doesn't seem fair to make that part of the year-end performance process for our group alone. I'm thinking the team integration issues need to be addressed separately.

Karla: If you want an honest assessment of your strengths and weaknesses, a 360-degree review can be eye-opening, says Leanne Atwater, management professor and co-author of "The Power of 360° Feedback." Unlike top-down performance reviews, a 360-degree review - also known as multisource feedback or group review - seeks perspectives from your supervisors, peers, subordinates and even clients.

Reader 1's situation shows how 360 reviews can do more harm than good. Honest feedback requires anonymity, but if expressed inappropriately, it ends up "feeling like a 'slam book' at a sleepover," says Diana Funk, senior consultant with Human Capital Strategic Consulting in Washington. She suggests having an unrelated third party summarize feedback to neutralize needlessly harsh criticism.

Atwater recommends coaching those doing the reviews on how to provide neutral, detailed examples - i.e., not "is flaky," but "frequently misses deadlines." She favors letting reviewees see original feedback and recommends that those who have received criticism "let the emotional part recede," then look for common themes in the responses while not dwelling on the snipes. (Anyone who masters this, please tell me how.)

In Reader 2's case, a 360 review is like using a ball-peen hammer in place of a bottle opener. Atwater says some managers misuse reviews "so the employees' peers can tell them what a bad job they're doing, anonymously." But addressing performance issues, she notes, is the manager's job. Systemic problems are better resolved through controlled group discussions of issues - not scapegoats.

Also, inconsistently imposed reviews can increase an employer's "exposure for discrimination claims," says Funk.

In fact, bosses who use 360-degree reviews would be smart to undergo one themselves. That way, they can demonstrate the toughness and humility they're asking of their employees.

• Miller has written for and edited tax publications for 16 years, most recently for the accounting firm KPMG's Washington National Tax office. Ask her about your work dramas and traumas by emailing wpmagazine@washpost.com. On Twitter: @KarlaAtWork.