What I noticed is that, when I have to review someone in my team and I gather feedback from other members of the team, I rarely get any critical input, even if the feedback is anonymous. Many avoid giving what they perceive as negative feedback even if it's framed as an opportunity to help the other person improve.
EDIT: in most successful teams I know manager and team are in the same boat
PMC are in the same boat in that they're not the owners but they do serve their interests
I've seen examples where the objectives of the management and the teams are sufficiently aligned by the owners to create win-win situations.
Yes, it's not that typical, but it's possible.
also bosses will never be truly aligned with workers unless it’s from power workers have taken. a wage doesn’t provide the class mobility that ownership and exploitation does.
My experience so far is that this means permanent micromanagement because nobody can claim perfection. Might work for some people but I couldn't find a way to view it but as insidious. When I left myself open to essentially permanent criticism of not just my output but how I produce my output at further granularity it led to a frankly confusing role where my manager might as well have been pervertedly resting his hands upon mine and trying to help me type better.
> Uhh Jim what are you doing?
> I don't want to do this but your typing KPIs are in the toilet, I want to try something.
> This isn't funny Jim, we seriously need to talk about the requirements I'm getting.
> You don't understand the requirements? We need to get in a meeting.
> I haven't received feedback on the last round of contradictions I reported.
> Let's get in a meeting after we work on your typing.
My suggestion was to fire Jim but that process improvement was denied.
I think that shouldn't discredit the original concept though.
> My suggestion was to fire Jim but that process improvement was denied.
Funny, and maybe the best solution, given the scenario, but I guess my mind was set on more constructive criticism :)
For one there might be a power structure, where employees feel they will harm their colleagues by revealing criticism. For example if performance is used to determine further compensation and job security. If instead there is a healthy error culture, while improvement and ownership is incentivized, then people might want to share more.
Secondly it is bad form to criticize others indirectly, good form to own up your own mistakes or to personally and directly ask for criticism. If there is a middleman, then providing criticism can come off as weak and finger pointing. It might be easier and more healthy to give people an opportunity to ask others about their opinion.
Third, they might be many other social reasons like being timid or not thinking all too much about other people's performance. They might just like each other, be indifferent or afraid or what have you. Some might not even know very well how to give constructive, useful criticism. To get people to care and share their opinions freely you need regular practice. Face to face. And again, it should typically start with self-criticism, because that invites ownership and openness instead of a you vs me kind of deal.
I’d add: what possible good could come from criticizing someone to their boss? If I have feedback for someone that’s substantive enough to bring up, then I’ll just tell them. If the relationship isn’t strong enough to just tell them directly, then it’s probably not going to be improved by criticism, even anonymously (however constructive & well meaning).
If an employee 'discovers' negative feedback at performance review time it is not good, and the person may get the additional feeling that their manager withheld telling them in time only to 'frame' them on record at review time (I say that because I was on the receiving end once).
So I think that negative feedback in formal performance reviews is particularly sensitive.
And then there is the periodic performance review were we want to take a high-level look at changes in impact, outcomes, behavior over longer periods of time.
There is usually good reason for an employee to believe that anonymous feedback is not truly anonymous. Assuming it actually is anonymous would be all downside and no upside for the employee.
Not all managers respond well to feedback, but if you have a good one and you're constructive it can produce real improvements
If I have reasons to think the person will take it personally or the way it's written is too negative I refrain from sharing it raw and I prepare a tl;dr.
What's important is to extract the main points from the feedback.
> Assuming it actually is anonymous would be all downside and no upside for the employee.
Not sure I understand why.
Criticizing others or even just things has been stamped out during upbringing due to it generally being a really bad move socially, whereas praising others is much easier. I'd extrapolate that and say most people don't think of things that could be criticized too much as a result, and don't have enough experience criticizing, which in turn creates little critical feedback.