When setting up a Best-Self Review® cycle, review admins can configure how peer reviews work. This article explains the options and what the process looks like.
Peer-initiated vs Participant-initiated reviews
Participant-initiated reviews
What is it?
-
Driven by the participant, who nominates their peers.
-
The manager, review admin, or cycle collaborator approves or denies nominations.
-
Managers can also nominate peers on behalf of the participant, but best practice is for participants to select peers they work with most closely.
What does the process look like?
-
Participants nominate peers; managers/admins approve or deny.
-
Approved peers are notified and can accept or decline.
-
Once accepted, the peer completes their review.
-
Managers/admins can edit or remove unhelpful feedback before results are shared.
-
Visibility (peer identity and verbatim feedback) depends on review cycle settings.
Peer-initiated reviews
What is it?
-
Driven by the peer, who decides which participants they want to review.
-
There is no nomination or approval process.
-
Visibility is set by the review admin (transparent, semi-anonymous, or fully anonymous).
What does the process look like?
-
A peer chooses participants to review; managers/admins approve or deny.
- Peer accepts or declines nomination.
- Once accepted, the peer completes their review.
- Managers are notified when a review is submitted about their direct report.
- Managers/admins can edit or remove unhelpful feedback before results are shared.
- Visibility (peer identity and verbatim feedback) depends on review cycle settings.
Peer review transparency settings
Your review admins dictate in your company's Best-Self Review® feature settings whether...
- Peer reviews written about a participant will be shared with the participant verbatim, or
- If the participant's manager will be required to write a summary of all submitted peer reviews and share them with the participant.
They also determine whether a peer reviewer's identity will be...
- Fully transparent: The identity of the peer is visible to review admins, cycle collaborators (if applicable), the participant, the participant’s manager, and the manager’s hierarchy (depending on review visibility settings)
- Transparent to everyone but the participant: The identity of the peer is visible to review admins, cycle collaborators (if applicable), the participant’s manager, and the manager’s hierarchy depending on review visibility settings
- Fully anonymous: The identity of the peer is not visible to anyone.
Minimum and maximum peers
-
Admins can set a minimum and maximum number of nominations (typically 3–5).
-
This limit applies only to how many peers a participant can nominate, not how many nominations a peer can accept.
-
A peer can accept as many nominations as they have capacity for.
Deadlines and milestones
During cycle setup, admins define three milestones:
- Select peers: This milestone dictates when you should finish nominating peers by. You can still nominate peers after this deadline passes.
- Approve peers: This milestones dictates when managers and/or cycle collaborators should approve peers for their direct reports. After this deadline passes, you may or may not require approval for future peer nominations. Review admins get to decide whether they want peer nominations that are made after the "Nominate by" deadline to be auto-approved (rather than need manager approval) to prevent roadblocks in the process.
- Peer reviews: This milestone dictates when peer reviews should be completed and submitted by. Reviews can still be submitted after the deadline until the cycle is locked or finalized.
Note
The milestones are soft, meaning that one can submit a review after the deadline and until the cycle is locked or the specific review finalized for the participant. That said, we suggest following the deadlines set forth by your review admins to ensure a productive and successful review cycle.
Best practices & tips
-
✅ Favor participant-initiated peer reviews for higher fairness, safety, and feedback quality.
-
✅ If using peer-initiated reviews, avoid full anonymity and enable admin/manager ability to remove unhelpful responses.
-
✅ Set clear expectations and train employees on what makes peer feedback effective.
-
✅ Encourage 3–5 nominations per person to balance diversity of input with workload.