After the furore regarding the Jonathan Ross/Russell Brand Radio 2 incident, we wondered if there was ever a place for censorship within 360 Degree Feedback?
Should comments be relayed verbatim in the report to the recipient?
Or should HR (or some other mediator) be allowed to edit or censor the comments before they are published?
We would love to get a discussion going, so please do feel free to comment (without censorship of course!).
Posted by: Kevin Watson on Thursday, December 4, 2008
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)
Posted by: John Rice on Friday, December 5, 2008
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