Why we exist
The feedback that shapes careers lives in places it was never meant to stay; spreadsheets, year-end templates, managers' inboxes, handwritten notes filed and forgotten. Most companies collect it. Almost none can act on it.
But the deeper failure isn't process. It's power.
In any organization, reputation is the currency that determines who gets opportunity, who gets heard, and who gets away with things they shouldn't. Right now, that currency is unmanaged. People who have built strong reputations through consistent, substantive, cross-functional contribution have no way to let that strength accumulate and compound. And people whose patterns of behavior cause real damage can often do so unchecked, because no system is tracking it across the full network of people they touch.
360Score.me was built to change that. One intelligent system. One reputation graph, specific to how your organization actually works. People data that gets more useful the longer you use it.
Who we are
360Score.me is the sister company of BizRatings.com. Both tools come from the same conviction; the feedback that matters most to an organization is the hardest to collect honestly, and the easiest to lose once you have it.
The platform was founded in 2020 by CEO Rashaad Bajwa, a technology entrepreneur who spent years watching smart organizations make consequential people decisions not because they lacked data, but because the data they collected never reflected how their organizations actually worked. Reviews flowed in one direction. Feedback was siloed by hierarchy. Reputation, the thing that determines who earns trust and who erodes it, was invisible to the system.
The goal was to build something the market didn't have; a feedback platform that understood reputation the way the real world does. Not as a static score. Not as a function of reporting lines. But as a living graph, shaped by proximity, volume, and the substance of real interactions, unique to every organization.
Rashaad Bajwa, Founder & CEO
Founded 360Score.me to replace antiquated review processes with people data leaders can actually use.
The Intelligent Reputation Graph
Before building 360Score.me, we looked hard for a tool that collected anonymous feedback based on actual proximity and interaction within an organization; not just top-down, not just peer-to-peer within a team, but mapped to the real texture of how people collaborate across an org. We didn't find one.
Every platform we evaluated made the same structural assumption: that reporting relationships are a reliable proxy for meaningful interaction. Manager reviews direct report. Peers from the same team rate each other. The review travels the org chart.
But work doesn't stay on the chart. Influence, collaboration, and impact cross department lines constantly. The people best positioned to assess someone's true contribution may sit in a different function, at a different level, connected by a dotted line or no line at all. Limiting feedback to formal relationships doesn't just miss signal; it systematically excludes the people who often have the most honest view.
360Score.me uses AI to map interaction proximity across the organization and weight feedback accordingly. The system evaluates who actually worked with whom, how frequently, and with what depth, then factors that into how input is gathered and how much weight it carries. A collaborator who worked alongside you daily through a quarter of high stakes work is not the same signal as someone who shared one meeting. The platform knows the difference.
The result is what we call an intelligent reputation graph: a living model of how reputation is actually earned and held within your specific organization. Not a one-size-fits-all score, not a survey average, but a dynamic map of standing that reflects real contribution, real relationships, and real patterns of behavior over time.
Reputation is Your Wealth
This is where 360Score.me diverges from every other feedback platform on the market.
Most tools treat feedback as a collection mechanism. Input comes in, reports go out, a manager reviews a dashboard. The data doesn't talk back. A strong reputation earns you nothing the system amplifies. A damaging pattern of behavior earns no additional scrutiny. Everyone is weighted equally, regardless of what they've built, or what they've cost.
After decades of building businesses, consulting and collaborating with clients, colleagues and mentors, I firmly believe your reputation is your wealth in all aspects of life. In the workplace, one's built and proven reputation of performance speaks volumes in practice, but rarely surfaces in survey data. 360Score.me's mission is to solve that problem.
In real professional life, reputation compounds. Someone known across an organization for doing excellent, trustworthy, collaborative work earns a kind of influence; their feedback carries more weight, their voice opens more doors, their signal is treated as more reliable. And someone with a known history of damaging behavior loses standing; their assessments of others are taken with more skepticism, their ability to shape outcomes through feedback is checked by that history.
360Score.me is designed to bring that dynamic inside the organization formally. A strong reputation, earned through consistent and substantive positive interactions, should amplify the power of your contributions. A poor reputation, documented across the network of people you've affected, should not allow unchecked influence over others. The platform creates accountability in both directions.
We built this because organizations that ignore reputation dynamics don't eliminate them. They just leave them unmanaged, and that always costs more than the people running them realize.
What we build
Our survey types and recognition surface all feed the same analytics layer, and all connect to a single reputation graph that grows more accurate the longer your organization uses it.
Company Pulse
Anonymous, recurring reads on engagement and culture, scored on a 0 to 100 ESAT scale. Collected across the organization. Trended over time so leaders see patterns, not moments.
Pulse vs. Performance Evaluation →360 Peer Review
Multi-source feedback weighted by relationship depth and interaction proximity, so a rating carries meaning in context. A close collaborator and a distant acquaintance do not submit equivalent signal. The platform knows the difference and scores accordingly.
What 360 feedback measures →Performance Evaluation
Structured, attributed evaluation of an individual, kept deliberately separate from anonymous surveys. Clarity about which is which is the foundation of a feedback culture people actually trust.
Why the two stay separate →Skip-Level & Recognition
Upward feedback that travels past the direct manager, capturing what reporting lines alone cannot see. Plus peer recognition that surfaces contribution the org chart regularly misses.
Recognition next to feedback →Wavelength Surveys Coming soon
A Waveform runs a single question or condition concurrently across multiple cohorts; departments, locations, role types, project teams, so you see exactly where your organization diverges in real time rather than reading reports in sequence. Standard measurement aggregates results by reporting line. Wavelength runs the same question across every cohort at once, surfacing patterns that don't follow the org chart: a problem that exists in every location, a condition felt only at one seniority level, a divergence between functions that wouldn't appear in any department view. The concurrent comparison is the insight.
How we think about anonymity
Anonymous feedback is only worth collecting if people believe it. That belief is an engineering commitment, not a promise in a policy document.
No Company Pulse or 360 Peer result is shown to a manager until at least five people have responded, so no aggregate can be traced back to an individual. Skip-Level reviews use a three response floor. Participation is reported separately from content. We never re-identify respondents.
Performance Evaluations are attributed by design, and we say so up front, because mixing attributed and anonymous feedback in the same surface is precisely how trust gets destroyed. We keep them separate by architecture, not just by policy.
See it with your own data
We'll walk you through the platform against the way your organization actually runs reviews, including how the reputation graph maps to your specific structure.