Internal feedback processes among employees are increasingly valuable in any organization, regardless of its type or size. All studies on effective human resource management indicate that professionals want to be supported in their development and have the opportunity to contribute their insights continuously, not just once a year.
At times, organizations contemplating the initiation of participatory feedback processes may question whether their internal communication initiatives should be rooted in anonymity or, conversely, opt for transparent mechanisms.
At times, organizations contemplating the initiation of participatory feedback processes may question whether their internal communication initiatives should be rooted in anonymity or, conversely, opt for transparent mechanisms.
While it may initially seem that an anonymous approach would encourage more open participation and feedback, the reality might differ. Upon closer scrutiny, one might realize that anonymity could inadvertently foster certain behaviors and values that run counter to the intended goals of fostering more communication within the company:
-
Anonymity may convey the impression that expressing opinions openly could lead to negative consequences.
-
It might discourage the ability to implement tangible improvements, as these cannot be verified, and the root causes of problems cannot be pinpointed.
If team members are unwilling to associate their names with their responses, it indicates a significant problem within the team: a lack of trust. In such a case, the best course of action is to address this issue openly:
-
Encourage the team to provide responsible and constructive feedback.
Provide them with a safe space to express their views freely, even if they are critical. Create an environment where no one feels intimidated.
The important thing is that we all share an environment where the rules of the game are transparent and common for everyone.
The crucial aspect is to establish a work environment with transparent and shared rules for everyone. Real changes and trust-building in a company are more effective when participatory feedback processes are viewed as a collective goal. As mentioned in our previous post, "Assessments are for Everyone", it's more effective to approach the feedback process as an opportunity for improvement for the entire team as a whole.
Confidentiality should not be confused with anonymity (e.g., salaries are confidential, but certain individuals have access to this information for efficient management). When employee colleagues or subordinates participate in a performance evaluation, the HR team should treat these inputs with discretion. What's important is the content of the feedback rather than who provided it. However, if necessary, the origin of this feedback can be traced. This is something that can't be achieved with anonymous feedback, where it's impossible to translate feedback into a well-founded action plan.
When companies we work with ask us for our opinion, we recommend reading readings such as Can Your Employees Speak Freely?, published by the Harvard Business Review, so they can come to their own conclusions. It is an article that we find inspiring in this sense.
Overall, we don't particularly favor anonymous feedback, as we believe it tends to promote a culture of fear and distrust rather than one of productive feedback aimed at continuous improvement. Organizations should consider the type of culture they want to foster. It's a thought-provoking reflection that not many engage with but is indeed very interesting.
Perhaps the first step for HR leaders should be to eliminate trust barriers that can foster an environment of mutual suspicion among employees instead of one where they support each other.