In discussing our potential involvement with a leadership 360 process with a new client, anonmity of feedback was raised.  It is a regular topic often influenced by the culture of the organisation we are speaking with, the personal experiences of the key stakeholders, and the belief systems of those involved. 

The key decision is normally whether responses should be anonymous on a report - both the behavioural rating scales and the narrative responses.  Sometimes this drives a decision process on how people's respondents are selected (and whether you can see who has and who has not responded on you).

I see some core principles here; the more open the feedback the better; anonymity should not be used to allow people to give feedback that they would not give face-to-face, and a game of "who said that" is no good for anyone.

I also have some core beliefs that I apply across all organisations we work with; from large banking organisations, through retail operations to law firms.

When giving 360 degree feedback, respondents nearly always

• Are more considered than people expect
• Are more honest and truthful than expected
• Rarely, if ever, write something that would hurt the recipient
• Take the responsibility of giving feedback seriously
• Would not mind the person knowing that they wrote the feedback

This may come about from the effort we make on communicating the process of a 360 with our clients.

I always recommend that reticent organisations start with a relatively high degree of anonymity and then carefully move to openness.  This reduces fear - particularly that of key stakeholders and ensures a safe introduction of 360 degree feedback.

Bowland Solutions' online 360 degree feedback system handles varying degree of anonmity and openness in reporting.  Flexibility is crucial in moving organisations through to an open approach to feedback.


Brendan