This practice comes from Japan. In 1980s, certain companies, like Toyota, understood the importance of product and process quality. And one of the practices to ensure that everyone is ‘on the same ground’, and that the product under development would surely satisfy the consumer’s needs, was close communication between the stakeholders and receiving the feedback.

Long story short, it was part of their broader ‘Quality first’ strategy. However, it is only viable if the organisation is properly managed, and all Quality management things are put into practice (the hardest part).

This is just my understanding from a book I read during my free time. My knowledge may be incorrect.

In my opinion, it is another way to get value out of the user instead of giving value.

Managers have to do very little work in terms of understanding the skills of their employees if we do it for them.

A huge step I found in terms of my mental health was to refuse to give reviews anymore, in any form. I am now able to enjoy my experiences a lot more without looking for reasons to critique them.

Who wouldn’t want a ton of feedback about the service provided?

I wish my costumers provided me with all their genuine feedback, all the things they hate about our app and why.

At the company I work for we actually make and sell products on Amazon. We ask for reviews for 2 reasons: 1. Star rating = sales. Pretty simple. 2. We compile customer complaints and try to resolve them. Our sales team goes through all of the negative reviews and tells the production team, fix this, and we actually fix it (if possible).

Our company is only about 100-120 people. The CEO/owner actually does work and is involved instead of just watching and looking at numbers so it’s definitely not your typical corporation.

I think in almost all cases it is just used to reward (or more likely) punish employees through pay or continued employment. I don’t think they actually care to improve their products, processes, etc.

TLDR if you don’t give all 10s the employee gets in trouble and eventually fired, even for things not in their control

Either marketing itself, i.e. make the company seem more approachable by openly asking for feedback, but then mostly ignoring it. Or genuine attempt at optimising their process to improve customer satisfaction.

This is the thing that most companies seem to obsess over these days: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_promoter_score

I think it’s just a fad.

I work in data analysis and reporting on various feedback systems is part of my regular role. Every company’s data culture is different, so you can’t simply say “X is the reason why they’re doing this”. It could be:

• Maybe they are incorporating the data into agent/product reviews.
• Maybe they are trying to guide product & feature development on a quantitative basis
• Maybe at one point a product manager wanted to be “data-driven”, so a feedback system was set up, but now it’s basically ignored now that they haven’t been with the company for over a year and nobody wants to take ownership of it. But it’s more effort to remove than just leave in place.
• Maybe it’s used when we want to highlight our successes, and ignored when we want to downplay results we don’t like

What I’ve found is that there are a lot of confounding factors. For example, I work for a job board, and most people use the Overall Satisfaction category as more of a general measurement of how their job search is going, or whether or not they got the interview, rather than an assessment of how well our platform serves that purpose. And it’s usually going very shittily because job searching is a generally shitty process even when everything is going “right”.

Gotta have metrics by which to deny employee raises. 😔