The Reverse Review: Flip the script to lead effectively

Sometimes the best way to lead is to listen. In traditional company hierarchies, feedback typically descends like gravity—linear, expected, and largely unchallenged. Leaders assess their teams, HR reviews the assessments, appraisals are meticulously crafted, and then, like clockwork, doled out. Yet, hidden within this neat structure is a quiet insight that often gets bypassed: we, as leaders, can benefit from the very mirror we hold up to our teams. I believe that this should be the first and most fitting step.

The assumption that only teams require evaluation isn’t just one-dimensional; it’s shortsighted. Given that leadership, the most influential here, is part of the team and sets the tone for everything that follows, shouldn’t it also be subject to the same level of introspection, if not more? That’s one of the questions I keep coming back to. And no, this isn’t a call for more quarterly metrics or executive dashboards. Those measure business, not behavior.

What often gets overlooked is the internal mechanics of leaders. Because yes, where a team is led matters, but how they’re being led matters more. That kind of leadership doesn’t happen from the outside. With experience, I’ve come to see that it’s built from within. Real accountability that cascades from the top isn’t a ‘trendy’ move. It’s courageous.

When a leader proactively asks to be reviewed first, it’s not a relinquishment of control, but a confident assertion of mindful leadership. In my opinion, this is how the reverse review powerfully shifts the dynamic from being hierarchical to fundamentally human.

I’ve found that when anyone in a position of influence, myself included, asks questions like, “What can I do to show up for you better?” or “How can I support your goals more efficiently?”, feedback becomes connection. Upward feedback sends a cultural signal that growth is mutual. In today’s world of work, where talent seeks connection, purpose, and a sense of belonging, leadership must respond in kind.

Vulnerability, in this context, becomes a doorway for credibility and resonance. It is a quiet, steadfast way that says, “I’m still learning too.” This isn’t merely a soft sentiment. It’s a concrete move toward building trust-driven and resilient organizations. After all, leadership behavior doesn’t just influence team morale; it also predicts retention, especially when expectations are positively met.

Now, research by Gallup already reinforces what many instinctively know: that managers account for over 70% of the variance in team engagement. In fact, 50% of employees have even chosen to walk away from jobs due to an inefficient manager. That’s a wake-up call if anything.

The IJISET paper also divulges how fuzzy-based evaluation models, based on Lotfi A. Zadeh’s Fuzzy Logic Theory, can process complex, subjective input into usable insights. To make upward feedback more meaningful, it’s critical to move beyond anecdotal comments and into structured understanding. Unlike traditional surveys that push binary answers, Fuzzy Logic takes ambiguity into account. It captures the nuances of how employees may view leadership behaviors, turning answers like ‘kind of approachable’ or ‘occasionally communicative’ into usable data.

This made me realize that other tools simply miss or flatten those subtle distinctions. Processes like this, when facilitated correctly, reduce friction and raise alignment, allowing leaders to truly understand the gaps their employees are seeing.

That said, a review is only the opening act. Without thoughtful reflection and visible follow-through, it remains just another data point. The real shift happens in what comes next—when leaders share what they’ve taken away or how they plan to act. Whether that’s in a town hall, one-on-one recap, or even a short written response, the follow-up is what drives this home.

The leaders I admire and strive to emulate are those who return to their teams with resolutions, not rebuttals. They identify the scope for improvement where relevant, share actions they plan to take, and create clear timelines to track progress. When the process is honored on both sides, trust takes root.

Because when leaders choose to listen and then act, they show that true leadership isn’t about appearing invulnerable; it’s about making space for growth on both sides of the table. I’ve seen moments like that play out, and I can confidently say: they’re the kind that leave a lasting and, often, cascading impact.

To me, what reverse reviews introduce is equilibrium. It restores balance in a dynamic that’s otherwise structurally imbalanced. By offering those who are being led a voice, we don’t diminish leadership; we refine it. This refinement brings to light that leadership, at its core, was and is about alliance, not authority.

And when we finally consider that both leaders and teams are two sides of the same coin, it seems only right to ask: If you were on the other side, would you want to be led by YOU? This is the second question I’ve found really worth sitting with. Because each time I do, it helps me recalibrate how I show up—for both my team and myself.