"What would keep both of them in an alliance? Wouldn't it be obvious for at least one of them that he's at risk of being screwed?"
"Not necessarily. They might not think that far, or, most likely, if both of them believe they're smarter than the other, then they both think they stand a better chance of screwing their adversary first. They both could be thinking they're leading this game."
"Nice attitude," Alex said, rolling her eyes.
"Alex, why don't you continue your initial approach," Tom said, "let's move to the third issue on the list."
"Right," Alex said, turning toward the whiteboard. "Employee engagement. What I have seen is that, on most categories, employee engagement is lower than the local and industry averages, just like Dr. Barnaby stated. I'm also encountering, in the comments, few usable entries. Some caught my interest, though. One stated—" she shuffled her notes and found the one she was looking for, "OK, here it is: 'Do you think I don't know we've got static IPs?'" She looked at Tom and Steve and saw the need to explain further.
"An employee's so-called confidential entry in such a survey can be less than confidential in two situations. One is when he or she is alone or almost alone in a distinguishable category of the analyzed group. Let's say, for instance, that the manufacturing group gets the survey stats analyzed as a separate group, because they are large enough — they have hundreds of employees, so the assumption of confidentiality is realistic, due to the large number of entries. However, this survey is also geared to analyze data separately, within the group, by job level. Therefore, if the executive level, for example, has only three roles, let's say two directors and one vice president, their specific entries can be easily separated from the rest of the group, thus their confidentiality is compromised. Especially in the case of leaders, expressing less-than-stellar engagement is risky, and they know it. However, not all of them know their entries are not as confidential as the company is stating. This is one mode in which the promised confidentiality in such surveys is breached."
She reached for her coffee cup and found it empty. She put it back on the desk, with a quick sigh. "The second one, the static IP this worker is referencing, is a bit more technical. All networked computers can obtain their IP dynamically, as in getting a new IP on each startup, or statically, where the machine has a well-defined IP that will remain associated with the specific machine and its user, even after the computer restarts. If the survey interface is set to capture IP addresses associated with individual entries, the confidentiality of the entries is compromised to the individual level, regardless of group and group size."
"What's an IP?" Tom ventured.
"Stands for Internet protocol, the rules under which a computer can function in a network. This set of rules contains an address that precisely identifies each networked computer."
"Why would a confidential survey platform capture IPs?" Steve asked.
"Generally there is some benefit from slicing and dicing the survey data by geographical area, therefore the functionality has been built in. There is also some expectation of ethics on behalf of the employer companies, so the survey service providers are not assuming their clients will abuse the confidentiality promise they make to their employees. If it happens… it's pathetic. But it does happen."
She instinctively reached for the coffee cup again, then she stopped midway, remembering it was empty, just as empty as it had been a few minutes before. "Going back to this employee's comment, his statement reveals, again, fear." She stopped to write the word under the third column of her table, on the whiteboard. "Because of the lower than average scores, we can assume that employees are dissatisfied with their work environments, while some might even be disgruntled." She wrote dissatisfaction under the same column, and then continued. "Another entry states 'Are you serious???' The comment ended with three question marks, showing an emotional response."
"What was the question?" Steve asked.
"The question? What do you mean?"
"What was the question these comments were answering?"
"Oh. Yes. The question was 'Please give us your feedback on any concerns you have with your work environment. Your confidentiality is guaranteed.' So the emotional response may be toward the confidentiality guarantee."
"Or toward the perception of futility of such efforts, or both," Steve said.
"How do you mean?"
"If the employee perceives that the feedback he is willing to give will fall on deaf ears, or be in the hands of a decision maker who is not interested in righting any wrongs, he would feel his efforts are futile, and he can decide to voice his disappointment. If, on top of that, the employee also perceives his willingness to give open and honest feedback as a potential career risk, he is even more frustrated. He can even feel insulted — insulted by the company's claim of confidentiality — which he knows is false — and the appearance of pursuing the employees' best interest — which he knows is hypocritical and deceitful. Hence, the emotional response. What do you think?" Steve asked, looking toward Tom.
"Very possible. I can't think of any other scenario for now, but more ideas might come to mind as time passes and we review more information. Alex, do you have any other notable comments from the survey?"
"One more. This one states, cryptically, 'I will not repeat myself for the third time over,' indicating he or she has provided feedback twice before and has seen no improvement. This comment is helpful; it indicates the problem is not new — it has been around for a while."
"So, what's your action plan for the survey?" Tom asked.
"I thought of spending some time further analyzing this data, looking at differences among groups, and trying to pinpoint which are the most troubled areas. But in my experience, employees are unhappy as a consequence, not as a cause. I'd like to pursue the causes, rather than analyze the consequences. My guess is that if we figure out and fix what's wrong in the other three problem areas, this one will fall into place on its own. What do you think?
"I agree," Tom said, "let's consider this a secondary issue."
Steve nodded thoughtfully.
"Proceeding to number four and the most troublesome one, the drone safety concerns. This one, well, is extremely risky to dig into."
"Why?" Steve asked.
"I can't go around and measure the reliability and safety parameters of the products. I can't even assess the quality of the software products they install, well, that maybe I could, but the physical quality of the products is out of my reach. I can't go around asking questions either." Her voice reached a higher pitch, reflecting her anguish.
"Take it easy," Tom said, in his calming voice, "don't think what you cannot do. Don't think impossible, make shopping lists. Don't think obstacles, think needs."
"Needs?"
"If I were to ask you to dig a sixty-feet long, three feet deep, two feet wide ditch in front of this building, before end of business today, what would you say? Can it be done?"
"Um… sure, but I need workers, shovels, excavators, power tools—"
"Yes, these are the needs. The resources needed to complete the task. Think resources; don't think it can't be done. If you take the complex task you have on hand and break it down into simpler, smaller tasks, then get resources for each task, you're home free. So, what do you need?"
Alex thought about it for a little while, her gaze out the window, at the perfectly blue sky. It felt good to construct the list, the feeling of frustrating powerlessness fading away, giving place to her relentless initiative and courage.