How many times have you heard people say that someone with anything negative to say must say it to their face? It’s a great line to use if you are ever in a Twitter war or in a bar fight with lots of backup. It’s a line loaded with ego and bravado although in reality it probably demonstrates the opposite quite well. People probably really don’t want to know what other people really think about them and to be told this to their faces. Ignorance is bliss.
There is a popular financial website I read almost every day. At the end of each article there is a comments section. It’s is extremely frustrating because typically the anonymous commentators use the platform to spew racial hatred and prejudice. The things they say there they could never say to anyone’s face and get away with it. Lately, therefore, I have been thinking about how different people behave when they know they will remain anonymous.
A large corporate decided to hold weekly virtual town hall meetings for the whole company, where the global CEO would address staff. As an effort to improve engagement the company provided a mobile platform where employees could comment or ask questions anonymously. By the 3rd such meeting the mobile chat had completely degenerated into a portal where employees could communicate all their prejudice without any consequences. The CEO apparently even commented in the meeting that this was not the organisational culture he has grown up in or was used to. Was this because without anonymous feedback people were too scared to speak up about how they really felt? Or was it because people were taking advantage of the anonymous platform to release their own bigotry and emotional baggage? Should the CEO have stopped the anonymous chat and forced employees to put their names against their opinions?
In most democracies around the world people are able to vote and this vote is done in private by secret ballot. Regardless of what anyone says prior to the election, there is no evidence to which way they decided to vote. As an aside unfortunately in many parts of the world the real vote rigging fun starts after the ballot has been cast. I’m sure all of you would, therefore, agree that voting has to remain private, anonymous and secret.
Why is then that we allow different rules for different platforms when it comes to anonymity? Should it be a company policy that that all performance assessments and 360 degrees feedback forms should not be anonymous? That employees who have an issue with each other must be able to say it to each other’s faces? Should all public forums that allow comments have protocols to identify contributors? I remember one executive feedback session where an employee requested that the company put up a suggestion box so employees could use it to suggest improvements. One of the directors responded by saying that they would prefer it if the person simply emailed their suggestion through to the relevant executive. Who is right? One party obviously doesn’t feel comfortable to address issues directly and the other party believes that every employee should be able to do this.
I’m honestly not sure what the right answer is. I’m just continually blown away by how people behave and what they are willing to say or do anonymously. There is a huge “tell it to my face” gap in the world. And it’s happening primarily in areas where nobody knows your name. I, therefore, leave you with some questions to mull over on this topic:
1. Is there someone you would be comfortable giving feedback to anonymously, but could never do it they knew who you were?
2. How do you behave when you know you are anonymous? How do you behave when you are known?
3. Which is the real you? The anonymous commenter or the known communicator?
300Paychecks 
Leave a comment