Comments for Should there be censorship in 360 Degree Feedback?

Thursday, December 4, 2008 by Kevin Watson:

Great question! I'm almost certain that there will be varying views on this, but my own thoughts are clear...a big NO to censorship. To ask a participant in 360 degree feedback to provide comments and then alter their words just doesn't fit well with me for a couple of reasons. Language is a very personal thing. What I say and how I say it can give away a lot about who I am and what I believe in. Each person will put emphasis on different words, or use one word that means something different to anyone else. If the words are altered in any way, then not only does the censor risk skewing the comment to what they may mistakenly believe it to have meant, but also risk offending the participant and putting the whole process in jeopardy for the future. Also, what is the intent behind any censorship? Is it to 'protect' the recipient or the participant. Is it to avoid confrontation? Is it none of these or all of them? If the intent is not in line with the overall purpose of 360 degree feedback (i.e. to provide signposts for opening dialog that can lead to improved performance), why censor? Kevin (www.ulife.co.uk)

Friday, December 5, 2008 by John Rice:

Thanks for putting the first comments up on this - You make some very interesting points, not least of which is the idea that the 'censor', whilst perhaps trying to mollify the feedback in some way, might actually end up changing its entire meaning! We often see this request in the context of enabling a censor to remove bad language or profanities, but I can see a danger in that one persons judgement as to what should or shouldn't be removed, may be very different to the next person. John

Leave a comment

Name
Email
Your comment
(No HTML)
Type the text from the image below