I'm not sure that my question hasn't confused me even more. Below are a
couple more questions:
> The idea is to return all ratings to each rater, without identifying
> who gave each rating.
If you can't identify them, how will you be able to give the ratings
back to the originator? Or is their a specific person designated within
the organisation who does know who prepared each rating?
Each rater will recognise their own rating, and
> will be able to compare their assessment with those of the other
> raters,
Does this mean that every rater will get a copy of all ratings? Why is
it important that he/she will need to compare his/her rating - is this
form of feedback a normative process?
> without knowing who those raters are.
Does it matter to the rater what other ratings were done and who made
them? I would have thought that the focal point of the ratings was the
ratee (ie, the person being rated). In which case:
1. How will he/she really know that a fair rating has been carried out
and it isn't some people simply having an anonymous whinge about him/her
- to others (because, if I am correct in my above assumption, everyone
else gets a copy of the ratings as well) more than to the appropriate
channel?
2. How will the person doing the rating be guaranteed anonymity (and
thereby honesy) when there is little doubt that the person being rated
will also recognise who gave the rating - if not through the style and
handwriting, or even the type of pen used (if the person is close enough
to give an honest rating then he/she will also be close enough to be
recognised simply by the way he/she writes and expresses him/herself),
then through examples or situations the rater gives to support a
rating?
Your thoughts would be appreciated because, as you can see, I am yet to
be convinced that this is a valid form of honest, reliable and equitable
assessment of one's performance.
Thanks
PHIL