Consulting & AdvisoryFree
360 Feedback Debrief Prep From the Report
Every theme with the lines in the report that support it, the reaction it will draw, and the question to ask at that moment.
River reads the report you were handed and returns a debrief plan plus a development priority sheet. The plan runs in the order you will actually take it: the two or three themes worth the session, and the exact lines in the report behind each one. Against each theme sits the move the person will make when it arrives, and the question that keeps the conversation open. Every development priority on the sheet cites the page it came from, so nothing in the session is your opinion.
Search this and you get the agenda. Sixty to ninety minutes, establish safety, hand them the report, ask what stood out, narrow to two or three goals, book the follow up. It is a sound shape and every version of it says the same thing about preparation: review the report and identify the key themes beforehand. Then it stops. The one part that is specific to the person in front of you is the part nobody writes down.
Built for the executive coach, the practice lead and the HR partner running a debrief on a report they did not commission. Themes get counted in people rather than mentions, which is the discipline the synthesis of qualitative interview data rests on too. Every development priority carries its evidence, the way a level in the consulting assessment pack carries an anchor, and the way every finding in the findings and recommendations pack names its criteria. The priorities then become goals with a named noticer in the coaching engagement pack.
Count the raters before you read a score
The first number on the report is not a score, it is a headcount. Platforms suppress a rater category too small to stay anonymous: SAP's own documentation defines a hidden threshold as the minimum number of raters required before that category's average can be displayed. A category that misses it does not simply vanish. Its aggregate rolls up into a neighbouring category, so a figure printed under Peers can hold the direct reports too, and the page does not say so.
The comments are where the behaviour actually lives, and they arrive stripped. The same platform offers an option that hides the rater categories in the comments section of the detailed report, so a verbatim cannot be attributed to a group at all. That changes what you can say out loud. A sentence opening with what your peers see becomes a sentence about what somebody wrote, and the theme then stands on the words rather than on the group it is presumed to come from.
Then check what a gap is actually made of. On a five point scale with six raters, one person moving one point shifts the mean by 0.17, which prints as 0.2. So a competency sitting two tenths below its neighbour is one rater on one question, and building a development priority on it is how a debrief loses the room. Themes that survive are the ones carried by several raters and named again in the comments, and those are the ones worth the reaction they provoke.
How it works
Send the report
The 360, the Hogan profile, the DISC output, whatever arrived and however long ago.
Describe the person
The role, why the session is happening, and what the sponsor is hoping for.
Read the plan
Themes in order, the evidence behind each, the likely reaction, and the question to ask.
Run the session
Work down the themes, and leave with priorities that cite the report rather than you.
What you get
- Two or three themes worth the session, each with the report lines behind it
- The rater count for every category, reconciled against how many people were invited
- Every gap sized in raters rather than decimals, so you know what moved it
- The move this person will make at each theme, and the question that answers it
- Development priorities with the page and the wording each one was drawn from
- What the report does not support, so it never gets asserted in the room
Common questions
The item level data is gone. Does that limit what you can do?
Not for a debrief. Everything a session needs is printed: the category means, the rater counts, the self ratings, the verbatims and the norm the scores are compared against. The plan works from exactly what the person will be holding, which is the point, because a theme you can only see in a data export is a theme you cannot show them.
Does it work on Hogan and DISC, or only multi rater reports?
All of them, with the difference respected. A 360 carries other people's ratings, so the signal is agreement and the gap against self. Hogan and DISC describe a disposition against a norm group, so a high score is a comparison rather than a quantity. The plan says which kind of claim each theme is, because they hold up differently under challenge.
How does it know how this person will react?
From the report and from what you tell it. A theme with a large self other gap draws a different move than one everybody including the person already agrees on. Add what you know in the intake and the plan sharpens: the person who litigates the rater list gets a different opening than the person who agrees with everything and changes nothing.
Will it tell me what to say?
It gives you the question, not the script. Each theme carries one question written to be asked at the moment the person reaches for a defence, plus the follow up if they answer it in one word. What you do with the answer is the coaching, and a debrief that reads from a script is the failure mode everyone already knows.
Two of the raters left during the survey window. Does that matter?
It matters enough to check first. A category that lost people can drop below the display threshold, and its numbers then either disappear or fold into another category. The plan reconciles the counts printed on the report against how many were invited, and says which figures are carrying fewer voices than their label implies.
What goes back to the sponsor?
Only what you decide to send, and the sheet is built so that decision is easy. Development priorities are written as observable behaviour with the report page beside each, which is shareable. The reaction notes and the questions stay in your copy. Where stakeholder input is being gathered around the person, the stakeholder interview programme pack carries the consent language.
What happens to the priorities after the session?
They carry review dates because a priority nobody reopens comes back unchanged. Sixty days out, the question is whether the six peers noticed a decision going up in writing. Turning that into a plan a sponsor can check means each priority names the record it gets read from. Carrying it across a full book of coachees is the commitment tracker.
360 Feedback Debrief Prep From the Report
Fill in the form and your workspace opens with the work already underway.