Home | Login | Recent Changes | Search | All Pages | Help

AnonymityEnablesPeopleToSpeakTheirTruth

From ManagementAsFeedbackImpediment

Minutes are published to everyone, including managers, but the participants are never identified by name. By eliminating names, I feel that participation is truly optional and the resulting anonymity enables people to speak their truth.

When does anonymity increase the quality of feedback?

When does anonymity decrease the quality of feedback?

SteveSmith 2003.06.15

Anonymity can decrease effectiveness when:

• Anonymity allows "yahoos" to interject noise (the internet effect) where they have no vested interest. It's then hard to judge the quality of the feedback.
• Trust is already at a high level and more would be gained by knowing whose obstacles/problems/consideration are applicable. Once a team has jelled and trusts each other, "whiting-out attribution" could diminish significance judegments.

My 2 cents. --BobLee 2003.06.15

I like your analysis... a lot.

Thanks,
SteveSmith 2003.06.16

• Less smart - of course.

Coming to AYE this year - difficult.

• ...and marries Anonymous - Rosemary objects strenuously!

--BobLee 2003.06.17

Dear Anonymous,

I very much liked your book PrimaryColors. Unfortunately, I think your undergraduate poetry could use some work - especially the piece: "Untitled." -- ThePhantomPoster

--BobLee 2003.06.18

It also takes a while to get a coward to a place of trust.

I recall many years ago how I felt when an anonymous neighbor would call the police to complain about Robert and I. These were things like shoveling our snow out of the drive. Complaint: we shoveled snow into the road. All complaints were annoying this way. We figured it was the new neigbor who moved in across the road and whose driveway was across from ours. Robert had noted that one driver in the family had a hard time backing up, as our mailbox was often hit. The police handled the calls politely and admitted that nothing seemed to be wrong on our part. When asked who complained, Robert was told that is "confidential". Later Robert decided to cross the street and try to help ease the tension. When he spoke to the woman who answered the door to suggest that it was okay to call us or walk across the street and talk, she freaked out and slammed the door in Robert's face. One night the husband came to our door knocking. I answered. He was boiling about something and asked for Robert. I reached out my hand and said "Hello, I don't believe we've met. I'm Becky." He calmed a bit. And before I went for Robert, I chatted with him trying to establish some level of human contact.

After that night the complaints seemed to stop. I felt (and still do) that it is too easy to bully others behind a veil of anonymity.

When there is fear of bullying in the other direction - retribution, punishment - the veil is necessary to permit a person's truth to be spoken. I fully understand that perspective, too.

I believe that individual intent determines whether what is spoken anonymously is "truth" or "torment".

BeckyWinant 2003.06.22

The complaints lessen when we arrange face-to-face regular contact between the users and the contractors. We try to take the users with us when we visit the contractor. They contractor stops being a "damn money grubber" and starts being Nate, Jim, Peter, and Mary. There are people out there working hard on the product while struggling with making house payments, getting kids to school, mowing their lawn, and trying to save for a little vacation.

DwaynePhillips 23 June 2003

I am a bit confused by the model that people have about "anonymous" communication. Demarco has frequently discussed the benifits of having an anonymous e-maildrop. This way the project manager can get important news from the project without being in a position to punish the messenger. HE has claimed (without any stories to back it up) that this has saved several project that he knows of. (I know this was in 'the deadline' but I believe it is mentioned in several of his books)

The conversation here assumes that the anonymous posts are publicly readable. However in a sense this wiki is anonymous. In my programs (tools for large companies) I have always subscribed to the belief "no security but strong accountability" that is I allowed all users to execute all commands (since I could never predict what would be nessary corrective action in a crisis. And crisis need to be solved fast, not look for those who have been granted authority) but I kept logs tracing all actions back to individual users (If you executed a command which was a really bad move managment could take appropriate action). This wiki has no real accountability and hence is anonymous when users feel the need.

KenEstes 2003.06.23

There's no visible accountability, but there are server logs, should the need ever arise to consult them. (It hasn't, so far.) This is also a filter in place: To post here, you need a password, and to get a password you need to have registered for an AYE conference. The effects of that filter are subtle but profound.

--DaveSmith 2003.06.23

On the other hand, I agree that an anonymous tips box is a desirable check & balance on the primary communication becoming stuck in "politically correctness". Just don't make that check & balance the primary channel for communication. Its signal-to-noise isn't as high as the direct channel.

Steve's original AnonymityEnablesPeopleToSpeakTheirTruth applies where you want to encourage airing politically incorrect thoughts. As Jerry has said, if something is unmentionable, investigate it. (Secrets of Consulting?) Note that the managers, especially the "really wanna know" managers, are not on the primary channel in the original communication.

--BobLee 2003.06.24

Anonymity is a two edged sword. I really like Becky's comments... and others who state that anonymity can be used as a cloak behind which to hide while bullying someone else, ranting, attacking or saying things that are politically unacceptable or even insulting.

However, I have also done a Large number of interviews where anonymity was promised to the interviewees. When put into a tight spot, I fought to maintain that (and won, thankfully!). But, is that a different kind of anonymity? There were people who knew who said certain things -- the other attendees at the interviews. And, while anonymity protected the 'whistleblower', it only did so if there were enough 'whistleblowers' to include the issue (or it there was enough force behind the issue, according to the folks writing the summary --us) SO, this information behind this anonymity had a prefefined use and known filters.

What other safe alternatives are there to pure anonymity, that would still allow people to say things they are afraid to say?

DianeGibson 06-24-03

Esther 062503

The etiquette on Ward's Wiki is (was?) that unsigned comments can be edited by anyone, while signed comments should only be edited by the signer (though spelling and formatting corrections may be applied). There is someone who's taken upon himself the job of "cleaning up" Ward's Wiki, editing and consolidating pages, and deleting them. Ward or other people could undo that guy's work, but are not.... he's doing more positive and negative.

KeithRay 2003.06.26