Trust
Before introducing a 360 programme, people should understand why they are contributing, who receives the results and how anonymity works. FeedbackMount makes these rules part of the development workflow.
Anonymous feedback is reported through groups that meet the programme's minimum requirements. Direct-manager feedback is attributable by design. Participants should see the applicable rules before contributing.
If too few people respond in an anonymous group, its results are combined with a broader group or withheld. Small organisations may therefore see fewer separate breakdowns. A report can also be held while the programme addresses insufficient participation.
The department view typically needs about 10 or more people receiving feedback, plus sufficient distinct raters and answers. Some comparisons may still be withheld. Small groups are hidden, and the view offers no member list or individual drill-down.
Reports reach the people permitted by the programme's delivery rules. Managers and administrators cannot see who wrote anonymous feedback. Optional AI assistance does not give technical administrators access to employee feedback or replace the product's reporting protections.
Sanitisation and moderation protect the comment content shown in reports. Human moderators approve safe material and withhold comments that cannot be shown safely.
Exceptional investigation access to raw evidence requires separate authority, a recorded reason and an audit trail. This is distinct from ordinary report access.
Changing participant groups can affect what a later comparison reveals. Progress Check comparisons follow privacy checks as well as question-comparability checks; unsafe comparisons are withheld.
Discuss report recipients, retention, deployment and AI processing when booking a demo. We'll walk you through how this would work for your organisation.
Have a question about your programme? Contact us.