Peer reviews bring a multi-perspective view into the performance process. They capture observations that managers may not see day-to-day.
How Peers Are Assigned
Peers can be assigned in two ways:
- Manager-selected -- during cycle setup, managers choose peers for each direct report based on who has worked closely with them.
- Self-nominated -- participants suggest peers, which managers then approve or adjust.
Tip
Choose peers who have direct, recent working experience with the reviewee. Cross-functional peers often provide the most valuable perspective.
Ideal Number of Peers
We recommend 2-4 peers per participant. Fewer than two limits the value of multi-rater input; more than four creates fatigue and delays the cycle.
| Team size | Recommended peers |
|---|---|
| Small (< 10) | 2 |
| Medium (10-50) | 3 |
| Large (50+) | 3-4 |
Handling Conflicts of Interest
If a peer has a personal relationship or known conflict with the reviewee, the manager should replace them. HR can also flag and reassign peers from the cycle management page.
Confidentiality
Peer feedback is visible to the reviewee's manager and HR but is not attributed by name to the reviewee by default. The reviewee sees aggregated peer feedback without knowing which peer said what.
Warning
If your cycle has fewer than 3 peers per person, anonymity is harder to maintain. Consider this when configuring small teams.
How Peer Feedback Appears in Reviews
During the Manager Review phase, peer responses are displayed alongside the self-assessment. Managers see each peer's input individually to inform their own rating. The final review shared with the employee presents peer themes in aggregate.
Run this in Slack with Nami
Reviews, goals, surveys, and calibration — in the DM thread your team already reads. Free for teams of 10 or fewer.
More in Reviews