This article addresses the design and implementation of 360-degree feedback processes within organizational performance management systems. Authored by Leapsome, a performance management software vendor, the piece argues that 360-degree feedback, when executed correctly, provides a more comprehensive and less biased view of employee performance than traditional supervisor-only reviews. The article presents structured feedback examples across three reviewer categories — peers, managers, and leaders — covering both strengths and areas for improvement. Key evidence is largely illustrative, drawn from curated example phrases rather than empirical research, with a single statistic cited: that 43% of organizations provide insufficient training on feedback delivery. The article identifies four primary benefits of 360-degree feedback — comprehensive performance visibility, bias reduction, increased self-awareness, and enhanced employee engagement — alongside four operational pitfalls including idle data, anonymity misuse, survey fatigue, and disconnected tooling. Conclusions drawn emphasize the importance of action planning, manager training, and technology integration, with Leapsome's own product positioned as the solution to the challenges identified. Key insights: 360-degree feedback gathers input from peers, direct reports, managers, and sometimes clients, aiming to reduce individual bias and surface blind spots not visible to a single supervisor. The article identifies four structural failure modes in poorly run 360-degree programs: unused feedback data, anonymity enabling harsh criticism, survey fatigue from overly burdensome questionnaires, and productivity loss from disconnected evaluation tools. Upward feedback — where employees review leaders — is presented as a distinct and valuable category for leadership development, with specific example phrases covering both strengths such as psychological safety and weaknesses such as micromanagement. Practical takeaways: Structured, role-specific feedback phrase libraries (for peer, manager-to-employee, and upward review contexts) are offered as ready-to-use templates to reduce the quality variance in submitted feedback. The article outlines a four-step implementation framework for managers: defining objectives, selecting a broad reviewer pool, training participants on specificity, and using confidentiality to encourage candor.