Methodology
What this is built on
Exceed reads one working relationship: yours, and your manager's. This page says where that idea comes from, what it can do, and what it cannot.
43+
Years of research, 1967–present
9
Peer-reviewed sources, listed below
6
Findings, each one cited
The premise
Three ideas this rests on
None of these is ours. Each one is a finding somebody else published, and each one decided something about how the product works.
01
Two views
One rating of you is mostly a rating of the person giving it. Asking about two people is what separates you from the person describing you.
Scullen, Mount & Goff (2000) · Fleenor et al. (2010)
02
The gap
The distance between how you see your work and how your manager sees it is the useful part. It points at what to do next.
Fleenor et al. (2010) · Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman & Johnson (2005)
03
Small habits
Advice on its own changes very little. A named action, done on a set day, is what moves. So the read ends in a habit, not a report.
Lally et al. (2010) · Gollwitzer & Sheeran (2006) · Locke & Latham (2002)
The evidence
What the research says
Six findings, and what each one changed here. Every number below was checked against the published paper before it was written down.
62%
Who rates you matters most
Two samples of managers were each rated by their boss, their peers and their reports. 62% of the difference between the ratings came from the rater, not the person being rated.
A single opinion of your work is not a measurement. Exceed asks about two people so the two can be compared, and shows you both rather than averaging them into one number.
Scullen, Mount & Goff (2000)
607
A third of feedback made things worse
A review of 607 measured effects found that feedback raised performance on average. In more than a third of cases it lowered it instead.
So a score on its own is not enough, and might do harm. Every read here arrives with the answers that produced it and one thing to do about it.
Kluger & DeNisi (1996)
24
Feedback from many sources helps a little
Across 24 studies that followed people over time, ratings did improve after multi-source feedback. The size of the improvement was small.
We do not promise a promotion. The honest claim is a clearer picture of one relationship, and a short list of things to practise.
Smither, London & Reilly (2005)
66
A new habit takes about two months
People forming one new daily habit became automatic after 66 days on average. The range ran from 18 days to 254 days.
The tracker counts towards a target rather than a streak, and it does not punish a missed day. The study found the occasional miss did little harm.
Lally et al. (2010)
94
Deciding when and where you will act
Across 94 tests, people who decided in advance when and where they would act reached their goals more often than people who only meant to.
Every habit Exceed writes for you names a moment. Not "communicate more", but a specific thing to do and the point in your week to do it.
Gollwitzer & Sheeran (2006)
172
Fit with your manager shows at work
A review of 172 studies looked at how well people fit their job, their organisation, their team and their manager. Each one tracked with attitudes and staying or leaving.
Fit with one manager is a thing you can study on its own. That relationship is the whole subject of the assessment.
Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman & Johnson (2005)
The limits
What we do not claim
The research above is published. The questionnaire built on top of it is ours, and it is young. Here is where it is weakest.
Our scales are our own, and are not validated
The research above is published. The questionnaire that turns it into a read is not. We wrote it, and no independent study has tested whether it measures what we say it measures. That is why every answer you give is stored as you gave it, and why the questionnaire carries a version number. When the scoring improves, old answers are scored again rather than asked again.
Your manager has not answered anything
You answer both halves. The second half asks what you have seen your manager do, not what they would say about themselves. So it records your reading of them, which is a real and useful thing, but it is not their account. Treat any result as your view of the relationship rather than an agreed one.
A label near a boundary is close to a coin toss
Sorting people into named types is convenient and slightly false, because the underlying scores are a range and the labels are cut points. A small change in one answer can move somebody across a line. Where a score sits near a boundary we say so, rather than assert the label. Below a confidence of 0.5 we show no type at all.
Pittenger (2005)
A gap is not automatically a fault
It is tempting to read every difference as something you are getting wrong. The research does not support that. People who rate themselves above or below the way others rate them can still be effective, depending on the setting. We show you where the difference is and leave the judgement with you.
Fleenor et al. (2010)
Sources
Read it yourself
Every source, in full, oldest first. Listing them is not a claim that their authors know about Exceed or agree with it.
1996
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A.
The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theoryPsychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–2842000
Scullen, S. E., Mount, M. K., & Goff, M.
Understanding the latent structure of job performance ratingsJournal of Applied Psychology, 85, 956–9702002
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P.
Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: a 35-year odysseyAmerican Psychologist, 57, 705–7172005
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C.
Consequences of individuals' fit at work: a meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fitPersonnel Psychology, 58, 281–3422005
Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R.
Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findingsPersonnel Psychology, 58, 33–662005
Pittenger, D. J.
Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type IndicatorConsulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57(3), 210–2212006
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P.
Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analysis of effects and processesAdvances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–1192010
Fleenor, J. W., Smither, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Braddy, P. W., & Sturm, R. E.
Self–other rating agreement in leadership: a reviewThe Leadership Quarterly, 21, 1005–10342010
Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C. H. M., Potts, H. W. W., & Wardle, J.
How are habits formed: modelling habit formation in the real worldEuropean Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 998–1009See what it says about you
18 questions, about three minutes. You will see the answers behind every result, and you can change any of them.
Start Free EvaluationEmpowering employees to grow, develop, and exceed their potential. Build skills. Go further.
© 2026 Exceed. All rights reserved.
