Plan requirement
| Subscription | Any plan |
| Also required | Quality Assurance or Workforce Engagement Management |
| Access | Admin |
Reviews can be made anonymous. It solves one problem and quietly creates a larger one.
Set it
- Open the workspace settings.
- Choose whether reviewer identities are shown to agents.
- Tell the team either way.
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.
Comments
0 comments
Article is closed for comments.