Asking team members to offer ideas, suggestions, and complaints through an anonymous suggestion box has been a historically popular way for leaders to learn what others are really thinking.
It used to be suggestion boxes were physical containers where team members would slide paper with their ideas directly into a real box, sometimes with a lock on it. Today, suggestion boxes are more likely to serve as a metaphor for any avenue or process that solicits candid and anonymous feedback from team members.
The benefits of anonymous feedback and suggestions with large teams and groups are well-known. Anonymous recommendations provide a platform for team members to speak candidly without fear of being judged or evaluated.
When any of those ideas are considered or taken up, team members feel heard, valued, and appreciated. Even when their suggestions are discarded, team members appreciate a forum that promotes both safety and openness.
On the flip side, suggestion boxes can sometimes encourage harsh criticism or malicious feedback without accountability. If their ideas are never discussed or considered, team members may disengage and feel unimportant. Participation after suggestions go unheeded can plummet and bleed over to how engaged team members are in other discussions seeking their views.
But, by and large, suggestion boxes offer more advantages than disadvantages, and for large groups and teams, they are an invaluable source for innovative ideas and involvement.
This is not the case in smaller teams.
When used by leaders in smaller teams and settings, suggestion boxes stifle open dialogue and create an expectation that people don’t feel safe unless they have an anonymous outlet to express their candid views.
Any small team leader who employs a suggestion box and receives feedback they wouldn’t normally hear learns a lot about the trust and openness of the team. A lack of candidness and open expression that requires an anonymous forum to circumvent is usually a sign that the team does not engage frequently enough in open dialogue where team members are rewarded for their transparency or that the leader holds too much power and status which inhibits candor.
Rather than fueling any unwillingness to share honestly in team discussions, good leaders reject forums for anonymous feedback and fix the real problem. Building trust within a small team requires an expectation of peer-like dialogue without distinction of status, experience, or authority.
As with so many issues related to teams, leaders who engage in more frequent team discussions where candidness is expected and rewarded don’t need to rely upon other methods to learn what people really think.
Any group where everyone present can’t be heard or register their view because of the sheer number of participants will likely benefit from a suggestion box format. But for smaller teams, suggestions boxes impede openness.
Good team leaders ask themselves if they would learn truly different ideas and suggestions with an anonymous format, like a suggestion box. If the answer is Yes, they should probably reflect on how to encourage trust in more organic ways than through a box with a lock on it.
