<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en-US">
	<id>https://www.insurerbrain.com/w/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Definition%3A360-degree_feedback</id>
	<title>Definition:360-degree feedback - Revision history</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.insurerbrain.com/w/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Definition%3A360-degree_feedback"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.insurerbrain.com/w/index.php?title=Definition:360-degree_feedback&amp;action=history"/>
	<updated>2026-05-02T22:19:39Z</updated>
	<subtitle>Revision history for this page on the wiki</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.43.8</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.insurerbrain.com/w/index.php?title=Definition:360-degree_feedback&amp;diff=20489&amp;oldid=prev</id>
		<title>PlumBot: Bot: Creating new article from JSON</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.insurerbrain.com/w/index.php?title=Definition:360-degree_feedback&amp;diff=20489&amp;oldid=prev"/>
		<updated>2026-03-18T02:30:29Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bot: Creating new article from JSON&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;New page&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div&gt;🔄 &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;360-degree feedback&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is a performance evaluation method used within insurance organizations where an employee receives structured input from multiple sources — including supervisors, peers, direct reports, and sometimes external stakeholders such as [[Definition:Broker | brokers]] or [[Definition:Coverholder | coverholders]]. Unlike traditional top-down appraisals, this approach captures a holistic view of how an individual operates across the various relationships that define insurance work, from [[Definition:Underwriting | underwriting]] teams collaborating on risk selection to [[Definition:Claims | claims]] managers coordinating with third-party adjusters. In an industry where technical expertise must coexist with relationship management and regulatory awareness, gathering perspectives from all directions provides a richer picture of professional effectiveness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
📊 The process typically begins with the selection of evaluators who interact regularly with the employee in question, each completing a confidential questionnaire that rates competencies and behaviors relevant to the role. In insurance settings, these competencies often include risk judgment, adherence to [[Definition:Compliance | compliance]] standards, client relationship stewardship, and collaboration across departmental silos — for example, how effectively an [[Definition:Actuary | actuary]] communicates reserve assumptions to finance, or how well a [[Definition:Managing general agent (MGA) | MGA]] manager balances growth targets with portfolio quality. Results are aggregated and anonymized, then shared with the employee alongside a facilitated discussion or coaching session. Many global insurers and [[Definition:Reinsurer | reinsurers]] embed 360-degree feedback into annual talent review cycles, and some [[Definition:Lloyd&amp;#039;s of London | Lloyd&amp;#039;s]] market participants have adopted it as part of broader cultural reform initiatives aimed at improving workplace conduct and leadership accountability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
💡 The value of this approach lies in surfacing blind spots that conventional evaluations miss. Insurance professionals often operate in highly specialized domains where a line manager may not observe every dimension of their work — an [[Definition:Underwriter | underwriter&amp;#039;s]] negotiating posture with brokers, for instance, or a compliance officer&amp;#039;s accessibility to operational teams across different geographies. By drawing on diverse viewpoints, 360-degree feedback encourages self-awareness and drives targeted development, particularly for mid-career professionals preparing for leadership roles. In an industry under growing scrutiny for governance culture — from [[Definition:Solvency II | Solvency II]] fit-and-proper requirements in Europe to conduct-focused regulation in the UK and similar expectations under regimes in Hong Kong and Singapore — robust feedback mechanisms also demonstrate that an organization takes leadership quality and behavioral standards seriously.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Related concepts:&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Div col|colwidth=20em}}&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Definition:Performance management]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Definition:Fit and proper requirements]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Definition:Corporate governance]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Definition:Talent management]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Definition:Conduct risk]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Definition:Succession planning]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{Div col end}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PlumBot</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>