Perceived Anonymity Adequacy 3
anonymity, the types of identity information concealed during performance evaluations to
maintain and enhance one’s level of anonymity will also be explored.
To accomplish these goals, research on the role of anonymity in performance feedback
as well as recent theorizing about anonymity will first be reviewed to develop research questions
and hypotheses. Next, the method used to test the research questions and hypotheses will
presented along with the results of the study. Finally, the implications of the findings will be
discussed, the limitations of the study will be identified, and directions for future research will be
offered. In sum, this study will help better understand perceptions of anonymity during
performance evaluations and inform current theories of anonymous communication.
Anonymity in Performance Evaluations
Cusella (1987) contends that, “To anyone who has spent time working in or observing
organizations, there can be little dispute that the feedback concept is central to our understanding
of organizational behavior in general and of organizational communication specifically” (p. 624).
Indeed, current organizational trends like downsizing, total quality management, reengineering,
team-based designs, and employee empowerment make feedback vital to guide development and
to tap new sources of information for improvement (Fedor, 1997). Performance feedback has
been linked to an array of positive organizational outcomes ranging from job improvements to
better relationships and lower employee defensiveness (Bloom and Hautaluoma, 1987).
Over the past 10 years, a number of organizations have adopted multi-rater feedback
systems, such as 360 degree feedback (Church & Bracken, 1997; Furnam, 1998), leading one
scholar to argue that “360-degree feedback has been one of the most popular management
innovations in the 1990s” (Fairhurst, 2001, p. 397). In this approach, performance evaluations
are conducted among peers, supervisors, subordinates, and occasionally external stakeholders
(Bloom & Hautaluoma, 1987; Fedor, 1997). Anonymity is typically a central feature in these
Convention