What I did

I developed behavioral questions (above) for our peer reviews that laid out our expectations for all team members. Reviewers were asked to rank how often they observed each behavior in the employee they were reviewing using a simple Likert scale.

The goal was to gather consistent data that would help identify areas needing improvement so managers could address them in the review discussion.

What I learned

Creating survey questions that will be interpreted and answered consistently is harder than it looks. The first iteration of this survey was a bit of a failure, with a lot of confusion around which end of the spectrum represented a positive answer — it should have always been “always”. This took about three tries to really get right.

WHAT I DID

Collected results from the various ranked questions in an employee’s peer reviews were synthesized using a simple color system ranging from blue to red, with “always” on the blue end.

The goal was to visualize results in a way that made potential issues easy to spot and flag for discussion.

What I learned

This actually worked really well, with the Likert scale making it easy to frame results in an objective, actionable way. Solid blues meant you excelled. Greens meant you might want to keep an eye on a specific behavior, as someone just couldn’t quite bring themselves to give you full marks. Yellow signaled a minor flag, prompting discussions about A) why they thought someone had ranked them that way, and B) how they thought they could improve by the next review cycle. Although I never saw orange or red, either would have triggered increasingly urgent analysis and problem-solving conversations.

WHAT I DID

Alongside the ranked questions in the Peer Review, I also included two open-ended questions to provide and opportunity for more detailed feedback.

The first of these questions asked, “What do you appreciate about this person? What are they doing well? How have they positively impacted you?” (Ok, that’s three questions.) The goal of this question was to give reviewers a chance to share personal observations of the employee’s successes or growth, and the positive effect they had on the team.

As an additional feedback element, each peer listed three words that best described the person they were reviewing. This aimed to capture a simple snapshot of how that person was perceived by their team. To be honest, this was a bit of a throw-away exercise I included just to see what would happen, but it generated surprisingly positive results and reactions.

What I learned

First, responses to the “I appreciate” question were very meaningful to the person being reviewed. Second, it turns out that an empathetic team is as eager to give positive feedback as they are to receive it. And third, the simple “three-words” exercise generated overwhelmingly positive validation for the employee when all responses were gathered together (shown below).

WHAT I DID

The second open-ended question in the Peer Review asked, “Where do you think this person could improve or grow professionally?” The goal of this question was to give reviewers a chance to offer constructive critique and suggestions for growth based on their experience leading or working with the employee being reviewed. Reviewers had full freedom in their responses, with only two guidelines: keep it productive and provide the level of detail they’d appreciate receiving themselves.

What I learned

Open-ended questions are hard, and need proper framing. In initial versions of this review, these questions would often be skipped or receive simple throw-away answers. Once I framed them in terms of “what level of detail would you want for yourself,” the responses we got back grew progressively more detailed and thoughtful.

And, while the task of highlighting areas for growth could easily have turned negative, it never did. I give full marks to my team for this.

WHAT I DID

I created a self-review survey for employees and asked managers to complete it as well from their own perspective. This encouraged self-reflection and allowed us to compare responses.

I made reviewing these results the first activity in the employee's review discussion, so everything that followed would have the benefit of a (hopefully) renewed alignment.

What I learned

This conversation proved invaluable — not just for alignment and insights, but for building trust. By listening to their perspective and connecting the dots, managers demonstrated to their direct reports that they were genuinely invested in helping them.

WHAT I DID

To ensure the review process led to actionable outcomes, the final step in the review discussion was collaborative synthesis. The manager and employee identified growth opportunities from the collected feedback, and captured them in enough detail so that they could be translated into SMART goals in next employee/manager 1:1.

The intent of this approach was to use the review process to provide a fresh set of team-validated insights every six months, feeding directly into the ongoing list of professional goals each employee worked on with their manager.

What I learned

This actually worked — I love it when a plan comes together. Adoption and engagement from our leadership team was really helped by the clear value being added to conversations with their direct reports.

Making the review cycle painless to deploy was equally valuable, something I couldn't have accomplished without gathering (and being open to) feedback from all parties afterwards. This helped me streamline the process, and made everyone feel invested in what we were building.