The more authority someone has, the fewer people are willing to tell them the truth — and the more a blind spot costs when it's wrong. That combination is exactly why executive 360s matter more, and are harder to run well.
At the top, feedback gets filtered through politics, deference, and self-preservation. Anonymity is what makes it usable.
People manage up. An executive's read on how they're landing is often the most distorted in the building, precisely because so few will risk correcting it.
A manager's blind spot affects a team; an executive's affects a strategy, a culture, and everyone downstream of both. The stakes on getting it seen are higher.
For senior leaders, presence, decision-making, and how they handle disagreement often matter more than any single deliverable. Those are exactly what a 360 measures.
Direct reports alone will be careful. Include peers and, where it fits, board members or key partners for a fuller, less deferential picture.
Senior 360s drown in adjectives. Push for specific moments and behaviors, not 'visionary' or 'needs to communicate more' — vague feedback can't be acted on.
A mix that isn't all subordinates: direct reports, peer executives, the person they report to, and sometimes board members or close external partners. The peer and upward voices are what prevent a purely deferential result.
Strict anonymity and enough reviewers that no quote is traceable. If people believe the leader could identify them, they'll soften everything — and the report becomes a comfort blanket instead of a mirror.
Especially so — founders and CEOs get the least honest feedback of anyone. A well-run, anonymous 360 is often the only unfiltered signal they receive all year.
360Growth turns anonymous feedback into an AI-synthesized Growth Guide in days — not weeks of manual work.