MBA Peer Feedback and Evaluation Template (SBI, Calibration)

Peer Feedback and Evaluation: [Team, course and round]

A peer feedback and evaluation tool for MBA learning teams and project groups: a rating scale with behavioural anchors on five team-member dimensions adapted from CATME (Ohland et al. 2012), a written feedback form built on Situation, Behaviour, Impact and a feed-forward suggestion, a calibration routine that corrects for lenient and strict raters, and a follow-up plan. It is for students giving and receiving feedback at the midpoint and end of a team assignment, and for teams that want a fair, specific record before any grade adjustment. Source basis: the Situation-Behavior-Impact model of the Center for Creative Leadership, feed-forward (Goldsmith 2003), behaviourally anchored rating scales (Smith and Kendall 1963; Ohland et al. 2012) and feedback research (Kluger and DeNisi 1996; Hattie and Timperley 2007), written in our own words. The calibration example uses a fictional team. Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked Example.

Document control

1. Why structured peer feedback

Feedback does not reliably improve performance. In a large meta-analysis Kluger and DeNisi (1996) found that feedback interventions improved performance on average, but in more than a third of cases performance fell. Their explanation is that feedback which draws attention to the self ("you are not a team player") tends to do harm, while feedback that keeps attention on the task and on how to do it better tends to help. Hattie and Timperley (2007) reach a similar conclusion for education: useful feedback answers three questions, where am I going, how am I going, and where to next, at the level of the task, the process or self-regulation, rather than praise or criticism of the person.

Three tools in this template follow from that research.

• Situation, Behaviour, Impact (SBI). The Center for Creative Leadership's model asks the giver to describe a specific situation, the observable behaviour and its impact on the giver, the team or the work. CCL also describes an extension that adds Intent: ask what the person was trying to achieve, which turns a verdict into a conversation.
• Feed-forward. Marshall Goldsmith (2003) popularised the practice of asking for and giving suggestions for the future instead of judgements of the past. Pair every SBI observation with one concrete suggestion for the next deliverable.
• Behaviourally anchored rating scales (BARS). Smith and Kendall (1963) proposed anchoring each scale point with a description of behaviour, so that raters agree on what a "4" means. Ohland et al. (2012) developed and validated a behaviourally anchored instrument for self and peer evaluation of team members in higher education, the Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness (CATME), with five dimensions. The five dimensions below are adapted from those CATME dimensions, renamed and with original anchor text; if your course uses CATME itself, rate in that system and use this table only to prepare.

2. Rating scale with behavioural anchors

Rate each dimension from 1 to 5. Anchors are given for 1, 3 and 5.

Ratings form (one row per person, yourself included):

Overall in Excel: =AVERAGE(B2:F2).

3. Written feedback: SBI plus feed-forward

Weak and strong versions of the same comment:

4. Calibration

Peer ratings mix two signals: how the ratee behaved, and how lenient the rater is. Three checks separate them.

1. Peer mean. For each person, average the ratings received from others, excluding the self-rating.
2. Self-peer gap. Self-rating minus peer mean. A large positive gap is a blind spot to explore; a large negative gap can signal low confidence, which is also worth discussing.
3. Rater leniency. For each rater, average the ratings they gave to others. Subtract the difference between that average and the grand mean from each of their ratings (rater-centring), then recompute the peer means. If the ranking of ratees changes, leniency was distorting the picture.

Some courses convert peer ratings into an adjustment factor applied to the team grade, for example the ratee's peer mean divided by the team average of peer means, sometimes capped. Policies differ by course; this is shown only to illustrate how ratings can affect grades. Check your course's current rule.

Example. A fictional team of five rated each other overall (mean of D1 to D5). Rows are raters, columns are ratees.

Calibration results (diagonal = self-rating; computed in Python and reproducible in Excel):

Grand mean of all peer ratings (excluding self-ratings): 4.01.

Excel set-up with the matrix in B2:F6 (raters in rows, ratees in columns):

• Peer mean for Amara: =(SUM(B2:B6)-B2)/4
• Mean given by Amara: =(SUM(B2:F2)-B2)/4
• Factor: =H2/AVERAGE($H$2:$H$6) where column H holds the peer means
• Grade: =86*MIN(I2,1.05)

What the example shows. Carlos rated himself 4.6 while peers rated him 2.95, a gap of +1.65, and he was also the most lenient rater of others (4.55). Divya was the strictest rater (3.50) and the highest-rated by peers. Rater-centring narrows the spread slightly but does not change the ranking, so the signal about Carlos is not an artefact of one strict rater. A factor of 0.736 would cut his grade sharply; that is exactly why the midpoint formative round exists. The right next step is the SBI conversation in Section 3, which the team should have held at the midpoint, and a follow-up plan, not a surprise at the end of term.

5. Delivering and receiving feedback

Giving:

1. Ask permission and set the purpose: "Can I share two observations from the project, one strength and one thing to try next time?"
2. State the situation and behaviour, then the impact. Stop and ask about intent.
3. Offer the feed-forward suggestion as a suggestion. Agree one change, not five.

Receiving:

1. Listen to the end. Ask for an example if a comment is vague.
2. Separate the facts (situation, behaviour) from the interpretation (impact), and ask about both.
3. Thank the giver, then decide later what to act on. Record it in Section 6 and in mba/mba-learning-journal.

6. Follow-up plan

Common mistakes

1. Rating everyone 4 or 5 to avoid conflict, which makes the round useless for learning and unfair to strong contributors.
2. Writing labels about personality instead of observed behaviour.
3. Giving feedback on situations you heard about from others rather than saw yourself.
4. Saving every concern for the summative round.
5. Using peer ratings to settle a personal conflict.
6. Ignoring rater leniency when comparing scores.
7. Treating a large self-peer gap as proof of bad faith rather than a starting point for a conversation.

Self-test

1. What are the three parts of SBI, and what does the fourth "I" add?
2. Why does Kluger and DeNisi's (1996) meta-analysis warn against feedback aimed at the person?
3. What makes a rating scale "behaviourally anchored"?
4. In the example, why does rater-centring not rescue Carlos's peer mean?
5. Compute the self-peer gap for Elif and say what it suggests.
6. Rewrite "you dominate meetings" as an SBI observation with a feed-forward suggestion.

Sources and further reading

• Smith, P. C., and Kendall, L. M. (1963). Retranslation of expectations: an approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47(2), 149-155.
• Ohland, M. W., Loughry, M. L., Woehr, D. J., Bullard, L. G., Felder, R. M., Finelli, C. J., Layton, R. A., Pomeranz, H. R., and Schmucker, D. G. (2012). The comprehensive assessment of team member effectiveness: development of a behaviorally anchored rating scale for self and peer evaluation. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11(4), 609-630.
• Kluger, A. N., and DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284.
• Hattie, J., and Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
• Center for Creative Leadership. Situation-Behavior-Impact (SBI) and SBII articles, ccl.org (checked 2026-10-28).
• Goldsmith, M. (2003). Try feedforward instead of feedback. Journal for Quality and Participation, 26.
• Further reading (by name only): Stone and Heen, Thanks for the Feedback (2014); Weitzel, Feedback That Works (Center for Creative Leadership).

Answer key

1. Situation (when and where), Behaviour (what was observably done or said), Impact (the effect on you, the team or the work). The added Intent step asks what the person was trying to achieve, which makes the exchange two-way.
2. Feedback interventions improved performance on average but reduced it in more than a third of cases; effects tended to be worse when feedback moved attention away from the task towards the self.
3. Each scale point (or key points) is described by concrete examples of behaviour, so raters share a definition of each level.
4. His low ratings come from all four peers, including lenient ones; after centring his peer mean is 3.09 (3.085 before rounding), still far below everyone else's (4.07 to 4.47).
5. 4.4 minus 4.10 = +0.30: a small positive gap, within normal self-enhancement; worth a brief check, not a concern.
6. For example: "In Monday's prep meeting (situation) you spoke first on all four questions and responded to each other answer (behaviour); Bao and I did not share our alternative estimate (impact). Next time, could you speak after the headline round and ask one quieter member for their view first? (feed-forward)"

Revision history

Standard and licence note

Based on the Situation-Behavior-Impact model of the Center for Creative Leadership (a CCL trademark, named only to identify the method), feed-forward as described by Marshall Goldsmith, behaviourally anchored rating scales (Smith and Kendall 1963; Ohland et al. 2012) and feedback research (Kluger and DeNisi 1996; Hattie and Timperley 2007), summarised in original wording. The five dimensions are adapted from the CATME dimensions (Ohland et al. 2012); the dimension names and rating anchors are original and are not the text of any published instrument. This template is not affiliated with or endorsed by any business school, CCL or the publishers of peer evaluation systems. Check your course's current rules on peer evaluation, confidentiality and grade adjustment before use. All people and numbers in the example are fictional. Template licence: MIT.