Conduct a peer-360 feedback synthesis

Synthesizing Conflicting Feedback Without Collapsing

Peer feedback is often conflicting — the same PM can be called "too tactical" and "too strategic" in the same 360. Kim Scott's Radical Candor and HBR's feedback fallacy writing both argue that the synthesis step is where PMs either get better or get overwhelmed: theme clustering with evidence, honest assessment of specificity, and explicit decisions about what to act on vs. respectfully ignore.

How the Conduct a peer-360 feedback synthesis Prompt Works

The prompt extracts themes with specificity tracking, validates against self + manager view, and sorts into act/investigate/ignore buckets. The "respectfully ignore" output is the discipline: feedback you don't act on should be an explicit choice with rationale, not avoidance.

When to Use It

• A 360 review just landed with conflicting signals.
• A peer review cycle is producing confusion.
• A self-assessment needs grounding in external data.
• A new manager wants context on past feedback.
• A growth plan is being built for the next cycle.

Common Pitfalls

• Treating all feedback equally. Vague feedback ("be more strategic") without examples is less actionable than specific feedback.
• Acting on everything. A PM acting on 8 pieces of feedback changes nothing visibly. Cap at 2.
• Avoiding the ignore decision. Some feedback contradicts role scope or reality. Name it and move on.

Sources

• Radical Candor — Kim Scott
• The Feedback Fallacy — Harvard Business Review
• Kim Scott — Kim Malone Scott
• Begin with Trust — Harvard Business Review