Peers are motivators: they’re on the frontline of production, working side by side, and rely on each others’ support. Unlike managers, they observe the nitty-gritty details it takes for their coworker to complete a task. And because they can see how hard (or little) their coworkers are actually working, they have the best knowledge for providing a performance review.
Globoforce’s study revealed that 63% of employees believe performance reviews are not a true indicator of performance. That’s because these reviews are done by managers. And managers don’t always have firsthand contact with the details that go into a task—they only see the end result. Here are more findings from the study that prove why peer-to-peer reviews are beneficial for the workplace:
80% see crowdsourced feedback as more accurate
88% of peer-reviewed employees are more satisfied with their jobs
Companies that adopt peer-to-peer reviews see a higher rate of employee engagement. If those numbers are still not enough reason to start using these reviews, consider these advantages.
Increased accuracy: Reviews from managers don’t work because they’re only coming from one viewpoint. However, with peer-to-peer reviews, they’re coming from multiple people. When these reviews are meshed together from various sources, a bigger, more cohesive picture of the employee’s performance is put together for evaluation.
Performance improvement: Employees gain valuable insight into their strengths and weaknesses from their peers because they have daily contact with them. And this makes the process of improvement public. Employees must work harder to get better so as to not let down their peers.
Management has a blind spot when it comes to performance reviews. They see end results, but they don’t see the daily operations and minute details. Peers, on the other hand, know the ins and outs of their coworkers’ work habits. So why hand off performance reviews to managers when peers are the ones with all of the knowledge?