Here’s a really interesting question from an HR Bartender reader:
I’m not an HR professional, just so you know.
I’ve been at my current company for 10+ years and during this time, I’ve received 3 peer reviews as part of my evaluation. In turn, I have provided peer reviews. In addition, as a manager, I’ve been privy to many peer reviews written for others.
Initially, the reviewers’ names were not tied to specific comments. Now, reviewers sign their reviews. In either case, the comments have not been useful. I’m wondering why we go through this exercise. In my view, any normally self-aware person is already familiar with the opinion of others and probably values some of these views and discounts others. The peer reviews don’t provide new information. Really, I find the process a kind of painful, repetitive process. Any thoughts? Is this the norm at other companies?
Wow. There’s a lot to tackle in this question. Let me start with this: I don’t believe that everyone is keenly aware of what 
other people think of them. There are plenty of situations where we have to work with people we don’t like and, in order to get the job done, we put those feelings aside and don’t tell others how we really feel. I’m not making excuses here. It’s just reality.
I do agree that, when we are presented with feedback about ourselves, we value some and discount others. Who delivers the message, when they give the feedback and the way they express their comments are all key elements in how feedback is processed.
It would be interesting to know if the individuals who are being asked to provide peer reviews have ever been trained on how to identify, evaluate and deliver performance feedback. It seems logical that the peer review process is only as good as the information being given. And the peer reviews won’t be very valuable if individuals haven’t been trained to provide good feedback.
Also, I think it would be good to know what happens once the feedback is given. For example, if one of my peers tells me that I need to be more organized, is that the end of it? Or at some point, am I being held accountable for becoming more organized? Now forget for a second that the feedback is coming from a peer. If people are being given useless feedback, then chances are they don’t know where to focus their energy. This is hurting the overall productivity of the company because employees aren’t having good performance dialogue.
While I’ve never worked for a company that did peer reviews, I have worked places that incorporated multi-rater feedback (aka 360 feedback) into their performance review processes. On some level, a multi-rater review provides similar information. An individual receives anonymous feedback from their manager, peers and staff.
So I’m curious about the viability of peer reviews. Anyone out there ever worked for a company that conducted peer reviews? If so, what are the pros/cons? How would you compare a peer review with multi-rater feedback instruments? Leave us your point of view in the comments.
Image courtesy of Doug Hay
Vito Scotello says
I have worked where peer reveiws were part of everyone’s evaluation. They became very routine and lost impact. To this day, however, I am a big fan of 360 Feedback. I prefer it in a coaching setting so there is a professional (sometimes me) present to debrief and assist in creating an action plan.
Katherine Razzi says
We started doing this at my company too, but it was optional to invite coworkers to evaluate you. When I told my father, who was a supervisor for much of his career, that I opted to do this, he said, “That’s dumb. What if someone doesn’t like you? The only one who should evaluate you is your boss. Period.” That’s my father for you. He gets straight to the point without any fluff. And I think this is pretty much the focal point of Doug Hay’s blog.
For my review, I selected about 4 coworkers to review me. There was some tension during some of the projects we worked on together, so I felt I needed to know if they were harboring any resentment or could offer constructive feedback on how to do things better together. The overall of the appraisal was very good, and mostly complimentary. They only had one negative comment and that was that I should try to accept some design issues as they are instead of trying to make a purse out of a pig’s ear.
I prefer that supervisors who are [should be] trained and being paid as such, should be accountable for their subordinate’s work output and actions. I think this is still pretty much the law of the land out in “Worksville.”
You know, I wonder how this would pan out if your coworkers misjudged you or held a grudge because they didn’t like your personality and got you fired. To top it off, your supervisor listened to these coworkers and blindly agreed. What then? Also, what’s in the company handbook rules? Does it say that your coworkers can write you up when you make a mistake too?
I vote for the 360 Feedback as well.
Sharlyn Lauby says
Thanks for the sharing. I can see how peer reviews can have some perception issues (aka “popularity contests”) and lose their effectiveness. And I agree, there’s tremendous value in properly debriefing a 360 Feedback instrument.
Nathan Key says
We don’t do peer reviews in the traditional sense, but our traini g team often does peer feedback sessions where we observe sessions and give immediate feedback for each other. Since it’s a little more informal, it seems to have a bigger impact that the formal 360 or formal peer review.
Katherine Razzi says
Hi Sharlyn,
I just had one more thought about peer reviews. I think the more we know how business budgets operate, the more we are aware of how monies are distributed and awarded. I believe that there is a pool of money available for raises when and if the company is profitable enough to grant them. Who gets them is a different story. If I were going to be a cut-throat peer, I would not be so inclined to give a coworker, even if I seemingly liked him/her, a boastful appraisal. I would have a tendency to make others look less worthy of a raise than myself in order to stay on top and vie for a chunk of that raise money. I’m not like that, but I can only imagine there are others who are. With that in mind, all the more do I reject these peer appraisals.
rick maurer says
While I think peer reviews can be helpful, they often aren’t. Why? Politics. Competition. Envy. I much prefer groups to focus on their common goals and discuss what it takes to meet those goals. (And that conversation includes things that “we” must do better.) If John wants to ask for the impact on others when he misses deadlines, then fine. But I like to keep the focus on the team and how “we” did to ensure that deadlines are met. etc.
Read a provocative blog post in HBR blog by Marcus Buckingham yesterday. not sure if the link will appear here, but you should be able to find it by searching “ The Fatal Flaw with 360s”
Sharlyn Lauby says
@Nathan – I like peer reviews during train-the-trainer activities. We talk about what went well and what could have been done differently. Participants seem to enjoy it. Thanks for the comment.
@Katherine – Unfortunate but true. We’d always like to think that our co-workers want to support us and vice versa. It only benefits everyone. But it’s not always viewed that way.
@Rick – Thanks for sharing the post – I moved the link to your mention of the title. I like your point about focusing on the team, in addition to individual performance.
Anthony says
The company I was working before hire people to check what we’re doing and give feed backs. I think it is great that somebody could check on us, point our mistakes and provide us with honest opinions.
Sharlyn Lauby says
@Anthony – Exactly, it’s honest feedback that makes the process valuable. When a process gets bogged down with alternative agendas, then the feedback becomes less important. Thanks for the comment!