COMPETENCY FEEDBACK

Uncover strengths, gaps and blind spots from different perspectives

The way we see ourselves does not always match how others perceive us. Talent360 lets you assess competencies through self-assessment, targets and different observer groups, setting up 90º, 180º or 360º processes tailored to each organization. Work with more than 80 competencies and more than 80 predefined sets, build your own models and use re-assessments to check how development evolves.

One competency. Several perspectives.

Self-assessment provides information, but not all of it

A person may believe they demonstrate a competency in a certain way, while their manager, peers, direct reports, clients or other professionals perceive it differently.

These differences do not necessarily mean that one perspective is right and the others are wrong.

They can reveal:

Recognized strengthsBlind spotsDifferences in perceptionDiverging expectationsAreas worth exploring

The real Talent360 report compares self-assessment with observer ratings and lets you specifically analyze the gaps between both perspectives.

Feedback is not about deciding who is right. It is about generating information to understand and develop.

From a self-assessment to 360º feedback

Configure only the perspectives you need

Talent360 lets you adapt the project to your objective.

90º

Self-assessment only

The person assesses their own competencies without adding observers.

180º

Self-assessment + one other perspective

Lets you contrast one's own rating with one or more groups relevant to the project.

360º

Self-assessment + multiple perspectives

Adds different observer groups for a broader reading.

In addition, Talent360 supports up to 8 observer groups.

Assessed · self-assessmentManagerDirect reportsPeersClientsOther groupsMulti-perspective view

Groups are configurable; there is no mandatory structure.

Decide who observes and how they take part

Observers tailored to each project

Talent360 lets you configure observers in different ways.

No observers

Only the assessed person takes part.

Grouped by labels

Each participant belongs to a defined group: direct reports, managers, peers, external clients or other categories.

By number / anonymous

An anonymous observer model when the project needs to collect ratings without individually identifying respondents.

In addition, the project can:

  • Allow observer comments.
  • Enable the “Don’t know / No answer” option so no one is forced to rate behaviors they do not know well enough.

In the real individual report, perceptions can be shown by different groups and compared with one another to detect discrepancies.

Don’t adapt your competency model to the tool

Adapt the tool to your organization

+80predefined competencies

Use existing competencies from the system or create your own. Each competency can include the specific behaviors or elements you want to observe.

+80competency sets

More than 80 sets tied to different roles or needs. Start from an existing one, modify it or build your own set.

+80 competencies+80 predefined sets
AdaptCreate your own competenciesCreate your own sets
Your organization’s model

Assess the competencies your organization needs, not the ones a closed questionnaire imposes.

From a competency to observable behaviors

A competency does not have to be reduced to a single general question

Developing people

  • Define development goals
  • Provide practical coaching
  • Create growth opportunities

Decision-making

  • Define criteria
  • Decide with the available information
  • Review the outcome afterwards
They score 65 on this competencyWhich specific behaviors are driving that rating?
Define what you want to compare against

Three ways to work with the desired target

No target

The assessment is interpreted without a custom target. When there is no target, 100% is used as the calculation reference for certain comparisons.

Defined by the assessed person

The person indicates the level they consider desirable.

Defined by the administrator

The organization sets the expected target level for the role, group or project.

Where am I?Where do I need to be?
Current state vs target state

A score makes more sense when there is a reference

Current state
Gap
Target state

The report calculates and represents these differences competency by competency, helping to detect those whose distance from the target is greater. But the target should not be read as a “pass or fail” boundary.

It is used to:

Identify prioritiesRank needsGuide conversationsDecide where to focus development
Not every competency has to carry the same weight

Weight according to what really matters

The configuration lets you assign different weights to competencies and also to observer groups.

Example: weights by competency

Competency A10%
Competency B20%
Competency C10%
Competency D30%
Competency E30%

Example: weights by observer group

Manager40%
Direct reports30%
Peers20%
Clients10%

The real reports explicitly distinguish between flat and weighted ratings, and record the weights applied to competencies and observer groups.

Assess with the scale that fits best

Different ways to respond

The project does not force you to always use the same scale.

Numeric scale

Ratings from 1 to 10, including fractions where appropriate.

Emoji rating

A more visual alternative for certain types of project.

The choice depends on the context and the experience you want to offer the participant.

Detect strengths and priorities

You don’t need to read dozens of scores to know where to look

The report classifies competencies according to how they meet the target:

Primary strengths
Secondary strengths
Secondary areas for improvement
Primary areas for improvement

Where is it worth focusing development first?

Detect blind spots too

What I think I do and what others observe do not always match

Talent360 compares self-assessment and observers to detect differences in perception. The report specifically includes a Blind Spots analysis, showing the gap between both ratings per competency.

Self-assessmentObservers

A difference may mean that:

  • The person rates themselves above how others perceive them.
  • They are underrating themselves.
  • Certain behaviors are not equally visible.
  • Different groups experience things differently.

The reading is not

“others are right”.

But rather

“there is a difference in perception here that deserves a conversation”.

Compare the observers themselves too

Not all groups see the same thing

A manager may perceive a competency one way and direct reports another. Talent360 lets you analyze the differences between observer groups and identify perception discrepancies.

The real individual report shows a perception table by group and highlights the competencies with the largest differences between groups.

Why is this person perceived differently by their team and by their peers?

From the executive summary to the detail

Different levels of reading the report

Executive summary

Scores by competency and area; distinguishes flat and weighted results.

Radar by area

Visualizes the major areas of the model and compares self-assessment, target and observers.

Radar by competency

Drills down into each competency.

Ranking

Orders strengths and areas for improvement by distance from the target.

Rating by group

Shows how different groups rate each competency.

Competency detail

Descends from the general competency to the behaviors or questions that make it up.

Gaps against target

Compares current state and desired level.

Blind spots

Compares self-assessment and observers.

Discrepancies between observers

Shows where different groups perceive things differently.

Flat and weighted results

Lets you view the rating with and without the configured weights.

Comments

When enabled, incorporates grouped observer comments.

Individual report and group report

One person. One group. Two readings.

Individual report

How does this person see themselves and how do others perceive them?

Lets you drill down into:

CompetenciesSpecific behaviorsTargetObserver groupsGapsBlind spotsDiscrepanciesWeighted results

Goes from the general summary to the behavior-by-behavior detail of each competency.

Group report

What is happening in the group?

Provides an aggregated reading of areas and competencies and compares the results of several people.

Scores by competency and areaJoint radarsRankingRating by groupComparisons between assessed people

Offers an aggregated view of the group and comparisons against the group average.

Person · Individual report+Group · Group reportIndividual and organizational development
From individual data to group analysis

Beyond the PDF, group charts and data

The platform provides group charts and data to analyze results from a collective perspective.

Which competencies are strengths of the group?

Where do the main gaps appear?

What differences exist between groups?

Which people move away from or closer to the average?

The group report shows, for example, comparisons between assessed people and the group average.

Export the data and continue the analysis

Your results are not locked inside a PDF

Talent360 lets you export the data to Excel to keep working with it outside the platform.

People AnalyticsInternal reportingAdditional analysisProgram trackingIntegration with other HR processes

Read the reports in Talent360 or take the data into your own analysis models.

From assessment to progress

Assess. Develop. Assess again.

A competency assessment does not have to end in a report. Talent360 lets you run up to two additional re-assessments with a single click, keeping the project and generating comparative data to analyze evolution.

T0

Initial assessment

Strengths and gaps · Development plan

T1

Re-assessment 1

Compare · New actions

T2

Re-assessment 2

Evolution

What do we need to develop?Has anything changed after developing it?

Don’t assess only to diagnose. Use re-assessment to check evolution.

Compare assessments over time

Re-assessments provide comparative data between different moments of the same process. This helps to observe:

Which competencies have evolved
Which gaps have narrowed
Which areas remain stable
Where it may be necessary to keep working

Important: an improvement between T0 and T1 does not automatically prove that a specific training was the only cause. It lets you observe evolution, not automatically attribute its cause.

A project as flexible as your talent model

Configure the assessment around your talent model, not the other way around

Target

  • No target
  • Defined by the assessed person
  • Defined by the administrator

Observers

  • No observers
  • By labels
  • By number / anonymous
  • Up to 8 groups

Model

  • +80 competencies
  • +80 sets
  • Own competencies
  • Own sets

Weighting

  • By competency
  • By observer

Response

  • 1–10
  • Emoji
  • Don’t know / No answer
  • Comments

Results

  • Individual
  • Group
  • Charts
  • Data · Excel

Follow-up

  • Up to 2 re-assessments
From results to development

Feedback only has value if it helps you act

The results can be used to:

Prioritize two or three competencies
Define development goals
Prepare conversations between professional and manager
Design individual development plans
Guide training
Run coaching or mentoring
Follow up afterwards
Re-assess and observe evolution
AssessUnderstandTalkPrioritizeDevelopRe-assess
Use cases

How competency feedback is used

Talent development

Detects strengths and gaps to personalize development priorities.

Leadership development

Assesses competencies specific to managers and leaders from different perspectives.

360º programs

Combines self-assessment and multiple observer groups.

Individual Development Plans

Turns specific gaps into goals and actions.

Corporate academies

Uses before-and-after information to understand needs and evolution.

Succession and mobility

Adds information about competencies relevant to new responsibilities.

Teams and groups

Uses group reports and data to analyze shared needs.

Development follow-up

Re-assesses to observe how competencies evolve after a period of work.

Measuring competencies is not labeling people

A score needs context

The result of an assessment reflects the responses collected within a specific project. It should not be used in isolation to state:

  • A person’s overall worth.
  • Their absolute potential.
  • That they definitively possess or lack a capability.
  • That a difference in perception represents an objective fact.

Especially in multi-source feedback, different people may experience different behaviors in different contexts. Discrepancies are not report errors: they are often precisely the information worth exploring.

Frequently asked questions

FROM FEEDBACK TO DEVELOPMENT

Uncover strengths, identify gaps and measure evolution

Configure the competencies, targets and perspectives your organization needs, turn results into development priorities and assess again to observe progress.

Assess competencies