Hiding reviewer identities from agents

Reviews can be made anonymous. It solves one problem and quietly creates a larger one, and it is an account setting, so it applies everywhere at once.

Reviews can be made anonymous. It solves one problem and quietly creates a larger one, and it is an account setting, so it applies everywhere at once.

Set it

1. In Quality Assurance, click your profile icon in the top right and select Settings.
2. Under the general account settings, set Hide reviewer identities from agents.
3. Tell the team either way.

Two things follow from where this sits. It is an account setting, not a workspace one, so it applies everywhere at once and you cannot run named review in one team and anonymous review in another. And it is for admins and account managers, not for a workspace manager to decide locally.

When it is on, the reviewer's name is hidden everywhere in Zendesk QA that the reviewer role would otherwise be visible.

Not the same as unbiased grading

These get confused. Unbiased grading is a workspace setting that stops reviewers seeing each other's reviews, including AutoQA's, so their scoring is not anchored by somebody else's. It says nothing about what agents see.

Hiding reviewer identities is the opposite direction: it changes what the agent sees, not what the reviewer sees.

The argument for hiding

Peer reviewing between colleagues can be uncomfortable, and a reviewer worried about the relationship may soften scores. Anonymity removes that pressure.

The argument against, which is stronger

Feedback from a named person is a conversation you can continue. Feedback from an unnamed source is a verdict you can only accept or dispute.

Agents cannot ask "what did you mean here", which is the question that turns a review into learning.

It also affects reviewers

People write more carefully when their name is on it. Anonymity removes a useful check on hasty or unkind comments.

When hiding is defensible

Peer review among colleagues at the same level, particularly at the start. Even then, consider naming reviewers once the programme has settled.

What it does not fix

If reviewers are softening scores because reviewing feels confrontational, anonymity treats the symptom. The cause is usually that reviews are being read as assessment rather than coaching.

Say which it is

Agents will assume the worst about an unnamed review. Explaining the arrangement, and why, removes most of that.

See also

• What makes a scorecard that people accept
• Managing workspace settings
• Giving and receiving feedback