On this page
What a Huneety 360 report contains
The report is a branded PDF generated automatically when the campaign closes, one per assessee. It is designed to be self-contained: an HR lead, a line manager, or a coach can open it without any other context and walk a development conversation end to end. The report adapts to the assessment type (self-only, 180, full 360) and to whether a career-path target role has been configured.
The structure follows the reader's journey: orientation first, then the big picture, then deep analysis, then recommendations. Every page has a specific role in the debrief conversation it supports.
- 1Orientation (4 pages) Cover with confidentiality notice, 'what is 360 assessment' primer, participant table (sent vs received per rater group), how-to-read legend covering the 3 item types (competency, behaviour, technical ability) plus the rating scale.
- 2Competency overview (1 page) Radar chart with 5 overlay layers (actual score, self, manager, direct reports, peers) plus two coloured boxes: top 3 strengths and top 3 areas to improve.
- 3Skill-level breakdown (1 page) Two tables showing the specific behaviours and technical abilities ranked highest and lowest, with the self score and the observer-weighted overall score side by side.
- 4Blind spots, SWOT, perception gaps (3 pages) Over-estimated areas (self > observers), under-estimated areas (observers > self), the 2x2 SWOT matrix, and the perception-gap table showing how each rater group differs from the overall average.
- 5Gaps versus role and career path (2 pages) Dual-target analysis: current role profile AND future career-path role profile. Headline Huneety feature. Shows exactly which competencies are ready for the next role and which block promotion.
- 6Per-competency deep dive + executive summary (1 page per competency + 1) Each competency gets its own page with requirements, per-rater scores, skill-level breakdown, and verbatim comments grouped by rater group. Final page: AI-drafted executive summary with top priorities.
Competency overview: radar + top strengths and improvements
The competency overview page is the first place the debrief lands. The radar chart overlays five lines: the observer-weighted actual score, the self-score, and one line per rater group (manager, direct reports, peers). Each rater group gets a distinct marker so the debrief can quickly spot which group diverges from the consensus and where.
Below the radar, two coloured boxes surface the top 3 strengths (where scores are highest) and the top 3 areas to improve (where scores are lowest, relative to role requirements). The skill-level breakdown on the next page zooms in: for each top-strength and each top-area-to-improve, it lists the specific behaviours or technical abilities that produced that score, with the self score and the observer-weighted score in adjacent columns. This is where debrief preparation stops being abstract and starts being specific.
Blind spots, SWOT, and perception gaps
The blind-spots pages quantify self-vs-observer dissonance. Over-estimated areas are items where the self-score exceeds the observer average by 1.0 or more (the report shows the dissonance value explicitly, e.g. +1.3). Under-estimated areas are items where observers rate higher than self by 1.0 or more. Each table includes the specific behaviour, the self score, the overall score, and the numeric dissonance, so the conversation can move immediately to 'why the gap'.
- 1Personal SWOT (2x2 matrix) Up to 3 items per quadrant: over-estimated (top-left), strengths (top-right), areas of improvement (bottom-left), under-estimated (bottom-right). Not filler content. Each quadrant pulls from different data: strengths and improvements rank by average score; blind spots rank by dissonance. Empty quadrants show a fallback message so the page stays balanced for self-only or 180 assessments.
- 2Perception gap matrix One row per competency. Four columns for rater-group views (self, manager, direct reports, peers). Each cell shows the delta versus the overall average, colour coded: green for +1/+2 (perceived stronger than average), amber for -1/-2 (perceived weaker). Surfaces when a single rater group sees the assessee very differently from everyone else, which is often the most actionable finding in the report.
- 3Why dissonance matters more than raw scores A high score with large positive dissonance is a blind spot waiting to cause a career-limiting event. A low score with negative dissonance (others see more than the assessee does) is often a hidden strength the assessee is underselling. The dissonance columns are where the development priorities are set, not the raw averages.
Reports generated in minutes, not weeks
13-page branded PDF per assessee with radar, gap analysis, SWOT, blind spots, and an AI-drafted executive summary with seed IDP.
Gaps versus current role and career path
This is the section that makes the Huneety report usable for more than development. If a career-path target role has been configured for the assessee, the report includes a dual-target analysis: current role requirements AND future career-path role requirements, rated against the same competencies.
The spider chart on this page overlays the actual observer-weighted score with the role profile target. When a career-path target is set, a second target polygon appears for the next role on the career path. Gaps become visible against both: ready for the current role, not yet ready for the next. Two coloured boxes summarise the result as 'top exceeding competencies' (with positive deltas) and 'top gaps to meet expectations' (with negative deltas) for the target role.
- 1Gap breakdown table Competency and underlying skills in rows. Average competency level in one column. Delta versus the target role in the next column, colour coded on a 5-level scale: green +2 (exceeds expectations), light green +1 (above expectations), neutral 0 (on par), amber -1 (minor upskilling required), rose -2 (competency gap to be addressed). When a career-path target exists, a second delta column appears for the next role.
- 2Ready-now vs ready-later signals An assessee can be at target on their current role (green across the current-role column) while still having clear gaps for the career-path role (amber or rose on the career column). That is the entire point: the report separates 'performing today' from 'ready for promotion', and the IDP targets the career-path gaps specifically.
- 3Why this pays back Most 360 reports stop at the current role. They tell you whether the person is doing their current job well. Huneety's career-path view answers the harder question: what does this person need to close before the next promotion conversation is defensible? That shifts the report from a review artefact to a planning input.
Per-competency detail and the executive summary
The per-competency pages are the long tail of the report, one page per competency. They are the pages the assessee rereads after the debrief. Each page includes the competency definition, a one-line status narrative synthesising the data (e.g. whether the competency is a strength aligned with the role, a development area, or an over-estimated blind spot), and three data blocks.
- 1Competency requirements Target level for the current role, the actual observer-weighted score, and the score per rater group (self, manager, direct reports, peers). This is where the conversation moves from 'what is the average' to 'who sees what', and where the debrief earns its value.
- 2Skill and behaviours breakdown The specific behaviours and technical abilities that roll up into the competency, with an actual score per item. When one behaviour is significantly below the competency average, the IDP can target that behaviour rather than the whole competency, which is both more actionable and less demoralising.
- 3Verbatim recommendations grouped by rater group Qualitative comments from raters, paraphrased by Huna AI to preserve anonymity, and labelled per group: 'Your view', 'Your Management view', 'Direct reports view', 'Peers & Others view'. Grouping by rater group lets the assessee see where the feedback converges and where one group is alone in its view.
The final page is the executive summary, drafted by Huna AI from the data. It pulls the top 3 strengths, the top 3 gaps (prioritised by business impact and career-path relevance), the most significant blind spots, and a seed 70/20/10 IDP proposal the manager can edit. Treat it as a draft that saves 2 hours of manager synthesis, not as the final verdict.
How to use the report in the debrief conversation
The debrief is a 45 to 60 minute conversation. The assessee should never receive the report cold. The manager (or the coach, or the HR lead running the program) reads it first, prepares two to three opening questions on the over-estimated items, and plans the last 15 minutes for the IDP priorities.
- 1Debrief structure (45 to 60 min) 10 minutes on strengths (start here, always). 20 minutes on gaps and blind spots using open questions, not data defence. 15 minutes on the top 2 development priorities, referencing the career-path view if a target role is configured. 5 minutes closing, agreeing on the IDP review cadence.
- 2Ask, do not tell The manager's job in the debrief is not to explain the data. It is to ask the assessee to explain what they see in it. The report is the prompt, the assessee is the sense-maker. 'Your peers rated this lower than you did. What do you think is going on there?'.
- 3Commit to an IDP within 14 days The debrief should end with a commitment to a 70/20/10 development plan on the top 2 gaps within 2 weeks. For assessees with a career-path target, the priorities come from the career-path gap section, not the current-role gap section. Longer than 14 days and the urgency dissipates.
For the full methodology on turning a 360 report into a development plan, the individual development plans guide covers the 70/20/10 structure and quarterly review cadence.
QUICK ANSWERS
Quick answers
- How long is a 360 report?
- 13 pages for a full 360 with a career-path target. Self-only, 180, or no-career-path variants drop sections that require full triangulation or a second target (blind spots, perception gaps, career gap column), typically 9 to 11 pages. The report is exhaustive on purpose so the assessee can reread in depth, but the debrief uses only 3 to 4 pages directly.
- Does the report show gaps for the next role on the career path?
- Yes, when a career-path target role is configured. The spider chart overlays current-role target and career-path target as two separate polygons, and the competency gap breakdown adds a second delta column so the reader can see 'ready for the current role' and 'not yet ready for the next' at the same time. That is the headline feature.
- Who reads the report first, the assessee or the manager?
- The manager (or coach, or HR lead), always. They need 20 to 30 minutes to read, prepare opening questions on the over-estimated items, and plan the debrief flow. The assessee sees the report during the debrief or immediately before, never days before without a conversation planned.
- Is the AI executive summary a verdict or a draft?
- A draft. Huna AI drafts from the data to save the manager 2 hours of report synthesis. The manager edits the priorities, the IDP recommendations, and the framing before it becomes the final summary. Treating the AI summary as authoritative is a failure mode, not a feature.
Continue learning
360 self-evaluation guide
How self-ratings behave in a 360, why they overstate by half a level, and how to run a self-eval that produces useful data.
Read the guide
Peer feedback in 360 assessments
Why peer data is the highest-signal rater group, how to pick peer raters, and how calibration works across the peer set.
Read the guide
Culture fit assessment guide
How to run a culture-fit 360 using observable behaviours instead of personality inventories, and when it actually makes sense.
Read the guide