A Feedback Quandary
A few weeks ago, a post about anonymous feedback generated a good little stream of comments, and brought to my mind a truly perennial problem we face in our year-long training program in an MBM culture, KAP.
I’ll preface by saying that the below method of gathering feedback is how we have decided to do things, but it’s probably far from perfect. I–and probably many of our readers–would really like to hear your thoughts on the below issue.
The Context: Each week, we offer 8 hours of unique training to the same group of folks. In an effort to get feedback from the 70+ participants, we survey about 1/4 of the group each week on the different elements of the program.
We make it clear to the participants (who, by the way, are an amazing group of folks) that the survey data is confidential but not anonymous: the distinction being that your name is collected along with the feedback, but the name is rarely if ever shown to the folks who read the aggregated feedback. [Note that we have HR professionals for HR issues, and an anonymous 800-number for compliance issues--the above survey is just for feedback on the program.]
The Argument Against: An argument that often comes up against this method goes something like this: if you want good feedback, you are stopping that from happening because people may be afraid of being reprimanded for criticizing the program or individual facilitators. At least, you’re probably getting fewer responses; at worse, you’re cutting yourself off from the really important–but hard-to-say–feedback that can help the program or individuals grow.
The Argument For: On the other hand, the argument for this type of system goes something like this: if you want a culture that truly values feedback and that encourages challenge long term, anonymous feedback tends to erode both. If a comment hints at a serious problem, or suggests a great idea, you are able to follow up with the individual and explore the issue further, as opposed to wondering which of large number of people had the issue.
What would you do, or what mental models might be helpful in figuring out what to do?
- 2 Comments »
- Posted in Culture, Knowledge Processes
Also anonymous feedback can feed a culture that is fearful of delivering a tough message, handicapping the flow of knowledge within the organization. Where the honest intention of all parties is to achieve the best result, people should have no need to fear offering feedback no matter how tough. That fear exists signals one of two things: (1) the relationship between the two parties is not one of mutual respect or (2) one of the two parties is engaging in the feedback process as a test or manipulation of some sort rather than genuinely hoping to do some good. Either the person delivering feedback has a problem trusting their colleagues enough to be straight forward or the person requesting feedback has not sufficiently proved the honesty of their intentions.
Plus your picture is silly (how’s that for feedback, eh?).
Great, succinct points. What you described above sounds like a nice ideal to work towards; it seems that emotions, personal flaws, and misunderstandings often hinder the process, leading to the hurdles you described above (a lack of mutual respect, intentions not related to achieving better results, and distrust). I bet repeat dealings help smooth this process out long term.