Hi, Rick
You say...
>>I'm doubtful. Fred Kofman says it well, "Anything that is
said is said by someone, ideas aren't just hanging out there
in the air." I'm much more inclined to attack the problem by
making it easier for people to say what's on their minds.<<
Let's start from the view of anonymous input on serious
organizational problems such as morale, safety, quality,
structure, rotten bosses, people skipping work, etc.
I'm puzzled by how anonymous responses can help develop
context. My main experience with this methodology is the
usage of anonymity when gathering input on employee survey
ISSUES. And, the generalizations or the (mis)interpretations
from the intervenor (facilitator, interviewer, etc.) provide little
of the contextual understanding so necessary for some action.
I find a medical analogy fits this. Suppose an adult has a
severe headache. He/she describes it in detail to their spouse
and the spouse goes to a medical doctor for diagnosis in place
of the one with the headache. (This presumes the person with
the headache could have gone.) What advice would we give to
this couple if we were the doctor? Do we suppose second hand
information for a doctor would be on the same plane of accuracy,
reliability as from the person who actually has the headache?
>>At the same time, as a consultant, I'm frequently in a role
of interviewing to collect data to be summarized without
attribution.<<
I know. The pressure on an internal consultant like me to do this
is quite high. In probably 50 per cent of the cases I've been able
to get the "combatants" face to face, while acting as the lightning
rod for conflict.
In the others, I have gone ahead and done the anonymous
surveying, attempting to act solely as a recorder. This has been
a negotiated position before the survey. The hard part has been
to maintain the contract that I will not interpret/represent the
responders after the survey is complete.
If you ever want to see how well the intervenor can represent the
anonymous comments, videotape the debrief of the survey to
whomever wanted it done. Take the video out to the responders
and ask if they were accurately represented. Surprise!!
>What do you think about enabling anonymity in business
conversations? Good, bad, when should we use it? <
I generally don't like anonymous input on serious issues,
especially the emotionally charged ones. Seems to me
its shifting the burden.
Anonymous >>>>\
/ Information / \ \
/ \ \
Solutions | \
(little context) / \
\ / \
\/ / \
Pressure to \
resolve DEEP \|/
problem Team Learning
/ / \ Capacity
/ \ |
| | /
\ / /
\/ / /
Creative Input/ /______ /
on problem \
But....
I was part of a business management team for a large
scale consumer product business. We used anonymous
input from consumers for product research. Worked okay,
I thought. Same business is presently paying consumers
to allow actual videotaped usage of the product. Suggests
to me that the business found that anonymous input lost
some of the contextual understanding.
Wouldn't anonymous input work okay for developing an
understanding of high level patterns? How do the people
recording learning histories capture the input? If the goal
is to understand patterns or pattern changes, seems to
me it should work.
(You're right, Rick. PowerPoint is a lot better for causal
loop diagrams.)
Have a great day!
-- Dave Buffenbarger Organizational Improvement Coach Dow Chemical Company (517) 638-7080 dwbuff@aol.com