There is little doubt that the recent New York Times article detailing the rough and tumble internal world of Amazon.com painted an unflattering “welcome to the jungle” picture.

While Amazon’s CEO Jeff Bezos quickly denied that Amazon’s culture was one of “purposeful Darwinism,” the Times article described a brutal, unforgiving environment that required employees to deploy survivalist skills just to make it through a day.

Dani Kimlinger, a conflict resolution expert, says the Amazon dynamic is in part attributable to a culture driven by analytics; based on the article, everyone and everything seemed to be measured, quantified and ranked.  By itself, that’s not a problem, she says.

The more problematic issue stems from Amazon’s use of a seemingly benign tool that encourages employees to submit anonymous praise or criticism to management and co-workers.

“Not surprisingly, particularly in a competitive culture such as Amazon's, employees and former employees in the article complain that the process can lead to gratuitous, harsh feedback, and conflict,” says Kimlinger, Human Resources and Organizational Psychology Leader at MINES and Associates, a national business  psychology firm in Littleton, Colo.

Kimlinger adds that it appears the intended “transparency” was undermined by the lack of accountability. The unintended, yet entirely predictable, consequences of this method of communications can completely blur the line between creative tension (the intended result) and all-out conflict.

“Many employers today struggle with knowing where the line is between the healthy airing of differences and conflict that leads to arguments, rancor and dysfunction,” she says.

Yet, as more companies try out similar tools, the line will be blurred even more. Kimlinger says anonymous systems often promote distrust and can easily be “gamed.” On the flip side, effective communication – particularly between conflicting parties – requires open, carefully-mediated dialogue.

“That’s where all parties are required to work through their issues, with the understanding that dialogue doesn't end just because there's been a healthy exchange of perspectives,” she says. “With no way to assess the truth or intent of negative commentary – and there are no consequences for comments that are baseless or maliciously-motivated – what was initially intended to promote openness and esprit de corps produces the very opposite.”

Kimlinger says if an anonymous feedback tool or process is a potential addition to the HR toolbox, she encourages employers to explore the reason for such assessments.

“There often is very little accountability in these assessments and comments are made without useful context,” she says. For example, someone might say “he or she needs to communicate better,” but what does it mean? How does the person not communicate well?

Kimlinger is not saying anonymous feedback tools should be completely avoided. On one hand, an employer may receive feedback that they may not have received otherwise because some workers may be less comfortable sharing face-to-face with colleague being assessed. On the flip side, there are the obvious downsides as detailed in the Times article.

Kimlinger offers a few takeaways/suggestions:

• An employer should have a clearly defined purpose for utilizing anonymous feedback tools, and the purpose should be tied to policies, safety, business' goals and strategies.
• In the Amazon example, the employees reported that the tool was used for pitting employees against each other. If a feedback tool is going to be effective, preliminary coaching or educating the workforce about how the tool is there to enhance each other and the team is important.
• When using tools to allow unsolicited confidential feedback, engage an ombudsperson, which allows confidentiality to the complainant and allows the ombudsperson to gain additional information.

And there are options. For example, some MINES’ clients utilize alternatives to performance reviews and anonymous tools. One is regular, scheduled supervision meetings with staff that allow a supervisor to provide employees with constant feedback, including compliments as well as constructive suggestions. When these meetings occur, she explains, both staff as well as supervisors have the opportunity to give each other regular "reviews." 

“The biggest risk with anonymous reporting tools is unintended consequences,” Kimlinger says. “You have to ask what can go wrong.  If you do use them, be sure to create a higher standard of accountability. The last thing you want is someone trolling the workforce.”