Through the eyes of others

Abstract

Purpose -This paper seeks to critically examine the principles, mechanisms, and critical success factors of developmental peer review as a way to promote reflection and change in organizations. Design/methodology/approach -This paper calls developmental peer review the structured, managed, and collaborative process whereby reputable others are invited into an organisation to provide feedback and offer guidance on organisational change and improvement. In the paper, the authors use the example of developmental peer review in UK local government both to foreground some of the distinctive aspects of the methodology and to identify some of its critical conditions of use. Findings -The paper argues that this type of initiative often co-exists with a more judgemental inspection-oriented double. The institutional framework that surrounds developmental peer review makes it therefore both a powerful and delicate tool. There is a need in this initiative to maintain a dynamic balance to avoid either coercion or collusion in review. Practical implications -In order to achieve its potential, peer review needs to be clearly framed and constructed as a developmental initiative. In the paper, a number of suggestions of how to do so are offered. If doubts exist on the nature of the exercise, it is likely that people will interpret it as a form of inspection and react defensively, reducing its capacity to trigger learning and transformation. Originality/value -This paper advances knowledge and understanding about developmental peer review, by drawing on the relevant literature and also analysing a prevalent form of such review in current use in local government organizations in England and Wales.

Using IT for Non-Hierarchical Performance Assessment: New Ways to Develop Professionals in Health Care

“…Therefore the choice between blinded or open PRP depends on tool purposes; anonymous feedback could be useful when peer review is performed to improve provision quality and for individuals' professional development (formative PRP), while nominal one is suitable if assessment is linked with workers' rewards and penalties (summative PRP), since in this case each individual would accept negative judgments only if they come from well-regarded professionals. A PRP, just as any other performance management system, can be judgmental and inspection oriented or development-oriented [7]. Another categorization is between proactive and reactive PRP [8]: proactive PRP are programs in which evaluation objects and subjects are chosen routinely and randomly from the daily workflow and there are often blinded; reactive PRP, instead, is performed ex post when a discrepant report bobs up, to analyze the quality of the achieved output.…”