Content uploaded by Matt D. Hoffmann
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Matt D. Hoffmann on Sep 07, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
335
BEST PRACTICES
International Sport Coaching Journal, 2017, 4, 335 -344
https://doi.org/10.1123/iscj.2017-0063
© 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc.
360-Degree Feedback for Sport Coaches:
A Follow-Up to O’Boyle (2014)
Matt D. Hoffmann, Ashley M. Duguay, Michelle D. Guerrero,
Todd M. Loughead, and Krista J. Munroe-Chandler
University of Windsor
The sport literature yields little information concerning the available methods or processes coaches can use to
obtain feedback about their coaching. This is unfortunate given that evaluative feedback about one’s coaching
performance is useful in terms of providing direction for professional coach development (Mallett & Côté,
2006). As a follow-up to O’Boyle (2014), the purpose of this Best Practices paper is to offer a sample protocol
for employing a 360-degree feedback system for coaches working in high performance settings. We draw on a
review of the coach evaluation and 360-degree feedback literature, along with insights shared from Canadian
intercollegiate head coaches to highlight some of the potential benets and challenges of implementing a
360-degree feedback system in sport. We then suggest ‘best practices’ for effectively integrating this appraisal
system and provide an example coach report to illustrate how feedback would be provided to a coach follow-
ing a 360-degree feedback protocol. It is our hope that this sample protocol paper will encourage coaches,
athletic directors, and other sport administrators to integrate comprehensive coach feedback practices in their
sporting programs.
Keywords: coaching, performance appraisal, multi-rater assessment
Matt Hoffmann is a PhD candidate in the Department of Kinesiology at the University of Windsor. He is primarily interested in
exploring the dynamics of peer mentoring relationships between athletes, including the benets of such relationships for both mentees
and mentors. He has received provincial and federal funding to support his research during graduate school.
Ashley Duguay is a PhD candidate in the Department of Kinesiology at the University of Windsor. Through her research, she seeks
to better understand group dynamics in sport and is particularly interested in using a social network approach to examine athlete
leadership. She has received provincial and federal funding to support her research.
Michelle Guerrero is a PhD candidate in the Department of Kinesiology at the University of Windsor. Her main research interests
pertain to imagery use in physical activity settings and sport participation among individuals with disabilities. She is a certied
health and wellness consultant and has received provincial and federal research funding.
Todd Loughead is a professor in the area of sport psychology in the Faculty of Human Kinetics at the University of Windsor. His
current research interests include group dynamics in sport with a focus on developing athlete leadership skills, the importance of
enhancing cohesion in sport, and the inuence of peer-to-peer mentoring in sport and its impact on team functioning. He is a certied
practitioner with the Canadian Sport Psychology Association and has extensive experience consulting with athletes.
Krista Munroe-Chandler is recognized for her work in the psychology of sport. She is a full professor in the Faculty of Human
Kinetics at the University of Windsor, Canada. Her research interests include imagery use in sport and exercise as well as youth
sport development. She works with athletes (both able bodied and athletes with a disability) of all ages, levels, and sport helping
them achieve their personal performance goals.
Address author correspondence to Matt D. Hoffmann at hoffmanm@uwindsor.ca.
A core aspect of a coach’s role is to assess athlete
performance. Coaches often meet regularly with their
athletes to provide feedback on individual performance
and outline areas for improvement. Given the prominent
leadership position coaches hold within their teams,
the inuence they have on the personal and athletic
development of their athletes, and their impact on the
achievement of team success (Chelladurai, 2007; Côté &
Gilbert, 2009), few would disagree that coaches should
also be evaluated on their coaching performance. And
while receiving evaluative feedback about one’s coach-
ing performance is useful in terms of providing direction
for professional coach development (Mallett & Côté,
2006), a review of the literature reveals scant information
336 Hoffmann et al.
ISCJ Vol. 4, No. 3, 2017
concerning the available methods or processes coaches
can use to obtain feedback about their coaching. In
fact, Huber (2015) argued that a “clearly outlined and
systematic approach to coach evaluation is desperately
needed for both coaches and sport administrators” (p.
201). In the current paper we consider the utility of 360-
degree feedback for coaches and describe how it may
effectively be incorporated into organizational practice.
This performance appraisal system has been commonly
employed in the business setting but has received little
attention in sport coaching.
Generally speaking, performance appraisals consist
of a variety of activities through which individuals are
assessed in an effort to improve performance, develop
competencies, and foster professional development
(Fletcher, 2001). As highlighted by MacLean and Chel-
ladurai (1995), performance appraisals assist both the
individual (e.g., coach) and the organization (e.g., sport
team). At the individual level performance appraisals
reinforce good performance, bring awareness to career
objectives, establish areas of strength and weakness,
and determine professional development needs. At the
organizational level performance appraisals inform
personnel decisions and identify areas where additional
training is required.
Though not always, traditional performance apprais-
als in the business setting consist merely of a superior
conducting an annual evaluation of a subordinate’s
performance and sharing the results with that individual
in a follow-up appraisal interview (Fletcher, 2001). This
process would be akin to a director of a sport organiza-
tion providing evaluative feedback to a coach at season’s
end. An obvious concern with this form of assessment is
that feedback is provided using a “downward” approach
and is based on one perspective only (i.e., the superior
conducting the appraisal). This reliance on a single evalu-
ator’s assessment raises concerns regarding the reliability
and validity of the performance appraisal (Cunningham
& Dixon, 2003), which is particularly problematic if the
results of the appraisal are being used for purposes related
to contract renewal, promotion, or salary. Another con-
cern of traditional performance appraisals is that they can
at times be based too heavily on team performance rather
than the individual performance (i.e., actual behaviors
and actions) of the person being evaluated (Lepsinger
& Lucia, 2009). Certainly, and in line with Mallett and
Côté’s (2006) argument, the overall evaluation of any
leader in either business or sport must include factors
beyond group performance (e.g., employee productivity/
sales, team win/loss record).
There is a notable body of literature dedicated to
the development of questionnaires that can be used
for coach appraisal purposes (e.g., Coaching Behavior
Scale for Sport, Côté, Yardley, Hay, Sedgwick, & Baker,
1999; Coaching Behavior Questionnaire, Williams et al.,
2003). Yet, as noted by O’Boyle (2014), there is limited
empirical evidence documenting how or if performance
appraisals of coaches are conducted within sporting orga-
nizations. Fortunately anecdotal reports provide some
insight into the current practices being used to assess
coaching performance. For instance, former Canadian
College Athletic Director (AD) of the Year Keith Hansen
reported using the Coaching Success Questionnaire-2
(Gillham, Burton, & Gillham, 2013) to obtain feedback
from athletes on the effectiveness of the coaches at his
institution (see Gillham, Hansen, & Brady, 2015). Mallett
and Côté (2006) outlined a three-step process through
which athletes provide anonymous coach feedback using
the Coaching Behavior Scale for Sport (Côté et al., 1999)
and indicated that it had been effectively used in high
performance settings in the United States, Canada, and
Australia. Finally, Gilbert (2017) shared an end-of-season
program evaluation system that he (and an AD) tested
in a high school sport setting with 23 sport teams over a
ve-year period. In this comprehensive system the perfor-
mance of each sport program (i.e., team) was evaluated
through a combination of enrolment and performance
statistics as well as feedback on coaching effectiveness
provided anonymously by student-athletes. While these
coach appraisal practices are promising, researcher and
practitioner accounts generally suggest that coaching
evaluations are often overlooked or omitted altogether in
the sporting domain (Gilbert, 2017; Gillham et al., 2015).
In one of the only empirical research studies detailing
coach evaluation practices, Barber and Eckrich (1998)
investigated the performance appraisal systems used in
the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).
Specically, ADs at Division I, II, and III institutions
were surveyed to determine how coach evaluations were
conducted and who provided evaluative feedback on
coaches. One signicant nding was that roughly one-
fth of ADs sampled had no formal coach evaluation
system in place. A second noteworthy nding was that
the most used methods of evaluation were formal meet-
ings between ADs and coaches, and ADs’ “impressions
gained by watching contests over the course of a season”
(Barber & Eckrich, 1998, p. 309). These approaches to
evaluation would appear to align with the more traditional
single-rater performance appraisal system. However,
ADs did report that senior associate ADs, athletes, the
coaches themselves, and university administrators were
considered important stakeholders in terms of providing
information for the appraisal of coaches. Given ADs
based their evaluations of coaches in part on informa-
tion gathered from multiple sources, Barber and Eckrich
concluded their ndings provided initial evidence of a
360-degree feedback system in sport.
360-degree feedback involves collecting anonymous
feedback about an individual’s behaviors and actions from
multiple sources, thus representing a complete circle
of relevant viewpoints (Bracken, Timmreck, Fleenor,
& Summers, 2001). The central tenet of obtaining data
from key stakeholders (e.g., assistant coaches, athletes)
with different relationships to the individual (e.g., coach)
they are evaluating is that these varying perspectives will
provide a more comprehensive and detailed summary
of the individual’s strengths and weaknesses (Craig &
Hannum, 2006). 360-degree feedback allows different
360-Degree Feedback in Sport 337
ISCJ Vol. 4, No. 3, 2017
sources to provide continuous input on an individual’s
knowledge, skills, and style (Lepsinger & Lucia, 2009);
hence, this type of appraisal system is both a develop-
mentally-focused process and a means by which to assess
performance in relation to an organization’s strategic
goals (O’Boyle, 2014). Finally, 360-degree feedback
allows an individual to compare their own self-assessment
to that of others’ assessments of them—a critical aspect
of the 360-degree process seemingly overlooked in the
conclusions drawn in Barber and Eckrich’s (1998) study.
Research from the business domain indicates
that well-designed 360-degree feedback interventions
enhance individual (i.e., leader; Reilly, Smither, & Vasi-
lopoulos, 1996) and team (i.e., subordinate; Atwater &
Brett, 2006) effectiveness. It has also been suggested that
this multirater appraisal system can be a useful process
to promote two-way communication, develop more
effective workplace relationships, identify and resolve
conict, and foster participative work cultures (London
& Beatty, 1993). However, 360-degree feedback does not
always lead to positive outcomes. For instance, Brett and
Atwater (2001) found that individuals reacted with anger
and discouragement following receipt of 360-degree
feedback that was negative in nature. Therefore, it should
not be assumed this feedback process will be effective
in all situations.
Business and sport are both performance-driven
domains where success is of paramount importance
(Weinberg & McDermott, 2002). Consequently, it seems
reasonable to suggest that sport organizations consider
using appropriately designed 360-degree feedback sys-
tems to enhance overall coach effectiveness. By supply-
ing coaches with multisource feedback concerning their
behaviors and actions more emphasis could be placed on
future, rather than past, coaching performance (O’Boyle,
2014). However, no known research has empirically
examined 360-degree feedback as a method of conduct-
ing coach performance appraisals in sport. To encour-
age research and discourse in this area, O’Boyle (2014)
undertook a review of the business literature by compar-
ing traditional performance appraisals (i.e., single-rater
systems) to 360-degree feedback, and suggested how the
ndings could be applied to the sport-coaching context.
Specically, he outlined several potential benets and
challenges associated with the implementation of 360-
degree feedback for coaches, some of which are briey
highlighted hereafter. In terms of benets, it was noted
that a more accurate review of performance might emerge
by using 360-degree feedback because the collected
feedback would remain anonymous. That is, stakeholders
might feel more comfortable providing honest feedback
about the head coach if their feedback could not be linked
back to them. It was further suggested that utilizing mul-
tiple raters might provide a more complete evaluation of a
coach’s performance than could be yielded from a single
rater, and that including a number of individuals in the
evaluation process might demonstrate that the coach and
organization value team members’ perspectives. Finally,
it was proposed that 360-degree feedback might help
increase coaches’ self-awareness, which could assist with
their own learning and development.
With regard to some of the plausible challenges
of this appraisal system, O’Boyle (2014) reported that
360-degree feedback could increase the likelihood of
coaches receiving frequent negative feedback. Further, he
acknowledged the possibility of survey fatigue, especially
in cases where 360-degree feedback would be imple-
mented at a team or organizational level. For example,
if all coaches on a team (i.e., head coach and assistant
coaches) used a 360-degree system to acquire feedback it
is possible their players would be inundated with surveys.
Lastly, it was noted that 360-degree feedback would likely
require increased resource commitments (e.g., time,
money, and personnel) on the part of sport organizations
compared with traditional performance appraisals.
O’Boyle (2014) concluded by suggesting that 360-
degree feedback is the most appropriate contemporary
appraisal system for managing and evaluating coaching
performance in sport. However, he cautioned that addi-
tional work is required to conrm this conclusion. In the
spirit of promoting and continuing informed dialogue on
the topic of coach evaluations, the current paper is pre-
sented as a follow-up to O’Boyle’s work. Drawing on a
review of the coach evaluation and 360-degree feedback
literature, along with insights shared from Canadian inter-
collegiate head coaches, we offer support for many of the
potential benets and challenges of 360-degree feedback
in sport as discussed above. Perhaps more importantly,
and to further expand upon previous work, we suggest
‘best practices’ for effectively integrating this multirater
feedback system and offer an example feedback report
that illustrates how feedback would be provided to a
coach following a 360-degree feedback protocol. While
the suggestions and recommendations forwarded in the
current paper are primarily catered to coaches and ADs
in the Canadian intercollegiate system, we believe they
can be applied with minor adjustment to meet the needs
of others involved in high performance settings.
Coaching Intercollegiate Sport
in Canada
In the present paper we consider the utility of 360-degree
feedback for head coaches employed at institutions
competing in U Sports (formerly named Canadian Inter-
university Sport [CIS]). Although U Sports represents
the highest level of intercollegiate athletics in Canada,
the nancial resources available to U Sports coaches
are limited in comparison with those coaching in the
NCAA (Division I) in the United States. For example,
head coaches in U Sports rarely have full-time assistant
coaches on their staffs. Therefore, head coaches are tasked
with completing several duties beyond coaching their
teams (e.g., scouting, compiling video of games/prac-
tices). Along the same line, having nancial restrictions
can inhibit the possibility of utilizing outside resources
(e.g., analytics consultant) that could provide assistance
338 Hoffmann et al.
ISCJ Vol. 4, No. 3, 2017
with team-related matters. We contend that a lack of
resources may present a unique challenge to Canadian
intercollegiate head coaches or ADs wishing to imple-
ment more complex 360-degree feedback systems.
Insights and Recommendations
From Conversations With Coaches
Our in-depth conversations with 10 Canadian male and
female intercollegiate head coaches with varying years of
coaching experience shed light on the potential usefulness
of 360-degree feedback in sport. These coaches were from
four different academic institutions across Canada and
coached in a variety of sports. While these individuals
coached within the same governing body of university
sport (i.e., U Sports), it is possible their respective univer-
sities differed slightly in terms of any procedures related
to performance appraisals, which could have inuenced
their perspectives on coach evaluations.
Our discussions with coaches concerning perfor-
mance appraisals revealed several interesting insights,
which we have grouped under four key themes. The rst
theme documents coaches’ current experiences with
feedback. The remaining three themes represent how
coaches generally felt about the possibility of utilizing
360-degree feedback in sport. Using the coach evaluation
and 360-degree feedback literature, we draw conclusions
and offer recommendations based on coaches’ insights.
Theme 1: Coaches’ Current Experiences
With Feedback
Coaches sought and/or received feedback from numer-
ous sources including players, assistant coaches, ADs,
mentors, other coaches within or outside of their
institutions, and support staff (e.g., sport psychology
consultant). However, coaches generally agreed that
their players (especially leaders and veterans), assistant
coaches, and sometimes ADs comprised the core group
they relied upon for feedback—because these individu-
als were typically the ones with intimate knowledge of
their behaviors and team affairs. That coaches reported
obtaining feedback from multiple individuals is positive
because it suggests coaches are, to some extent, integrat-
ing one aspect of the 360-degree process (Bracken et al.,
2001). In general, coaches felt that obtaining feedback
from relevant others about their coaching was crucial
to their professional development. Without feedback,
these coaches felt they would have less knowledge of
how or in which specic areas of coaching they needed
to improve. Although some coaches indicated they
were not overly concerned with obtaining feedback at
the beginning of their intercollegiate coaching careers
(occasionally out of fear of receiving negative feedback),
over time they started seeking feedback to develop and
enhance their coaching styles. For many of the coaches
receiving feedback helped them ensure they were con-
stantly evolving and not remaining rigid in their coaching
philosophies.
We were pleased to learn that coaches saw value in
obtaining feedback about their coaching. Unfortunately,
coaches were provided with few opportunities to receive
quality formal feedback through their institutions. In fact,
all coaches noted their athletic departments provided
them only with anonymous feedback via player evalua-
tions that were completed at the end of the season; and
some coaches noted this feedback was discussed with
their ADs in a follow-up meeting. While a few coaches
believed institutional player evaluations had some merit,
other coaches held opposing views concerning end-of-
season evaluations. For instance, one coach felt positive
evaluations were only given by athletes who were pro-
vided with ample playing time. As another example, one
coach noted their institution’s evaluation tool contained
a question asking players to rate how satised they were
with the team’s practice times—a scheduling decision
made by members of administration rather than by
coaches themselves. Overall, coaches felt end-of-season
player evaluations often comprised items that provided
them with little information on how to better develop
their coaching practices.
It is encouraging that athletes were included in
end-of-season coaching evaluations at the intercollegiate
level. Indeed, any measure assessing the effectiveness of
a coach should incorporate feedback from athletes (Mal-
lett & Côté, 2006). Further, it is promising that players’
evaluations were conducted anonymously. However, the
reports we collected from coaches suggest the criteria
used for coach evaluations were generally not useful for
coach development purposes. Further, only the voices of
athletes were included in institutional coach evaluations,
and these evaluations occurred only at season’s end.
Finally, while some coaches chose to engage in various
forms of self-reection or self-assessment, there was no
evidence that any coach completed a self-evaluation that
was compared with their players’ evaluations of them.
Taken together, we found little evidence that the coaches
we spoke with used a structured 360-degree feedback
system.
It is worth mentioning that some coaches were more
progressive and acquired additional feedback through
their own formal and informal methods. In terms of
formal methods, coaches distributed surveys (paper-and-
pencil or online) and/or scheduled meetings during and
after the season with the team as a whole, the coach-
ing staff, individual players, and ADs. Coaches also
sought informal feedback with stakeholders primarily
through daily face-to-face conversations. Interestingly,
one coach used a “suggestion box” where players could
provide feedback (anonymous or not) at a time that was
suitable to them. While we certainly commend coaches
for obtaining feedback from others to supplement the
feedback provided by their institutions, these methods
were often used sporadically, were only occasionally
360-Degree Feedback in Sport 339
ISCJ Vol. 4, No. 3, 2017
anonymous, and were incorporated inconsistently from
year to year.
Theme 2: Coaches’ Insights
on the Potential Benefits
of 360-Degree Feedback
Following our dialogue with coaches about their current
experiences with feedback, we probed further to uncover
how they felt about the possibility of implementing a
structured 360-degree feedback system to obtain feed-
back on their coaching. Some coaches were initially
unfamiliar with this appraisal process but developed an
understanding of it after some discussion, while others
were relatively well-informed about the theory behind this
system. Generally, coaches felt there could be individual
and team-level benets to utilizing a 360-degree system.
First, they believed this appraisal process could be condu-
cive to creating an environment where stakeholders feel
empowered. Specically, coaches felt players would be
empowered as a result of being afforded the opportunity
to regularly voice their thoughts and positively inuence
the direction of their teams throughout the season. We
contend that coaches who adopt a 360-degree approach
might be perceived by their athletes as exhibiting an
autonomy-supportive coaching style, which could
result in athletes perceiving their opinions are valued
and deemed important. Consistent with this suggestion,
Banack, Sabiston, and Bloom (2011) found that athletes
who rated their coaches as displaying greater levels of
autonomy-supportive coaching behavior also reported
greater perceptions of autonomy themselves.
Second, coaches believed they would receive more
honest feedback given that 360-degree appraisals would
be completed anonymously. In particular, they alluded to
the fact that anonymous comments would allow stake-
holders to provide feedback without fear of repercussion.
This view aligns with O’Boyle’s (2014) suggestion that
anonymity offers athletes the opportunity to more freely
praise or criticize coaches and supports the argument that
anonymity is a key factor contributing to the success of
a 360-degree system (Bracken et al., 2001). Ultimately,
we contend anonymous feedback should provide coaches
with important information to aid with professional
development they otherwise might not obtain using
methods (e.g., face-to-face meetings) that do not protect
stakeholders’ identities.
Finally, coaches indicated that acquiring information
from a variety of sources could enhance the accuracy of
the feedback. That is, gaining feedback from multiple
sources could reduce the potential for biased responses
that could result from sampling only a particular group of
stakeholders (e.g., athletes). The suggestion that multiple
raters might enhance the validity of feedback and provide
a more complete view of one’s performance has been
noted previously in the literature (e.g., Borman, 1997;
Gilbert, 2017; O’Boyle, 2014). In fact, in a study with
individuals from nonsport organizations, Hensel, Meijers,
van der Leeden, and Kessels (2010) found that using two
to three raters resulted in poor reliability levels (.45 and
.50) and that 10 raters was required to reach the desired
reliability of .70. This nding appears to support the use
of multiple raters and, consequently, we argue that accu-
rate feedback will likely not be obtained if coaches are
left to rely on input from only the AD, assistant coaches,
or a few team leaders.
Theme 3: Coaches’ Insights
on the Potential Challenges
of 360-Degree Feedback
While the potential advantages of adopting 360-degree
feedback in sport are evident, the coaches we spoke
with were open in sharing their concerns with respect
to this appraisal system. In particular, there was much
discussion about the logistical challenges that might arise
from using a more complex feedback system, including
nancial and time-related concerns. This sentiment was
expressed by one coach who stated that he “essentially
runs a Division I program with no full-time assistant
coaches.” Indeed, the frequent distribution of surveys
and collating of data typically comes with an increase
in cost and time commitment and may require outside
assistance (Gillham et al., 2015; London & Beatty, 1993;
O’Boyle, 2014)—realities which may prove problematic
for coaches at many levels. However, athletic departments
must show a willingness to invest in the growth of their
coaches. Though it is unlikely that funds would be made
available to hire an outside agency, we believe university
research assistants or possibly graduate students could
serve as trusted agents to gather and analyze feedback
scores. These individuals could be hired at a relatively
low cost or these positions could serve as internship
opportunities for students. Our suggestion is meant to
spur additional thought and we do not propose that this
idea will be feasible under all conditions.
We also found that some coaches were apprehen-
sive about the timing of data collection. That is, they
were unsure as to when and how frequently during the
season 360-degree feedback should ideally be gathered.
Researchers and practitioners have yet to reach con-
sensus on this matter. O’Boyle (2014) astutely noted
that the frequency of coach appraisals should depend
on the nature of the sport. He suggested that quarterly
coach appraisals might be appropriate for sports with
relatively continuous competition schedules. In line
with his suggestion, we argue that appraisals at multiple
(2–3) time points would be suitable for a sport such as
basketball where teams compete for nearly the entire
academic year. For soccer, where the team’s competitive
season spans a few months, it may only be feasible to
collect feedback at one time point during the season.
Thus, we suggest being exible and collecting 360-
degree feedback at intervals that are appropriate for the
particular sport and allow coaches to continually learn
from feedback and adjust accordingly.
340 Hoffmann et al.
ISCJ Vol. 4, No. 3, 2017
As a nal logistical issue, some coaches expressed
some uncertainty regarding whom to include in the
appraisal process. One coach remarked that “too many
voices” could be problematic. In short, stakeholders
involved in the appraisal process should be those capable
of providing relevant feedback. As discussed by Ilgen,
Fisher, and Taylor (1979), the extent to which feedback
affects the recipient depends largely on the source’s cred-
ibility. A credible source is trustworthy as well as familiar
with both the task and the recipient’s own performance on
the task. It is essential that raters have a working knowl-
edge and deep understanding of the components they are to
evaluate the coach on (Huber, 2015). Beyond the obvious
sources (athletes, assistant coaches, ADs), coaches need to
determine if there are other potential stakeholders within
their contexts that are in a position to provide reliable feed-
back. If appropriate, we suggest intercollegiate coaches
consider including other coaches within their institutions
as well as any mentors in their feedback circles. These
sources could be well-suited to provide feedback as they
may be exposed to the coach’s and team’s day-to-day
activities. Like many of the coaches we spoke with, we
contend that athletes’ parents are likely not a useful or
necessary source of feedback at the intercollegiate level.
Not surprisingly, having no knowledge as to the
sources of anonymous feedback was viewed by the
coaches as being an obstacle to utilizing a 360-degree
approach. Since they would not know who is providing
the feedback, some coaches felt it would be near impos-
sible for them to make meaningful changes that would
positively affect specic individuals. This is clearly an
unavoidable aspect of 360-degree feedback. However,
360-degree feedback reports are broken down by “rating
groups” (see Figure 1). Thus, a coach would receive
information detailing how different stakeholders feel
about him/her on various coaching dimensions, and this
might provide some insight in terms of how to modify
coaching behaviors. From a different perspective, some
coaches believed anonymous feedback could foster an
environment where individuals have little accountability
for their ratings or comments. This potential undesir-
able consequence highlights the reality that anonymous
feedback is perhaps best described as a “double-edged
sword,” and coincides with O’Boyle’s (2014) suggestion
that 360-degree appraisals may result in large amounts
of negative feedback, which may lead a coach to react
defensively. In a similar vein, an additional challenge
with 360-degree feedback is that anonymous data are col-
lected primarily through quantitative means. Indeed, our
conversations with coaches revealed that questionnaire-
based appraisals often result in rather valueless feedback
lacking detail and depth.
Figure 1 — Example coach feedback report using 360-degree feedback protocol. Sample items adapted from “Performance Appraisal
for Sport and Recreation Managers,” by J. MacLean, 2001.
360-Degree Feedback in Sport 341
ISCJ Vol. 4, No. 3, 2017
Theme 4: Coaches’ Insights
on Implementing 360-Degree Feedback
The coaches we spoke with proposed a few general
recommendations that might assist in implementing
360-degree feedback in sport. Notably, they indicated
that it would be essential to frame 360-degree feedback
as a “developmental process” rather than a “performance
evaluation” for it to gain acceptance in the coaching
community. Former intercollegiate AD Keith Hansen
similarly suggested that he believed coaches saw value in
an appraisal when they felt it was being used for personal
coaching development instead of as a means to poten-
tially support their dismissal (Gillham et al., 2015). As
noted by Wimer and Nowack (1998), not making clear
to recipients why feedback is being collected and how it
will be used is a signicant and potentially costly error
when implementing 360-degree feedback. ADs and other
sport administrators must ensure they carefully inform
their coaches how this multirater feedback system: a) is
a developmental opportunity to enhance one’s coaching,
and b) links to the organization’s strategic goals. While
360-degree feedback can be used partly for evalua-
tive purposes once the process becomes familiar to all
involved, it is advised that it be used only for develop-
ment in the beginning stages (Wimer & Nowack, 1998).
There also appears to be minimal discussion in
coaching clinics or certication programs about how
coaches can use feedback to enhance their craft. Rather,
coaches indicated the emphasis in coaching clinics is
primarily on how to provide feedback to athletes. A
review of Canada’s National Coaching Certication
Program’s (NCCP) curriculum (Coaching Association of
Canada, 2016) indicates that several modules do cover
some form of coach feedback. While this is promising,
coaches suggested they received little to no education on
360-degree feedback over their coaching careers. Thus,
training on how 360-degree feedback can be used as part
of continual efforts to develop one’s coaching prociency
is warranted and must be implemented in coaching clin-
ics and formal coaching certication programs moving
forward. A call for additional training on coach feedback
also aligns with the International Sport Coaching Frame-
work (International Council for Coaching Excellence,
Association of Summer Olympic Federations, & Leeds
Metropolitan University, 2013), which highlights evalua-
tion and reection as key aspects of ongoing professional
coach development. Similarly, the value and importance
of systematic program evaluation is included as one of
eight national standards for sport coaches in the United
States (SHAPE, 2014) and the Quality Coaching Frame-
work created by the United States Olympic Committee
(USOC, 2017).
Lastly, several coaches highlighted how valuable
technology could be in obtaining 360-degree feedback.
Business organizations have trended toward the use of
360-degree feedback as employees have become increas-
ingly comfortable with technology and become more
aware of its ability to promote change (Lepsinger &
Lucia, 2009). Electronic data collection through online
surveys could ease some of the logistical challenges of
collecting frequent multirater feedback and likely reduce
the resources required to implement this appraisal system
in the sport-coaching context.
Suggested Best Practices
for Implementing an Effective
360-Degree Feedback Protocol
In this section we offer some ‘best practices’ that should
be considered when attempting to implement an effective
360-degree feedback protocol. The purpose of integrating
these practical strategies is to discourage stakeholders
from providing excessive negative and/or unconstruc-
tive feedback. Put more positively, these approaches are
designed to help coaches receive more quality multirater
feedback that can aid with professional development.
These considerations are described below:
• Coaches must ensure stakeholders (e.g., athletes,
assistant coaches) understand the purpose and value
of 360-degree feedback. To accomplish this objec-
tive, coaches could hold a meeting with stakeholders
at the beginning of the season to discuss the various
aspects involved in an effective 360-degree feedback
system as well as their vision for the system. In fact,
successful intercollegiate coaches have stressed the
importance of ‘selling’ their vision and coaching
philosophy to their athletes and to the program as
a whole (Vallée & Bloom, 2005). Ensuring stake-
holders understand the intended use of the results
obtained through 360-degree feedback, including
how it will serve to assist them in reaching their
team’s goals, is a core element of this feedback
system (London & Beatty, 1993).
• Related to the point above, rater training should be
provided for those involved in the appraisal process
to prevent common rating errors (Antonioni, 1996).
Antonioni (1996) noted that appraisers have a par-
ticular tendency to unknowingly rate an individual
similarly across all performance dimensions (i.e.,
halo error). Thus, providing rater training through a
third party might improve the chances that coaches
receive more thorough feedback. Further, incorporat-
ing rater training might highlight to coaches that the
ADs and universities they work for value acquiring
feedback that can assist with coach development.
This might help overcome the assumption held by
many intercollegiate coaches that institutions are
primarily concerned with winning (Van Mullem,
2015). However, a training initiative might pose a
nancial challenge for athletic departments/sport
organizations.
• To reduce purposeless feedback, coaches/ADs
should use evaluation tools that ask respondents to
comment on specic behaviors rather than make
342 Hoffmann et al.
ISCJ Vol. 4, No. 3, 2017
general judgments (Lepsinger & Lucia, 2009).
Implementing a 360-degree system where raters
indicate the effectiveness of the coach’s behavior
and describe its importance to them should assist the
coach in identifying areas in which they can improve
(Lepsinger & Lucia, 2009). It is beyond the scope of
the present paper to delve into the various evaluation
tools that exist to assess coaching effectiveness/per-
formance. However, we suggest consulting Gilbert
(2017) for an overview of available coach evaluation
measures.
• Coaches/ADs should conrm the face validity of the
chosen evaluation tool with a group of knowledge-
able or senior stakeholders (Lepsinger & Lucia,
2009; London & Beatty, 1993). This strategy could
be useful in gaining a better understanding of the
appropriateness and relevance of the evaluation tool,
which could possibly reduce the amount of negative/
unconstructive feedback.
• Evaluation tools should provide stakeholders the
opportunity to supplement numerical ratings with
qualitative feedback (O’Boyle, 2014). However,
allowing respondents to provide written comments
in no way guarantees that richer feedback will
be obtained. Lepsinger and Lucia (2009) suggest
including only a few open-ended questions that link
to certain key items. This approach might result in
more meaningful feedback than what is generally
yielded by allowing respondents to provide written
comments after every item or at the end of the survey.
Example Coach Feedback Report
Using 360-Degree
Feedback Protocol
In Figure 1 we present ctitious data illustrating an exam-
ple of a 360-degree feedback report. Notice the report
includes stakeholders’ ratings of the head coach as well
as the head coach’s self-ratings. In this example a ve-
point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree) was used and sample items were adapted
from MacLean (2001). Within a scholastic environment,
it may also be wise for intercollegiate coaches/ADs to
assess dimensions that tap into coaches’ overall effec-
tiveness in terms of student-athlete development (e.g.,
assistance with academic-related matters). Similarly,
Cunningham and Dixon (2003) argued that the academic
achievement of intercollegiate athletes is an important
indicator of coach performance. While not included in
Figure 1, the feedback report would also include areas
where raters could provide specic written comments.
Evidently, the example feedback report does not hide
the identity of the AD. This is not ideal. Lepsinger and
Lucia (2009) suggest a minimum of three respondents
per rater group to ensure stakeholders’ identities remain
anonymous. However, there will often be situations in
sport where there is only one AD or sport administra-
tor whose identity cannot be hidden. In these instances,
Lepsinger and Lucia recommend making this fact clearly
known to all parties before the collection of feedback. If
either the recipient or individual rater is not comfortable
with this situation then the rater should not be included
in the 360-degree feedback process.
Finally, it is a ‘best practice’ to discuss 360-degree
feedback reports with recipients in a follow-up interview
(Nowack & Mashihi, 2012). Snyder (2015) reported that
a lack of follow-up with respect to coach evaluations was
a common occurrence even at the highest levels of sport.
We argue that postfeedback debriefs with coaches would
indicate to them that the organization values the coach-
ing feedback (positive and negative) that is collected.
Further, establishing agreed upon areas for improvement
would appear to increase the odds that coaches will be
motivated to reach their future target objectives (Nowack
& Mashihi, 2012).
Conclusion
As a follow-up to O’Boyle (2014), the goal of the cur-
rent paper is to offer a sample protocol for instituting
a 360-degree feedback system for coaches working in
high performance settings. We draw on the coach evalu-
ation and 360-degree feedback literature coupled with
insights shared by Canadian intercollegiate head coaches
to highlight some of the potential benets and challenges
of implementing this multirater appraisal process in sport.
Further, we forward ‘best practices’ for effectively inte-
grating this feedback system and provide an example coach
feedback report to help clarify the 360-degree feedback
process. Unlike others before of us, our main interest is
not in advocating for the use of particular criteria to assess
coaching performance. However, in accordance with the
principles of 360-degree feedback, we do generally support
the use of developmental tools that focus on the behaviors
of coaches and the consequences of those behaviors. We
suggest readers seeking additional knowledge about the
various criteria/tools that exist to evaluate coaching per-
formance consult Gilbert (2017), Gillham et al. (2013),
Mallett and Côté (2006), Barber and Eckrich (1998), and
MacLean and Chelladurai (1995), to name a few.
Some of our views and suggestions concerning
360-degree feedback for Canadian intercollegiate
coaches may not be entirely relevant to those coaching
in different countries or at different levels of sport. For
instance, those coaching in the NCAA (Division I) or elite
professional levels may have adequate resources, and as
such they could more easily hire an outside agency to
collate feedback that is obtained. As another example,
those coaching youth sport may benet immensely from
including athletes’ parents in the feedback process to
gauge athletes’ interest and enjoyment with respect to
their sporting experiences.
Like many methods, approaches, or systems, it is
easier to advocate for the use of 360-degree feedback
360-Degree Feedback in Sport 343
ISCJ Vol. 4, No. 3, 2017
for sport coaches than it is to implement it. However, we
hope the suggestions and recommendations offered in
this paper will encourage coaches, ADs, and other sport
administrators to integrate comprehensive multirater
feedback practices in their sporting programs. Finally,
we echo the words of O’Boyle (2014) and urge research-
ers to conduct empirical research in this important area.
Examining the perceptions of coaches who have partaken
in a structured 360-degree feedback intervention would
be a signicant contribution to the coaching literature.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada Joseph-Armand Bombardier Doc-
toral Scholarship awarded to the rst and third authors and by
an Ontario Graduate Scholarship awarded to the second author.
References
Antonioni, D. (1996). Designing an effective 360-degree
appraisal feedback process. Organizational Dynamics,
25, 24–38. doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(96)90023-6
Atwater, L.E., & Brett, J.F. (2006). 360-degree feedback
to leaders: Does it relate to changes in employee
attitudes? Group & Organization Management, 31,
578–600. doi:10.1177/1059601106286887
Banack, H.R., Sabiston, C.M., & Bloom, G.A. (2011). Coach
autonomy support, basic need satisfaction, and
intrinsic motivation of Paralympic athletes. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82, 722–730. PubMed
doi:10.1080/02701367.2011.10599809
Barber, H., & Eckrich, J. (1998). Methods and criteria
employed in the evaluation of intercollegiate
coaches. Journal of Sport Management, 12, 301–322.
doi:10.1123/jsm.12.4.301
Borman, W.C. (1997). 360° ratings: An analysis of assump-
tions and a research agenda for evaluating their valid-
ity. Human Resource Management Review, 7, 299–315.
doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(97)90010-3
Bracken, D.W., Timmreck, C.W., Fleenor, J.W., & Sum-
mers, L. (2001). 360 feedback from another angle.
Human Resource Management, 40, 3–20. doi:10.1002/
hrm.4012
Brett, J.F., & Atwater, L.E. (2001). 360° feedback: Accu-
racy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness. The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 930–942. PubMed
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.930
Chelladurai, P. (2007). Leadership in sports. In G. Tenen-
baum & R.C. Eklund (Eds.), The sport psychology
handbook (pp. 113–135). Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.
Coaching Association of Canada. (2016). Multi-sport
modules. Retrieved from http://www.coach.ca/files/
NCCP_MULTISPORT_EN_v2016.pdf
Côté, J., & Gilbert, W. (2009). An integrative denition of
coaching effectiveness and expertise. International
Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 4, 307–323.
doi:10.1260/174795409789623892
Côté, J., Yardley, J., Hay, J., Sedgwick, W., & Baker, J. (1999).
An exploratory examination of the Coaching Behav-
iour Scale for Sport. Avante, 5, 82–92.
Craig, S.B., & Hannum, K. (2006). Research update:
360-degree performance assessment. Consult-
ing Psychology Practice and Research, 58, 117–122.
doi:10.1037/1065-9293.58.2.117
Cunningham, G.B., & Dixon, M.A. (2003). New perspectives
concerning performance appraisals of intercollegiate
coaches. Quest, 55, 177–192. doi:10.1080/00336297
.2003.10491798
Fletcher, C. (2001). Performance appraisal and manage-
ment: The developing research agenda. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74,
473–487. doi:10.1348/096317901167488
Gilbert, W. (2017). Coaching better every season: A year-round
system for athlete development and program success.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Gillham, A., Burton, D., & Gillham, E. (2013). Going beyond
won-loss record to identify successful coaches:
Development and preliminary validation of the
Coaching Success Questionnaire-2. International
Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 8, 115–138.
doi:10.1260/1747-9541.8.1.115
Gillham, A., Hansen, K., & Brady, C. (2015). Coach evalu-
ation from three perspectives: An athletic director, a
coach and a consultant. International Sport Coaching
Journal, 2, 192–200. doi:10.1123/iscj.2014-0149
Hensel, R., Meijers, F., van der Leeden, R., & Kessels, J.
(2010). 360 degree feedback: How many raters
are needed for reliable ratings on the capacity to
develop competences, with personal qualities as
developmental goals? International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 21, 2813–2830. doi:10.1080/0
9585192.2010.528664
Huber, J. (2015). Coach evaluation from three perspectives:
An athletic director, a coach, and a consultant – A
commentary. International Sport Coaching Journal, 2,
201–202. doi:10.1123/iscj.2014-0149a
International Council for Coaching Excellence, Associa-
tion of Summer Olympic International
Federations, & Leeds Metropolitan University. (2013).
International sport coaching framework (version 1.2).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, C.D., & Taylor, M.S. (1979). Con-
sequences of individual feedback on behavior in
organizations. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 64,
349–371. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.64.4.349
Lepsinger, R., & Lucia, A.D. (2009). The art and science of
360-degree feedback (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
London, M., & Beatty, R.W. (1993). 360-degree feedback
as a competitive advantage. Human Resource Manage-
ment, 32, 353–372. doi:10.1002/hrm.3930320211
MacLean, J. (2001). Performance appraisal for sport and rec-
reation managers. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
MacLean, J.C., & Chelladurai, P. (1995). Dimensions of
coaching performance: Development of a scale.
344 Hoffmann et al.
ISCJ Vol. 4, No. 3, 2017
Journal of Sport Management, 9, 194–207. doi:10.1123/
jsm.9.2.194
Mallett, C., & Côté, J. (2006). Beyond winning and losing:
Guidelines for evaluating high performance coaches.
The Sport Psychologist, 20, 213–221. doi:10.1123/
tsp.20.2.213
Nowack, K.M., & Mashihi, S. (2012). Evidence-based
answers to 15 questions about leveraging 360-degree
feedback. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, 64, 157–182. doi:10.1037/a0030011
O’Boyle, I. (2014). Determining best practice in perfor-
mance monitoring and evaluation of sport coaches:
Lessons from the traditional business environment.
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 9,
233–246. doi:10.1260/1747-9541.9.1.233
Reilly, R.R., Smither, J.W., & Vasilopoulos, N.L. (1996). A
longitudinal study of upward feedback. Personnel Psy-
chology, 49, 599–612. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.
tb01586.x
Snyder, C. (2015). Coach evaluation from three perspec-
tives: An athletic director, a coach, and a consultant
– A commentary. International Sport Coaching Journal,
2, 206–207. doi:10.1123/iscj.2015-0035
Society of Health and Physical Educators [SHAPE]. (2014).
National standards for sport coaches. Retrieved from
http://portal.shapeamerica.org/standards/coaching/coach-
ingstandards.aspx
United States Olympic Committee. (2017). USOC quality
coaching framework. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Vallée, C.N., & Bloom, G.A. (2005). Building a successful
university program: Key and common elements of
expert coaches. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17,
179–196. doi:10.1080/10413200591010021
Van Mullem, P. (2015). Developing a systematic evaluation
for coaches, a commentary on ‘coach evaluation’ by
Gillham, Hansen and Brady. International Sport Coach-
ing Journal, 2, 203–205. doi:10.1123/iscj.2014-0092a
Weinberg, R., & McDermott, M. (2002). A comparative
analysis of sport and business organizations: Fac-
tors perceived critical for organizational success.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 282–298.
doi:10.1080/10413200290103563
Williams, J.M., Jerome, G.J., Kenow, L.J., Rogers, T., Sartain,
T.A., & Darland, G. (2003). Factor structure of the
Coaching Behavior Questionnaire and its relation-
ship to athlete variables. The Sport Psychologist, 17,
16–34. doi:10.1123/tsp.17.1.16
Wimer, S., & Nowack, K.M. (1998). 13 common mistakes
using 360-degree feedback. Training & Development,
52, 69–80.
