A month or so after moving in, a new community member is told that their housemates are worried the house might not be a good fit for them. They become afraid to speak up about things they wish were different, because they don’t want to be seen as an incompatible housemate, but that actually makes it harder for the house to collaborate towards shared solutions. Many months later, they don’t know who said these things and if those people still live at the house, and they regularly wonder if they have housemates who don’t want them to be there. (This has happened to me. This has happened to countless others.)
* * *
After a handful of people are unable to resolve conflict with someone, the house decides to write them a letter, and it’s mostly drafted by one or two people. When the individual receives the letter, they’re confused about what the feedback means and surprised that everyone feels that way. The person withdraws from the community and barely spends any time at home. They don’t move out, but they feel like that must be what everyone had wanted. (It wasn’t.)
* * *
The Village currently has two ways to formally give feedback on behalf of the house: during our 3-month move-in trial and in the later phases of our conflict resolution escalation process. In both scenarios, we’ve historically shared opinions in a private place (group chat or private meeting) and then delivered the themes of those conversations to the target person as “opinions of the house” or “opinions of some [undisclosed] people of the house”. At a recent house retreat, people advocated to not do that anymore.
I now believe it’s important to identify the people who give feedback. Maybe this happens with a document listing short summaries of how each person feels, which can be received and processed in private. Maybe it’s a 1:1 conversation with one member of the community who also names the others who feel similarly. Maybe it’s a group conversation where the receiver of feedback can immediately ask followup questions of everyone. But I want to make the case that it’s usually harmful to hide behind anonymity.
A community as a whole very rarely has a cohesive opinion on something. To say that “the house thinks you might not be a good fit”, or “this housemate has become a house-wide problem” can make it sound like everyone feels the same way. In reality, some people might be barely or not at all affected and others might be losing sleep over it. Providing names and personalized opinions adds nuance and can help the person receiving feedback better understand how they’re affecting the house as a whole.
Anonymity can also prevent the person receiving feedback to follow up on that feedback -- to clarify their understanding of what specifically is being requested (which likely varies between housemates), to have back-and-forth conversation to collaborate on solutions, and to check in to see if things are getting better. Without the ability to have this dialogue, it’s much more difficult to reach resolution.
Though anonymity might seem like it protects relationships, it can also hurt them. To know that some people have a problem with you but not know which ones can lead to insecurity in all housemate relationships, which can lead to people being more withdrawn and make it harder for them to confidently take on house tasks. Especially during a move-in trial period or conflict escalation situation, feedback from multiple housemates can be a genuine threat to housing security. When it feels vulnerable to share feedback, it can be helpful to remember that housemates in this situation are in a particularly vulnerable and powerless position. Being vulnerable alongside them can help create the kind of connection that leads to positive change.
It makes sense that people are drawn to giving feedback anonymously. Giving feedback is often scary. What if they get angry? What if they start crying? It’s normal to be nervous about delivering feedback, and anonymity can help it feel safer. If you don’t talk to them directly, you don’t have to witness their reaction, and you also don’t have to worry about the feedback conversation changing your relationship with them. In the best case scenario, they process their feelings in private, never get upset with you about it, address the feedback you had, and resolve the issue.
Workshopping feedback in spaces where the receiver can’t see it, where the things you say stay private, is also valuable. Sometimes it’s hard to figure out what you want to say until you hear someone else express a similar sentiment in clearer words. Sometimes an issue feels like not a big deal until you realize that several people feel that way, and then, given the wider impact, it feels worth bringing up. It can be very valuable to have private spaces to share experiences and figure out what you want to say, and some might call this “productive gossip”.
Batching together feedback from multiple housemates can also be helpful to avoid overwhelming the receiver of the feedback. Five people having similar conversations with someone can be time-consuming (especially if they happen separately), and can feel like ganging up on them (especially if it’s in a group conversation, all at once). One person saying “several people in the house feel this way” can be kinder.
However, you can get most of these benefits without anonymity. You can gossip and workshop strategies in private but drop the anonymity as you move to the stage where you deliver the feedback. You can batch feedback together, then have one person give a summary (or just share their own feelings) and name other people who feel the same way, to allow the receiver of feedback to talk to them at their own pace. If you find yourself drawn to staying anonymous, and have reasons you think it would be better, see if you can accomplish some of those goals while minimizing the costs of anonymity.
Sometimes, it won’t feel worth it to give direct feedback -- maybe you’re low on time or emotional energy, maybe you feel pretty confident that the conversation won’t help, maybe you don’t know what to say, maybe you’re worried you’ll be too mean and make it worse. And in these situations, giving feedback anonymously might feel more productive than not giving it at all. (And sometimes it will be!)
There’s not an easy answer to this. I strongly believe that communities are more resilient and sustainable when feedback is given before resentment grows high, and when people are genuinely willing to work together to resolve issues as they arise. And also, it’s hard. Find moments to practice giving feedback, especially when it’s more low stakes. Have friends support you, from figuring out what to say to debriefing the conversation afterwards. Maybe find a mediator or just a third person who can watch the conversation to help it stay kind and curious. (It’s impressive how different a conversation can feel with just someone silently watching!)
I write a lot about conflict resolution and feedback skills because I believe they are the foundation for a healthy community. For those of us who want to be in solidarity with each other, especially across age and race and class and gender, we need to be able to connect and collaborate even when we feel differently about issues or rub each other the wrong way. Learning how to give feedback kindly, and how to give people the best chance of iterating well on your feedback, is essential. And, as I’ve recently learned, that means being willing to attach your name to your feedback.