January 30, 2012 at 11:58 am
Not a new idea.
January 30, 2012 at 12:23 pm
"If they care about their employees, and want to retain the skilled knowledge workers, this type of site could help identify groups of people that are unhappy, or even managers that need improvements in their own skills".
If they care about their employees, then this will probably not be needed in the first place. If they don't, then all this does is identify those people to managment that aren't happy, and this will be abused, and those people singled out for retribution or layoffs. Citrix management, for example, is infamous for doing this kind of stuff. They will put together workshop classes on this kind of thing just so management can identify who isn't happy, and then guess who comes up for layoff the next time they decide to cut staff? 😀
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
January 30, 2012 at 12:50 pm
I'm not sure I agree with the "companies who would use it don't need it; companies that need it would abuse it" philosophy that some have expressed. But then again, I work for a company that doesn't really need it... I think.
We do have an anonymous feedback mechanism thru SurveyMonkey right now, and that seems to work well in most cases. (We occasionally get a response while interesting, does not address the question that was asked...) As Steve noted, to remain anonymous you should have someone review your submissions, because everyone has an individual style. I use the site, but don't believe in the anonymity because I have a VERY distinct style (co-workers call me sometimes after the question/comment responses are published, to confirm which came from me... :hehe: )
I have a personal philosophy that you should be able to raise issues with your manager, or those above you, and be heard without fear of retaliation - as long as you are professional in the presentation and willing to listen and engage with the response. If I can't raise issues, I'm working in the wrong company.
Steph Brown
January 30, 2012 at 1:05 pm
I've always thought that 25% of a managers overall rating, and hence bonus, should be based on morale in his/her organization. This would require a degree of employee-friendliness, and not just orders to 'get it done, however many hours it takes'. When times are bad, a real leader will be able to rally the troops.
There have been employee satisfaction surveys I have participated in over the years. On several occasions where things in my unit were really bad, the manager didn't bother to discuss the results with us :angry:.
January 30, 2012 at 1:29 pm
Stephanie J Brown (1/30/2012)
I'm not sure I agree with the "companies who would use it don't need it; companies that need it would abuse it" philosophy that some have expressed. But then again, I work for a company that doesn't really need it... I think.
Not sure I agree either. Every company, even those that want to maintain good employee relationships, will have issues with some managers. It's inevitable as you hire new people that some will not make the cut.
Or that you'll hire people that don't fit with others. This can help to figure those things out and perhaps fix something, move people, etc, before it's a problem.
There are definite potential problems with this, and lots of abuse likely from companies that don't care much about employees. However don't forget that lots of people enter into marriages with the best of intentions, but find things changes after a few years.
Maybe we ought to have something like this for relationships 😛
January 30, 2012 at 1:32 pm
We do have an anonymous feedback mechanism thru SurveyMonkey right now, and that seems to work well in most cases. (We occasionally get a response while interesting, does not address the question that was asked...) As Steve noted, to remain anonymous you should have someone review your submissions, because everyone has an individual style. I use the site, but don't believe in the anonymity because I have a VERY distinct style (co-workers call me sometimes after the question/comment responses are published, to confirm which came from me...)
There are two main problems with anomymous feedback:
1. You not allowing the manager the ability to evaluate who said what, so he/she can figure out where its coming from, and what agenda/purpose/context and potential credibility the particular employee might have/not have. Some anomymous feedback can be very toxic and destructive, as well as untrue.
2. It can also breed ill-will potentially towards everyone else in the group, since the manager has to wonder who said what and can end up punishing the whole group as a result. I have seen this first hand in the past.
😀
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
January 30, 2012 at 6:16 pm
Ten years ago, we had that "contractor" specialized to help "troubled" company and who had this neet idea that employees should evaluate (anonymously) their co-workers and their boss once a year. Sounded nice: being able to say that nobody wants to work with this guy because is all thumbs, or that other guy who swears all the time when the boss is not there or that manager gives orders without thinking... Yup! every body though that life at work would get better... until we did it. Nobody realy though that is was "anonymous" and were "scared" to say what they really think and feel and every body was nice to each other because, you know, "nobody's perfect"! So, $$$ passed to the contractor and nothing changed except that employees were more depressed than before because, as I said, "nothing changed" even after all those effort...
But, is not that true, that a good boss should "see" what is wrong?
If the boss A, who is the boss of the boss B, thinks that the boss B is doing a good job but the boss A never puts effort on checking if what he things is right, why put some time on evaluation and filling? what do you expect that the boss A would do with it? Nothing will change, defenitely not in long term!
From my experience, I would say that there is no point putting responsabilities of the "lively atmosphere" on workers (that would put more work and stress to force them writing it for nothing probably) if the higher management do not have a minimum a leadership and do not manage the "subordinate bosses". And its first job should be to make sure that all boss under him has the same minimum of leardership.
Forget about site to put "how you feel": Leadership is the key for a better companie. Leadership can be learned, so why some manager do not have leadership? Boss should be the "example" to be followed. Yes, nobody and nothing is perfect, but employees want to follow their boss and good boss can only bring the best from employees. So focus on that (have better boss), not "statistics" on the "employees feelings"...
January 30, 2012 at 6:56 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/30/2012)
Maybe we ought to have something like this for relationships 😛
Now THERE's a scary thought! :hehe:
Steph Brown
January 30, 2012 at 7:13 pm
TravisDBA (1/30/2012)
We do have an anonymous feedback mechanism thru SurveyMonkey right now, and that seems to work well in most cases. (We occasionally get a response while interesting, does not address the question that was asked...) As Steve noted, to remain anonymous you should have someone review your submissions, because everyone has an individual style. I use the site, but don't believe in the anonymity because I have a VERY distinct style (co-workers call me sometimes after the question/comment responses are published, to confirm which came from me...)
There are two main problems with anomymous feedback:
1. You not allowing the manager the ability to evaluate who said what, so he/she can figure out where its coming from, and what agenda/purpose/context and potential credibility the particular employee might have/not have. Some anomymous feedback can be very toxic and destructive, as well as untrue.
2. It can also breed ill-will potentially towards everyone else in the group, since the manager has to wonder who said what and can end up punishing the whole group as a result. I have seen this first hand in the past.
😀
I should have noted two things:
1. You have option to put in contact information if you want to engage in discussion. This is not "forced" anonymity.
2. The comments are reviewed at a much higher level than immediate manager. I'm not sure which department is doing the actual review (might be HR), but I can tell you that the comments I made were all acknowledged. Sometimes they were mixed with comments from others on the same subject, so I know I wasn't the only one with certain concerns.
Sometimes having a way to "vent your frustrations" helps morale, just because it allows you to re-focus on the job at hand once you've had your say. The more so if it is acknowledged the the leadership. And then if they act on, well, that's a whole 'nother level of "feel-good".
IMHO, a manager who punishes the whole group for the actions of a few is a very poor manager. They need re-training (or maybe just TRAINING, because a lot of managers don't seem to have had any).
tilew-948340 makes a good point that leadership is often at the root of what we see as "bad management". However, I'd counter that if you're not telling your managers that there are issues, the part of the burden must rest on you. Managers are not all-seeing or all-knowing, and often mid-level managers will "hide" issues from higher-level managers - sometimes from a mis-guided notion that they must protect the upper level managers from such distractions. An open communication policy is as important for managers as it is to employees. The information needs to flow both ways.
I think that's what Steve's editorial and the website were really focused on - having a safe way to communicate without fear of reprisal for saying something "unpopular". And even in a company with an open communication / no reprisal policy in place, such a website could be useful. No everyone is comfortable with speaking up, and sometimes with good reason based on their past experience with other companies.
Any communication tool is only as good as the people who use it - at all levels of a company. Seems there's always a one-percent who will abuse it, but the other 99% will likely value it regardless.
Just one opinion worth about 2 cents... in USA currency.
Steph Brown
January 31, 2012 at 12:53 am
Stephanie J Brown (1/30/2012)
I'm not sure I agree with the "companies who would use it don't need it; companies that need it would abuse it" philosophy that some have expressed. But then again, I work for a company that doesn't really need it... I think.
I expressed myself like that, but maybe it was a bit too black and white. Every company should have something for this, however the ones that really do need it.. I still believe would be the ones that might abuse it.
January 31, 2012 at 6:36 am
I too see this as more of a tool that will be used for abuse. Then again, there will probably be plenty of happy people entering their data. I see people who are between the too extremes of workplace morale as maybe entering their data a few times and then getting bored with the idea. Those at the extremes will continue to post their daily mood.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
January 31, 2012 at 6:42 am
Should not be necessary in company with competent leadership.
In my experience, companies where the managers and officers are clueless about morale (or anything else for that matter) wouldn't believe anything a site like that might try to tell them anyway.
The probability of survival is inversely proportional to the angle of arrival.
January 31, 2012 at 6:43 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/30/2012)
Stephanie J Brown (1/30/2012)
I'm not sure I agree with the "companies who would use it don't need it; companies that need it would abuse it" philosophy that some have expressed. But then again, I work for a company that doesn't really need it... I think.Not sure I agree either. Every company, even those that want to maintain good employee relationships, will have issues with some managers. It's inevitable as you hire new people that some will not make the cut.
Or that you'll hire people that don't fit with others. This can help to figure those things out and perhaps fix something, move people, etc, before it's a problem.
There are definite potential problems with this, and lots of abuse likely from companies that don't care much about employees. However don't forget that lots of people enter into marriages with the best of intentions, but find things changes after a few years.
Maybe we ought to have something like this for relationships 😛
My point on this is that, if you have a manager who can be trusted and who will respect your right to voice a dissenting opinion on things, you don't need anonymity. If you can't trust your manager enough to speak up to him/her, you probably can't trust them enough to expect your anonymity to be actually respected. And if the anonymity can be actually enforced, like through the third party survey company obscuring raw data well enough to hide "writing style" and other fingerprints, then can you trust your manager's judgement enough to be sure he won't have the, "It's gotta be Bob saying all this bad stuff about me! He's always the troublemaker!" regardless of who actually wrote it?
Basically, if you can trust the manager, you don't need anonymity. If you can't, anonymity can too easily be rendered a pretense, or can actually backfire. You don't want to be "Bob", if it was someone else who should actually draw the wrath.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
January 31, 2012 at 9:52 am
IMHO, a manager who punishes the whole group for the actions of a few is a very poor manager. They need re-training (or maybe just TRAINING, because a lot of managers don't seem to have had any).
You think there might be more than few a few of those out there? 😉 Wait a minute..., here's a thought, maybe a poor manager just need to be fired instead of investing more money and training in them, you think? I have never seen poor managers successfully retrained. They don't seem to change their spots, unfortunately. 😀
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
January 31, 2012 at 10:47 am
TravisDBA (1/31/2012)
IMHO, a manager who punishes the whole group for the actions of a few is a very poor manager. They need re-training (or maybe just TRAINING, because a lot of managers don't seem to have had any).
You think there might be more than few a few of those out there? 😉 Wait a minute..., here's a thought, maybe a poor manager just need to be fired instead of investing more money and training in them, you think? I have never seen poor managers successfully retrained. They don't seem to change their spots, unfortunately. 😀
I've seen quite a few people, managers or not, who've changed their spots, as it were. But it takes an effort, that's for sure.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 29 (of 29 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply