Trust and governance
Explain who can see employee feedback
Confidential feedback can be attributable to a person and is handled under defined access rules. Anonymous feedback requires a collection and reporting design that keeps people from being identifiable in context. Check the actual flow before describing either arrangement to employees.
Trace access from the invitation to the report
Start with the participant’s view. Does the person receive an individual link, sign in, give their name or provide free text or voice? Ask which system and roles can connect a submission to a person, including authorized administrators and service providers. Check what can appear in exports, logs and backups.
Make a second pass for reporting. A manager can recognize a person from a distinctive event, job title or shift even when the report omits a name. Check role-level access, how small groups are combined and what happens to quotations. Have a privacy specialist review the wording and the planned handling for your situation.
A fictional case shows why the distinction matters
An HR team invites employees at eight sites to discuss a change in scheduling. Participants receive individual invitations. Two designated reviewers can see individual responses, and site managers receive a summary. One account describes a rare task that only one employee does at a site.
The HR team calls the arrangement confidential and explains that designated reviewers can see responses. It tests whether the site summary could still identify a person from the task description. The reviewers decide how to describe the operational issue at a useful level and how to route the individual concern. Removing the name alone would leave the recognition problem in place.
Draft the invitation using verified facts
Start with the purpose and what taking part involves. Then explain who can see the original responses, who receives summaries, what the information may be used for and how employees can ask a question. Fill in the real retention arrangement and tell people what will happen after the exercise. Describe any exceptions to the confidentiality arrangement in plain language.
A draft might read: “We’re asking how the new scheduling process is working. [Reviewers and roles] can read responses. [Audience] will see [report type]. We will use this to [decision]. We keep [data types] for [period or policy]. For questions about access, contact [role and channel]. For individual concerns that need a response, use [existing human route]. We will share a summary of next steps by [date].” Confirm each bracket before using it.
Test the wording with a real access check
Run a test invitation with fictional responses. Ask someone to explain what they expect the manager to see. Compare the answer with the actual participant, manager and reviewer views. Test one small group and one distinctive free-text example. Include the support process for a question or correction.
The UK Information Commissioner’s Office explains that identifiability depends on more than names and that pseudonymisation is distinct from anonymisation. Use that guidance and your own specialist review when making a formal determination. The worksheet helps capture the evidence you need for the discussion.
Frequently asked questions
Questions that come up
Is employee feedback anonymous if names are removed?
Removing names is one step. Assess whether a person could still be identified through other information or by combining what the recipient already knows with the report.
Can we share verbatim quotes from a small team?
Check what participants were told, who will see the quote and how easily they could recognize the person. An authorized reviewer can decide whether to summarize the issue at a broader level.
Talk to Lontra HR
Bring one real HR question.
See how a first campaign could work for your team.