The Reciprocal & Anonymous Feedback Gap

I think there is a simple problem sitting underneath a lot of workplace feedback.

When receiving feedback, many of us would prefer it to be early, specific and direct from the person with the issue.

But when giving difficult feedback, many of us would also prefer distance, anonymity, or a manager to deliver it for us.

That creates what I call the reciprocal feedback gap:

“I want you to tell me directly.
But I would rather not tell you directly”.

There are legitimate reasons for that gap. For example; with more serious power imbalance, retaliation risk, harassment, whistleblowing and serious misconduct can all justify confidential or anonymous reporting.

But for the minor behavioural issues and micro-conflicts that occur day to day in teams, as in this example being so-called a bit “difficult to work with”, anonymity has its limitations.

It may help surface a problem, but it often does little to resolve the relationship behind it.

If person A complains anonymously about person B, B may not know exactly what happened, why it caused concern, or who was affected. B cannot question the interpretation. A does not have to explain the concern directly. The manager becomes the intermediary.

The issue may be recorded without ever really being resolved.

That is the gap SpatzAI is intended to address.

For lower-level interpersonal issues, the aim is not to remove protection. It is to provide enough procedural protection for people to address each other directly.

I can raise an issue with your behaviour.

You can disagree with my interpretation.

You can object to how I deliver the feedback.

I can acknowledge that and course-correct.

And if we cannot resolve it ourselves, we can escalate through the agreed process.

So anonymity still has a place.

But for everyday micro-conflict, I think reciprocity is often the better long-term goal.

Anonymity may help people report a more serious problem.
Reciprocity gives them a better chance of resolving it.