Katie(Casey): Yes, there were. Employees who are working fully remote had a steeper drop in employee engagement, while employees who are coming to the office with some regularity had a level of employee engagement almost identical to the prior quarter.
So they ran names and their WFP stats. Let it be known.
The only thing Glint measures at this point is how much anxiety people feel about telling the truth.
They send quarterly surveys, promise anonymity, then reward the cheerleaders and side eye anyone who sounds less than thrilled. The message is pretty clear. Play along and praise leadership or keep your head down. Either way, nothing meaningful changes.
So yes, I wish they would stop pretending these surveys are some big act of listening. They are not.
PL. I can see location, grade, and other metadata, so I can deduce who the anonymous user is. However, any PL should be able to figure out who they are. The main issue with Glint is that it’s performative, highlighting positives and ignoring negatives. The questions are also crafted to yield higher scores or add ambiguity. It is anonymized. It isn't anonymous to should expect protection.
@1thp BS. A leader, far higher than you, was able to drill down in Glint responses by location, job level, what have you. So if a manager has 10 direct reports in 3 locations, and 2 of them are 58's (one in Texas, other in California), he/she can easily drill down to a) whether his score were dragged downby 58's, and b) was it the 58 in California or Texas. This is how manager's are using it today, make no mistake about it being ananymous, they can easily derive who the troublemakers are.
@1thp+1o7AwPZL they didn’t say low level managers have access
Big Brother is always watching.
Glint is owned by Microsoft. It's not anonymous. Surveys like this are never anonymous. Period.
I call BS on the person who wrote “A leader said so and so is most/least engaged”. I run a massive team, been with the firm for 15+ years and in leadership for 5+ years. There is absolutely no way for us to identify individual responses in the Glint survey.
If we could see who did/didn’t complete them don’t you think we’d annoy those individuals instead of constantly asking the entire team to complete their surveys? All we see is the % of responses and our scores relative to the firm. I can’t even see how my boss’s DRs responded (and I used to be able to with previous annual surveys).
Theoretically could someone somewhere pinpoint responses to individuals? Maybe. But honestly no one has time for that and no one cares enough to do so. It’s pretty easy to see who’s checked out, who has an axe to grind, and who’s still trying to give a sh-t without going down a Glint rabbit hole.
As in specifically referencing glint? Like, "we saw so and so had low engagement based on survey". Or was it a general comment and you could be assuming it was from glint?
Not trying to argue, but additional context may help here.
Without revealing sources, a leader mentioned names of least/most engaged. Take it or leave, but just because we wish it was anonymous does not make it so.
Of course it is not anonymous. What advantage would management gain by not being able to parse who is saying what? We are told it is anonymous to placate us and not skew the results in one way.
I heard ba----g on my door at 3AM, saw mob with pitchforks and torches outside chanting "through client eyes". They were all wearing tshirts with Glint logo... sigh, never mind, I have to get back to work.
Finding out who they were doesn't mean they used the survey to figure it out. Some employees are candid enough to claim it...or they boast to colleagues. At Schwab, I know who on the team is likely giving low scores, so does the Manager. If that happened at TD, that's sad to hear. Or the MD lied as a weird boast or implied threat. I gave low scores for years...still got meets on reviews, got nice bonus (high meets) even got promoted. Now I'm in a better position, for my talent. That's me anyway. 57.
Once upon a time a TDA MD came to our city to take the team out for drinks and dinner and celebrate "the holidays". After a few he told a story about a particularly provocative response from one of those "anonymous" surveys. "I found it who it was and I fired her." My jaw almost dropped not because it confirmed my suspicions about the anonymity of such surveys but because he had gotten that far in his career without realizing that feedback, even if it's painful, is a gift. Well, and the whole non-retribrution policy. That guy wasn't around for the following year's holiday party, but I hope it answers any doubts about anonymity in corporate surveys. If they want to know badly enough...
Glint is not anonymous, it is confidential. There is a difference. Confidential means they can still see who responds how but since there are no verbatims, I am sure they are not going to spend time digging through 34K employees trying to find out who scored them low. Verbatims are a bit different depending on what is written and how alarming it is but even then, that is a lot of data to go through.
Who gives a cr-p if it’s anonymous or not? They can skew the results anyway they want to make themselves feel better about the situation. They know we are all upset and can’t cover it up
If it was fully anonymous, how would the managers be able to get their scores? The links are unique to the individual and not a global link that everyone uses.
Ok Katie
Conspiracy theorists! Glint is anonymous.
They specify in the emails that the link to the survey is unique and not to be shared. Why would that be necessary if everyone taking the survey was under the same full anonymity? I don't trust that Glint, a company I know very little about other than the fact that our HR uses them (and HR exists to protect the company - not us), is on our side when it comes to fully hiding our identity.
With my level of confidence in managers and leadership at this company to do their jobs, I'm not convinced that any amount of honesty in my responses will be able to help change things for the better. Since I'm also not convinced survey results are completely anonymous, negative sentiment can only really stand to hurt me rather than help.
It’s anonymous. Period.
Not names, wouldn't have to be. Simple metadata, could use any number of widgets like checking who used VPN to access. Way simpler than what you suggest. They don't care about a single employee's rankings...its consistent in the firm, always outliers they want. YoY, or department level. Its anonymous, from what I know (HR contacts high enough to know and yes, they'd love to know, sometimes).