People sometimes need a little help to be honest. This is especially true when it comes to performance reviews. The suspicion that those on the receiving end of candid feedback might hold a grudge or seek retribution makes brutal honesty too risky.
Wow – this one set me off (as evidenced by the length of this post, LOL)! Totally on board with the confidentiality part of this post, but not the anonymity. Anonymity = Secrecy = Silos = Mistrust = Failing/Failed Culture. Employees have a fundamental right to know, ongoingly, where they stand with regards to how others perceive their performance so that they have a real choice in whether to improve, stay the same, or find employment happiness elsewhere. And their colleagues have a fundamental, human responsibility to authentically, ongoingly share and own their points of view. Of course, it takes time to build an effective culture that works this way, but if we stick with the notion that real relationships can’t be achieved in the workplace, that time never comes. I’ve worked in both types of organizations, and I can say firsthand that the old way is easier; it’s also sadder, more divisive, less fulfilling, and way less productive.
Hi Susan. What would you define as the operational distinctions between confidentiality and anonymity? How does an organization reach confidentiality without anonymity?
We might also want to emphasize hear that this is only a part of the way feedback should be given throughout an organization on a regular cadence. If an organization didn't also regularly practice candor in regular dialogue with themselves, then a confidential review process might feel like a tinder box.
So glad you're consistently here providing good engagement and pushback in these comments, Susan!
Another tricky thing with anonymous feedback in our small organization is that it is too easy to determine who provided the criticism because only one or two people are close enough to know those details. I like Kim Scott's radical candor approach.
As long as individuals in the organization don't simply use it as an excuse to be flippant or mean. It seems like a good approach to introduce to a working culture. In your case, Ryan, was it introduced as a concept first? Was it folded into the company culture by way of dialogue?
In our organization, a supervisor will sift through the feedback that is crossing those lines and filter them out. Everyone knows this is the process, so there isn't a surprise. In this way management sees it but is able to make a human determination to let it go through to the recipient.
And to your point, it is balanced with the idea that feedback should be open and ongoing continuously. This approach to performance reviews would be lacking in courage and empathy if it was the only time feedback was being delivered. In the best examples of communication, there is nothing new in the annual performance review that a team member hasn't heard in some way already.
Wow – this one set me off (as evidenced by the length of this post, LOL)! Totally on board with the confidentiality part of this post, but not the anonymity. Anonymity = Secrecy = Silos = Mistrust = Failing/Failed Culture. Employees have a fundamental right to know, ongoingly, where they stand with regards to how others perceive their performance so that they have a real choice in whether to improve, stay the same, or find employment happiness elsewhere. And their colleagues have a fundamental, human responsibility to authentically, ongoingly share and own their points of view. Of course, it takes time to build an effective culture that works this way, but if we stick with the notion that real relationships can’t be achieved in the workplace, that time never comes. I’ve worked in both types of organizations, and I can say firsthand that the old way is easier; it’s also sadder, more divisive, less fulfilling, and way less productive.
Hi Susan. What would you define as the operational distinctions between confidentiality and anonymity? How does an organization reach confidentiality without anonymity?
We might also want to emphasize hear that this is only a part of the way feedback should be given throughout an organization on a regular cadence. If an organization didn't also regularly practice candor in regular dialogue with themselves, then a confidential review process might feel like a tinder box.
So glad you're consistently here providing good engagement and pushback in these comments, Susan!
Another tricky thing with anonymous feedback in our small organization is that it is too easy to determine who provided the criticism because only one or two people are close enough to know those details. I like Kim Scott's radical candor approach.
As long as individuals in the organization don't simply use it as an excuse to be flippant or mean. It seems like a good approach to introduce to a working culture. In your case, Ryan, was it introduced as a concept first? Was it folded into the company culture by way of dialogue?
In our organization, a supervisor will sift through the feedback that is crossing those lines and filter them out. Everyone knows this is the process, so there isn't a surprise. In this way management sees it but is able to make a human determination to let it go through to the recipient.
And to your point, it is balanced with the idea that feedback should be open and ongoing continuously. This approach to performance reviews would be lacking in courage and empathy if it was the only time feedback was being delivered. In the best examples of communication, there is nothing new in the annual performance review that a team member hasn't heard in some way already.