Providing open and direct feedback

Part of the ethos of this blog (aka ZiggitySplit) is to own the feedback I give to others. This means putting my name to my comments rather than the more customary way of providing views "anonymously." There seems to be a misconception out there that anonymous feedback is somehow a more unfettered way of communicating. When I first started on Facebook last year, I noticed there was an "Honesty Box" -- a place where anyone can leave you an anonymous comment and do so in complete confidence as if that was somehow the most honest way of communicating.

Likewise, the 360 feedback concept that tries to assure so called "confidentiality" seems to have multiplied like a virus and is touted by many. Or at least it used to be.

Today I came across a site -- Two Way Trust -- that provides resources for providing feedback in a more direct way. A little more about their philosophy is excerpted here:

Why do we have to assume that if people have problems with their manager, they can’t tell them to their face? Our experience in 2WayTrust is that many people WOULD be willing to do so, if only there were some sort of framework in place for having a discussion about some of the difficult issues that we all have to contend with in relation to our own behaviour in the workplace.

We have spent more than two years discussing these issues with CEOs at 2WayTrust Masterclasses at Windsor Castle and elsewhere, and one of the things they have told us time and again is that anonymous 360 feedback so often undermines trust and lowers performance instead of raising it. It’s no surprise, really - if you do not know who has made comments on your behaviour, you’re bound to end up suspecting everyone of having criticised you behind your back.

We are in the early stages of using our new 2WayTrust Feedback system with organisations, and we’re not saying that it’s perfect or problem-free. What we do believe, however, is that where difficult things can be said face-to-face that must be the best way of moving forward. Hence the need to try and develop a safe framework for this to happen, rather than always acting as if people can’t be trusted to say anything difficult about someone else other than via an intermediary.

Using bar graph results from behaviour that is rated on a scale of one to five simply does not provide the depth that is needed. Nor does it provide the opportunity for fuller explanation or open dialogue. Surely the best way of changing behaviour among managers and other members of teams is to have open, two-way discussions that can identify problems and then leave them behind. This is what we believe teams most need, and too often it is a sad fact that anonymous 360 gets in the way of achieving that goal.

I agree with this framework and I think we need to push for something like it not only because the potential gains are huge but also to counter the seemngly prevailing view that anonymous feedback is the only game in town.

Fortunately, I work at a company that has many channels established for one-on-one communication. And there is the semi-annual manager feedback, which I was able to fill out using my own name rather than the default anonymous option.

To be clear, I don't begrudge anyone for preferring anonymous feedback. It has its place. But possibly, it has run its course and now there is room for other optons.