Is it anonymous?
19 replies (most recent on top)
I’d be less concerned about the promise of anonymity than how hr will spin this and manipulate it
@ds Totally agree. First time I have filled out the survey in 20 years...all excellent reviews up until a few months ago. Do not trust anyone! No way this is a coincidence. No way I went from winning corporate awards to su-king.
I saw from the open questions talking about LTI being stripped off. Looks like a common theme about benefits kept removing from employees.
It is anonymous. We promise. --HR
@jj "Probably by expediting your departure, because HR is there to protect the company, not the employees." - never have more true words been spoken. Sadly, HR was a beloved and supportive organization for many decades. People who hired into the company in the 80s and 90s appreciated how this organization supported special needs and requests. What happened? Jimbo McNerney brought in his pernicious GE ways and viewed HR as a means to promote younger workers over productive senior employees (3M had to settle an age discrimination lawsuit after he left the mess to Buckley). And HR spent most of its time processing RIFs at Jimbo's request so JM could please Wall Street with another "earnings beat" after slashing 1000s of workers. DO NOT risk your career telling 3M how rotten things are through a survey designed to root out dissenters. DO NOT fawn about BB either, like those clapping seals did for Tireman doing his town halls.
@jg I'm sure HR will be happy to jump right on that.
Probably by expediting your departure, because HR is there to protect the company, not the employees.
If at any point you feel retaliated for giving your opinion, call HR and say “ this feels like a pattern of retaliation”.
Could not care ANY less if they know what I wrote and how I answered. Don't like it? Fire me. Don't like the answers given, management should ask themselves why.
Some years ago the corporate cafeteria went through an epiphany. Higher prices, smaller portions, fewer choices.
Anyone been to the Center Cafe lately. Is it better quality and price? If not, perhaps BB should hire back Tireman who at least knows a thing or two about food and drink services from Starbucks.
Fine, let them fire me if my answers to the survey lead them to that conclusion.
I’m not doing anything wrong, I’m questioning the status quo. I’m asked to do so by leadership. No negative feelings but constructive feedback.
Real talk, they are taking away many of the perks (company cars, EverydayWins, WFH, ..). I’ll need to pay additional 500 bucks/month due to that in the future, just because I’ll need to drive additional 20k miles per year, and on top, spend 20% more time for commuting per week. To sit in a crowded open office space without any direct colleagues, being on Teams calls all day. But yeah, we’ll still have flexibility to join calls in the early morning and late evening from home - thanks god, „you can leave early on these days and take the call from home“. A-w-e-s-o-m-e, thanks so much!
And then they ask for how to drive higher performance? Really? What does Bill think how RTO will impact my motivation and willingness to over-perform?
Did Bill ever think about people already performing well every day for years? He’s trying to bring under-performers up by fxxcking up everyone else. I’m an adult expert, I’m very well able to manage my work and I’m for sure not performing better after commuting for over an hour on four days a week and having a coffee with a random colleague.
Ok, this went sideways but hey, come on, it just doesn’t make any sense..
Send it!
From the replies to the open question in the survey, everyone has the same sentiment. Let loose and giv'er.
Bill Brown is pushing ahead with an extremely unpopular RTO mandate that he even admits will not drive increased productivity.
If he's not willing to listen to employees when we're vocal about it AND it will cost the company money, why would he listen to anything else we say?
This is just performative; they'll have "results" spun in such a way that they can say they're doing what we wanted by assigning more work outside our normal jobs to "upskill" us, or something.
No, there is a way to identify each responder (if HR wants to do so). you may face retaliation if your answers are perceived as negative. As others indicated in earlier replies no action will be taken by the leaders as a result of the survey, so why take the risk with no upside.
@a7 "Especially if it involves criticism of them goosing the stock price with wasteful buybacks to increase their compensation" - BINGO! Inge's single biggest "investment" was borrowing billions to buyback 3M stock. Why? It goosed the stock price so high that it scared off activist investors who went after DuPont and Dow to break up the companies into "focused" smaller pieces (it didn't work - check out combined Market Cap before and after and long-term shareholders lost money). Sad part is BB is only going to do what Inge and Mikey wanted to avoid 10 years ago. 3M will become several 0.5M to 0.75M sized.
Back in the day these surveys were done offline so were somewhat anonymous. One made a comment that his boss’s lobotomy was a complete success. Then the group did a spelling test and Barry was the only one who could spell lobotomy. He survived that but eventually got fired for something else.
I don't fill it out anymore. Worthless performative exercise. Management doesn't listen to any criticisms. Especially if it involves criticism of them goosing the stock price with wasteful buybacks to increase their compensation. All short timers with no vision to grow sales or the company. Waste of time.
Used to be. Two reasons I wouldn't bother: (1) BB will not listen to the message unless people who clapped at Tireman's Town Halls are the only people responding. (2) If you are negative, especially about your boss, they clearly have a way to filter down to the leader level. And a leader can probably figure out who "ratted" on them.
Short answer: NO
The privacy notice on the survey indicates confidential. Confidential is very different than anonymous. Complete with caution.