Peer Feedback Dynamics

When I stepped into the role of CEO, a colleague told me I was difficult to approach. She explained how my reserved nature initially came across as unapproachable. After she attended our internal town halls and saw my informal communication style with colleagues, her opinion did change. She eventually grew to appreciate how I communicate. Her feedback was a gift. It showed me that how we see ourselves often differs from how others perceive us. And that difference opens up opportunities where we can continue our development. As we begin our mid-year review cycle, I encourage you to seek peer feedback from multiple colleagues. True talent is validated through the recognition of others, not in isolation. Areas where you see a need for development may be viewed by colleagues as skills you already possess. As someone who considers himself an introvert and can feel anxious when meeting new people, I am constantly pushing myself to be a leader who is open and approachable. It only happens, however, when I’m willing to listen to what others see in me. Building trust through honest dialogue is how we will continue progressing together on our journey of self and organizational improvement. I always welcome both complimentary comments and constructive criticism as fuel for growth. I hope everyone feels equally empowered to reach out to a colleague and ask, what do you see in me? #OneAstellas #Feedback #SelfImprovement

If we're serious about elevating work performance, we need to elevate feedback. It's time to shift from the standard one-on-one feedback model to a more inclusive, team-based approach. Traditional feedback, where a manager is the primary source, is increasingly impractical. Managers may not even have visibility into the day-to-day work of individuals or their teams. But who does? The team members themselves. It's the people working alongside us every day who see our efforts, challenges, and successes. They're in a prime position to offer relevant, timely feedback – and we need to leverage this untapped resource of insight. This realization leads us to the concept of 'Co-development.' This approach transforms feedback from a one-way directive into a dynamic, mutual growth process. In Co-development, feedback isn’t just a managerial task; it shifts to become a collective responsibility of peers. Every team member plays a part in elevating the group, sharing insights and skills to help each other thrive.

Day 8/30 of the Idea to Revenue Mentorship: Something magical happened today. I stopped talking. The group started solving each other's problems. One participant was stuck on their product format. Before I could jump in, three others shared what worked for them. Problem solved in 10 minutes. It made me realise: The best mentorship isn't mentor-to-student. It's student-to-student with a guide on the side. Three powerful shifts emerged: 1. PEER FEEDBACK HITS DIFFERENT When I critique, they listen politely. When a peer who just solved the same problem shares? They take notes furiously. 2. COLLECTIVE WISDOM > INDIVIDUAL EXPERTISE 100 people trying 100 approaches beats one mentor's playbook every time. 3. ACCOUNTABILITY COMPOUNDS Disappointing your peers who are grinding alongside you? That's harder than disappointing a mentor. This is why accelerators work. Why building in public beats building in private. You don't just need a mentor. You need mirrors — people on the same journey. Question: Who are you building alongside? If the answer is "no one" — that might be your biggest bottleneck. Day 8 complete. 22 days to revenue. P.S. The participants helping others the most? They're moving the fastest. Teaching forces clarity.

I keep coming back to #5: "Make it safe to speak up." Because everything else collapses without it. Companies say they want honest feedback. Then, the first person who gives it learns what actually happens when you do. If people fear giving feedback, problems hide until you can't fix them anymore. You can't fire toxic people if naming toxicity feels career-limiting. You can't reward performance if calling out favoritism gets you sidelined. You can't address what's broken if speaking up costs people their next move. Psychological safety shows up in the moment someone risks saying the uncomfortable thing. And leadership either listens. Or makes them regret it. If you actually want people to speak up, this is what has to change: 1️⃣ Close the loop publicly. ↳ Silence teaches feedback doesn’t matter ↳ Follow up within two weeks ↳ Explain what you decided ↳ Share actions in team meetings 2️⃣ Promote someone who challenge you. ↳ Agreement-only promotions reward silence ↳ Promote people who challenged you ↳ Review promotions for pushback ↳ Name dissent in announcements 3️⃣ Audit penalties for honesty. ↳ Track who raised hard truths ↳ Compare honesty with rewards ↳ Review patterns quarterly 4️⃣ Make disagreement safe early. ↳ Invite dissent before decisions ↳ State conviction level upfront ↳ Ask what you’re missing ↳ Delay final decisions 5️⃣ Stop blaming late warnings. ↳ Stop asking why nobody spoke sooner ↳ They tried; signals were blocked ↳ Audit calendars for missed warnings ↳ Ask peers for blind spots 📌 Which one of these five would shift the most in your company if leadership actually did it? 📍P.S. I write about workplace dynamics leadership won't explain in The Private Career Memo Newsletter. Link in the comments. Image credit: Eric Partaker

On kindness in peer review: 9 better ways to say “This paper needs work" Every so often, I come across a reviewer comment that calls a contribution trivial or says it “does not rise to the level expected” at a journal. When I see that language, I wince. Even if the critique has merit, it often overshadows otherwise valuable points in the review. Why? Because it makes the authors feel like the entire review team—not just one reviewer—didn’t see any merit in their work. So, what can we do instead? To help authors actually use your feedback? Soften your tone—not your standards. Use language that clearly signals concern about the contribution without shutting down the possibility for improvement. Rather than making the author angry, use language that engages the author with your comments and encourages them to improve their work. Here are nine thoughtful phrases I’ve seen good reviewers use this past year, that encourage engagement. They’re especially useful in peer review, mentorship, or conference feedback: 1. "The core argument feels underdeveloped, and I had trouble fully engaging with it." This gently signals the paper didn’t land, while pointing to a fixable issue. 2. "I struggled to connect with the contribution—perhaps more framing or positioning could clarify its relevance." Invites the author to sharpen the positioning of their work. 3. "The paper raises important questions, but the current structure makes it difficult to appreciate its full impact." Encourages authors to revise the structure for better clarity. 4. "I found myself wanting more clarity on how this piece fits into the broader conversation." Suggests adding context. Consider: “It doesn’t resonate with me because the context is missing.” 5. "This may reflect my own disciplinary perspective, but I had difficulty connecting with the theoretical framing." Acknowledges your own lens and invites the author to strengthen their framing for a wider audience. 6. "The writing is thoughtful, but I had trouble seeing how the pieces come together to form a cohesive narrative." Encourages a shift from listing elements to telling a coherent story. 7. "The manuscript feels preliminary—there’s potential here, but it’s not fully realized yet." Flags underdevelopment without sounding dismissive or harsh. 8. "The contribution may benefit from more grounding in empirical or theoretical detail to fully resonate with readers." Only use this if you can specify what detail is needed. 9. "This version didn’t quite land for me, but I believe with revision and sharper focus, it could really shine." Provides an honest, hopeful invitation to revise. Never forget. Reviewing is about stewardship. It’s about helping authors make their work stronger—even when it’s not there yet. So rather than tearing down papers, offer a well-phrased critique, that encourages authors to keep working. #PeerReview #AcademicWriting #AcademicJourney #AcademicCulture

In The Doors You Can Open, I describe a practice that was shared with me by an interviewee: Thankful Thursdays. Every Thursday, this leader makes a point to send a personal email to someone she has noticed making a positive impact in her organization. She finds that proactively acknowledging others’ contributions is a wonderful way to create or deepen relationships. It works because very few of us get positive feedback from other people, much less appreciation. Thankful Thursdays is an individual version of organizational peer recognition systems. I have tried to adopt them as well in my own teaching by having students nominate their peers for making positive contributions to their learning. But it’s an open question whether these types of systems change behavior. Does knowing that there is a possibility that one’s contributions could be formally recognized by peers lead to more helping behavior? Or, as in the case of Joseph Burke Ryan Sommerfeldt Laura Wang ‘s research, does knowing that one can acknowledge the contribution of one’s peers make one more likely to ask for help? Using experimental methods, they find that yes, in fact, peer recognition systems do increase help-seeking. Importantly, willingness is also predicated on whether the peer recognition system has been adopted by others in the organization, and more specifically, by other people at the same rank in the organization. That is, knowing that peers were using the peer recognition system increases help-seeking, but seeing that people not at the same rank are using the system can actually decrease help-seeking. Specifically, participants who were assigned to a senior manager position in a scenario were less likely to ask a peer senior manager for help when they believed that the peer recognition system was largely adopted by junior analysts, but not senior managers. The idea here is that seeing people similar to ourselves utilizing these systems signal to us what is normal in the firm. Notably, the researchers also find that peer recognition systems’ adoption patterns matter for help-seeking behavior above and beyond when leaders of the firm state that they want the culture of the firm to be one where help-seeking is normalized. Meaning, leader statements about desired culture do not work as well as implementing systems that make the culture more achievable. In sum, it’s not enough for leaders to say what they want the culture to be; they also need to put in place systems that reward the kind of behavior that they claim to want. Second, for behavior to change, people often need to be convinced that everyone else is doing it first. This is why publicly highlighting desired behavior is so important when it comes to organizational culture; most of us do what we see other people doing. If other people are helping, and other people are similarly recognizing that help, it tells us that helping is a normal and valued part of the job.

Did Netflix take a page from the Blue Angels by flipping performance reviews upside down? Many companies wait 365 days to tell a teammate they're off course. At the Blue Angels, that would have been fatal. For a second, imagine flying in a jet... Inverted. 18 inches from your teammate. If you drift off your CenterPoint, would the other pilot wait until December to tell you? No, they'd tell you immediately. Power up. A little right. Steady. Netflix figured out what the top 1% of pilots have known for decades: Speed of feedback is crucial. What Netflix eliminated: - Traditional annual performance review cycles. - Formal rating systems and numerical scores. - Standardized evaluation templates. - Rigid review schedules. What Netflix implemented instead: - Continuous informal feedback - Quarterly informal conversations between managers and employees. - "Start, Stop, Continue" framework for actionable discussions. - Real-time feedback integrated into daily work. - Peer feedback mechanisms without formal structure. - Open dialogue about performance expectations. - Radical transparency as a cultural foundation. Which is very similar to what we did back at the Blue Angels... We landed, went to the debrief room, and laid it on the table immediately. Observe: See the error with clarity. Orient: Understand the context with situational awareness. Decide: Make the fix from your knowledge and gut. Act: Take massive action and then learn from it again. That’s the OODA Loop cutting right to the heart of elite execution. But it's also a methodology that works not only in aviation but also in critical decision-making and any aspect of our lives. So if one of the biggest tech companies and most elite pilots in the world use this model... Why not use the same model to create your high-performance team? So here's my challenge to you: Don't wait 365 days to tell your team they're off course. Start the debrief. Lay it on the table. Get better together. Because the best teams build a culture of excellence where feedback is a gift, given with respect, in real time. Glad To Be Here, John "Gucci" Foley #Leadership #Teamwork #HighPerformance #GladToBeHere

"How do I give performance feedback well?" is often the wrong question. It’s based on a paradigm that can 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦 performance. In what ways? 𝗔) 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 Performance feedback is typically framed as something a superior does to a subordinate - an act of evaluation. That dynamic is not neutral. It amplifies the power gradient, reduces perceived support, and increases negative emotions. These responses don’t just accompany feedback; they interfere with the improvement it is meant to drive - even when softened with good technique. Worse, this approach often displaces more effective ones: shared understanding, joint problem-solving, and genuine support. 𝗕) 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗹𝗼𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 Feedback is often described as developmental, but experienced as control. The pattern is familiar: identify what was wrong, prescribe the correction, expect improvement. Whatever the phrasing, the intent is usually clear. People are highly sensitive to this. When feedback feels controlling, it creates resistance by threatening autonomy. Compliance may follow, but at the cost of trust, openness, and sustained engagement. 𝗖) 𝗧𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗶𝗾𝘂𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗳𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 Feedback is not an isolated event. It sits within an ongoing relationship. That relationship shapes interpretation far more than any phrasing or technique. In low-trust relationships, even well-intended feedback struggles to land well. In high-trust relationships, even direct or critical input is workable. When leaders focus on technique, they often overlook the relationship. This is backwards. Build the relationship first, and the interaction follows. 𝗗) 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 Relying on feedback to change behaviour often places the responsibility entirely on the individual while overlooking the situational factors that drive behaviour. Motivation adapts to circumstances and is maintained by them, so telling people to act differently in unchanged conditions rarely works. Behaviour is both 100% individual and 100% situational - but situations are often easier to change. Support the desired behaviours more through better ways of working makes sustained improvement more likely. Of course we need to understand the impact of our work to improve it and maintain a sense of meaning and motivation. That is not the issue. The issue is the paradigm: Judgement → Problem-solving Control → Autonomy & Empowerment   Technique → Relationship   Individual responsibility→ Situational change Leaders who focus only on “how to give feedback” are working at the wrong level. The more useful question is this: How do we build relationships and craft situations to support belonging, autonomy, and competence? Curious how others think about this. ——— I'm Reuben Rusk, PhD 💡 I help leaders enable human flourishing.

All the scholarship on assessment and feedback means little if we cannot translate it into practice. This week I am teaching a course in the Graduate Certificate in University Teaching, where I introduce academics to some amazing scholars who help us think more expansively about how feedback and assessment supports learning goals for students. First, I translate scholarship into principles: 1. Feedback is relational practice Elizabeth Molloy shows how trust, dialogue and psychological safety shape whether feedback becomes usable. 2. Feedback is cultural practice David Boud and Joanna Tai highlight how assessment and program cultures build students’ capacity for future learning (sustainable assessment) and evaluative judgement. 3. Feedback is learning practice Naomi Winstone and David Carless demonstrate that students need structured opportunities to interpret and apply feedback (feedback literacies), not just receive it. 4. Feedback is emotional and identity practice Rebecca Olson and Rola Ajjawi show how belonging, vulnerability and identity shape how students respond to feedback (and how feedback shapes identities). Then I translate these principles into my teaching practice: – Embed dialogue and collaboration (professional learning communities model) across the course – Create feedback conversations in class before assessment is due – Add ‘changes I made because of peer feedback’ as part of the graded assessment task – Integrate self-assessment to build evaluative judgement and use this in marking and written feedback process – Dedicate class time to address all assessment questions throughout the semester – Link earlier feedback to later tasks so students can act on it (scaffold assessment tasks) In my Grad Cert class, academics then apply this work to a subject or supervision context they teach. They identify the explicit role feedback will play and design three or four feedback activities to embed across pedagogy and assessment. This is scholarly teaching: translating theory into practice. It is how we unlock the creativity and academic rigour of university teaching. And it is fun!