My leadership team members expect me to handle all executive performance reviews, but peer accountability is non-existent across our table. How do we implement peer-to-peer evaluations on the leadership team using the People Analyzer without causing toxic infighting?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When the head of the company is the only person who holds leadership team members accountable, you do not have a true leadership team; you have a hub-and-spoke committee. A healthy, high-functioning team practices peer-to-peer accountability. If one executive is falling short on core values or dropping measurables, their peers should challenge them long before the issue lands on your desk.

To build this dynamic without triggering defensive warfare, introduce the People Analyzer as a collaborative tool, not a weapon.

Start in a closed-door quarterly session dedicated exclusively to team health. Review the definitions of your core values and the standards for GWC. Before anyone reviews a peer, have each executive, including yourself, complete a self-evaluation using the People Analyzer and read their results out loud to the room. Owning your own gaps first builds vulnerability-based trust and lowers defensive walls.

Next, move to peer feedback using a structured format. Have each leader share two things with each peer:

- One specific area where that peer lived out a core value or drove massive traction this quarter.
- One specific operational area where that peer needs to elevate their performance, live a core value more consistently, or increase their capacity.

Keep the discussion focused strictly on objective behaviors, company values, and Scorecard results, never personal traits. If an evaluation reveals a below-the-bar rating, move it directly to the Issues List and IDS it as a team. When leaders realize that peer feedback is meant to solve operational friction rather than assign blame, artificial harmony disappears and real executive accountability takes its place.