Feedback anonymity plays a key role in performance reviews, ensuring that employees can share their thoughts openly and honestly without fear of retaliation or judgment. This practice is vital to creating a transparent, trust-based environment within your organization.
How to configure feedback anonymity in Performance review sessions?
The configuration of the Performance session in Calamari gives you flexibility on how you would like to display peer feedback for the reviewees, managers and administrators.
1. Process owner visibility
Process owner refers to the people overseeing the performance review process.
Process owners include performance administrators and direct managers of the reviewee. (See more about roles here: User Roles in Calamari)
There are two options in the Performance session configuration in terms of what Performance owner can see:
Response with author: This option allows the Process owner to view both the feedback and the identity of the reviewer.
Response: With this setting, the Process owner can only see the feedback itself without knowing the identity of the reviewer. This is helpful when you want to ensure there is full anonymity, even for those overseeing the process.
2. Reviewee visibility
Reviewee is the individual who is being reviewed. Their visibility options determine how they see the feedback provided by others.
Response with author: This option allows the reviewee to see both the feedback and the reviewer's identity. This may be useful for encouraging open feedback, but it is typically avoided when anonymity is required.
Response: With this setting, the reviewee can only see the feedback itself without knowing who gave it. This ensures that feedback remains anonymous and focuses solely on the content.
Nothing: In some cases, the reviewee may not be allowed to see any feedback at all, ensuring complete privacy of the review process.
3. Reviewer chooses the anonymity option by themselves
Reviewer is the individual providing the feedback. You can give them the flexibility to decide whether to keep their feedback anonymous or disclose their identity, regardless of the global anonymity settings configured for the session.
"Reviewer can: Choose anonymity for their response" setting is enabled ✅
Enabling this setting allows the reviewer to decide for themselves whether they want to keep their feedback anonymous or disclose their identity. This setting overrides the previously configured global anonymity options during the same session.
"Reviewer can: Choose anonymity for their response" setting is disabled ⛔
If this setting is disabled, the anonymity options will be determined by the previously configured settings, such as the Process Owner Visibility and Reviewee Visibility. In this case, reviewers will either have their identity disclosed or remain anonymous based on the global settings.
Example session with anonymity feature enabled
1. Participants
Let's focus on the perspective of these four participants in the peer review session
| Role in Calamari | Is the direct manager? | Are they being reviewed? |
Kate | Performance Administrator, Administrator, Manager | Direct manager of Emma | No
*does not participate in the session but oversees it |
Emma | Administrator | Not a manager | Yes |
Sofia | Manager | Direct manager of Yuki | Yes |
Yuki | Regular employee | Not a manager | Yes |
Each of these four participants is being reviewed by two different employees.
2. Settings
Feedback type: peer review
Anonymity: response only, without name details
Process owners and reviewees do not see the person who provided the feedback. They can see the content of the feedback.
3. Starting a session
Once you save the Review process configuration, start a session. You can do it in Performance → Review sessions. You can also add or remove participants from the session even if you chose a different list of people in the configuration.
The reviewers have to be added either by Performance Administrator, Administrator, or Direct managers of the reviewee.
From now on, everyone can add their peer feedback.
4. Perspective of the reviewer
Each reviewer will see the disclaimer in the draft of their feedback. They can choose to respond even more anonymously. Here's the difference:
Keeping the general anonymity rules means reviewers will see the feedback but won't see who added it:
Choosing stricter anonymity means the reviewee will not see either feedback or the reviewer. Performance owners will still see the feedback without the author.
5. Perspective of the session participants
This section shows what each participant can see in the peer review session under these anonymity options:
Process owner sees: Response (without author)
Reviewee sees: Response (without author)
Yuki — reviewee (regular employee)
Yuki can see the peer reviews submitted about her, but the reviewers’ names are hidden.
She can also see the final evaluation written by her direct manager.
Sofia — Yuki’s direct manager perspective
As Yuki’s direct manager, Sofia can see the peer feedback submitted about Yuki.
The feedback is anonymized, so Sofia can read it, but she cannot see who submitted each review.
Sofia — reviewee perspective
Sofia can also be reviewed herself. In her own review, she can see the peer reviews submitted about her, but the reviewers remain anonymous.
She can also see the final evaluation written by her own direct manager.
Emma — reviewee (administrator)
Emma can see the peer reviews submitted about her, but the reviewers’ names are hidden.
She can also see the final evaluation written by her direct manager.
Her administrator role does not reveal the authors of anonymous peer reviews.
Kate — Performance Administrator
As a Performance Administrator, Kate oversees the review process.
She can access the reviews according to the session settings, even while the session is still ongoing.
If peer reviews are configured as anonymous, Kate can read the feedback but cannot see who submitted it — even for reviews concerning her own subordinates.
