Why the 360-Degree Review Must Stay—It’s a Reality Check, Not the Enemy: IPS Officers, Your Ego Isn’t That Special

The 360-degree appraisal system, the Centre’s boldest yet most debated evaluation tool for IAS and IPS officers, is back in the spotlight. Recent frustrations among some IPS officers, who have been denied empanelment, have reignited scrutiny of the system. Critics call it flawed; supporters argue it’s indispensable in India’s complex administrative landscape, where individual depth and strategic foresight are non-negotiable. Merit and credentials shine in policy papers, but in the crucible of dynamic governance—marked by crises, stakeholder conflicts, and ethical dilemmas—individual depth is the true differentiator. Here’s why the 360-degree system, despite its gaps, remains critical, and how the government is addressing manipulation to ensure fairness, drawing lessons from global practices such as those in the US and UK.

Merit and knowledge—polished degrees or technical expertise—are the bedrock of bureaucratic competence. They ensure files are managed, policies are drafted, and systems run smoothly. But India’s administrative arena demands more. Bureaucrats face multifaceted challenges: navigating political pressures, resolving public grievances, or leading teams through crises like communal unrest or natural disasters. Here, glossy credentials alone falter. As a top source noted, “Young IAS and IPS officers are often reactive, lacking practical and crisis leadership skills.” Another added, “In high-stakes scenarios, degrees won’t save them—only individual depth can deploy the right countermeasures.”

The frustration of some IPS officers, echoed by similar sentiments among IAS officers, highlights a concerning trend. Top sources describe a cohort of younger officers as “reactive” with “weak crisis leadership.” This isn’t a failure of merit—many boast impeccable academic records—but a gap in depth. Officers who prioritize credentials over adaptability or ethical resilience struggle in India’s high-pressure governance environment. The 360-degree system, by design, exposes these shortcomings, forcing officers to confront whether they’re leaning too heavily on merit while neglecting leadership and strategic vision.

Critics, including disgruntled officers, point to manipulation as a flaw in the 360-degree system. To mitigate allegations of bias or external influence and decrease manipulation in feedback, the centre has taken proactive steps by integrating a 360-degree review system with the Smart Performance Appraisal Report Recording Online Window (SPARROW), an e-governance platform for civil servants’ performance appraisals. SPARROW digitises the appraisal process, ensuring standardised formats and reducing manual interference. By automating feedback, the risk of tampering and selective inclusion is significantly decreased. Similarly, standardisation of rating systems and analysis are additional steps, but subjectivity/bias, and external influence are some gaps that must be addressed by improving the feedback culture.

Disgruntled officers must ask themselves: Are they prioritising merit over depth, or using merit as a convenient excuse to vent? The 360-degree system, despite criticism, isn’t the enemy—it’s a reality check.