Peer Evaluations: Evaluating and Being Evaluated

Peer evaluations place organizational members in a dual role: they evaluate their peers and are being evaluated by their peers. The authors theorize that when evaluating their peers, they anticipate how their evaluations will be perceived and adjust their evaluations strategically to be evaluated more positively themselves when their peers assess them. Building on this overarching claim of role duality resulting in strategic peer evaluations, the authors focus on a dilemma that evaluating members face: they want to leverage their evaluations of peers to portray themselves as engaged and having high standards, but at the same time, they must be careful not to offend anyone as doing so may cause retaliation. The authors suggest that organizational members about to be evaluated resolve this dilemma by participating in more peer evaluations but carefully targeting which evaluations they participate in. The authors test their theory by analyzing peer evaluations on Wikipedia, supplemented by in-depth semistructured interviews. The authors' study informs research on peer evaluation and organizational design by revealing how being an evaluator and evaluated can make evaluations more strategic.