The title of this post might seem bit odd, but it is the only phrase that describes the phenomenon that I am seeing as I work with businesses in various industries today. Here’s where it comes from.
Frequently at some point during the facilitation of a strategic planning effort, we will conduct a survey of employees. The goal of these surveys is to gain employee insights regarding the current culture within the company, the openness of communication channels within the company, and their perspectives regarding where the company should be headed in the future.
At the outset we structure the surveys so that they can be delivered to the employees anonymously, so that employees can respond anonymously, and so that we can gain some insights into how operations differ across locations within the business. Of course, that last objective tends to create concerns regarding whether the anonymity will really be protected when the results are shared, and that’s where the paranoia emerges.
Invariably when the e-mail announcing the survey is sent, someone responds to me almost immediately asking if we are truly serious about protecting the identities of the respondents. My response is that we have sent the survey anonymously, but we have no way to track who has received it, and that we have no desire to track the respondents. I confirm that the goal of the planning team is simply to gain the insight of those who work on the front lines in the business so their perspectives are considered in developing the vision for the future of the business.
And here’s where the irony really begins. Some of the employees who doubt that their anonymity will be protected opt to print out the form, then mail me their completed survey with a signed note and a return address label that includes their name. Other concerned employees will call me and ask me a series of questions, sometimes intended to trip me up and make me reveal that we are not actually protecting their identities, and in the process they often will share specific comments that make it impossible for me to not know who said what in the survey.
So what’s my point?
First, when employees are as concerned as they seem to be about protecting the anonymity of their input regarding organization, it tells me loud and clear there are serious problems within the organization. Most often these are tied to communication, and more often than not to specific individuals who are simply not trusted.
Second, not how clearly you state your intentions and how many times you give assurances to people, they are likely to doubt what you are saying until they receive some sort of proof. In these types of situations, the proof usually occurs in surveys conducted in future years…the questions disappear and the candor increases after people have seen firsthand that their input was indeed heard and considered.
Third, if you are not asking people on a regular basis what they think, they will tend to wonder why you suddenly want to know, and that creates uncertainty that can be uncomfortable for them. This may in fact be one of the real issues that we are seeing with the kinds of surveys that I am discussing here. Because the questions have not been asked before, the employees wonder what follows the inquiry.
Fourth, no matter how you set up the process, it is imperative that you provide people with a way to share their thoughts, opinions, and ideas in a way that does not feel threatening to them. It is even more important that you make sure they can see that the things they have said were in fact considered, and that you keep the lines of communication open along the way.
Finally, if you have not experienced such a process, let me encourage you to secure input from your team in some systemmatic way on a regular basis. If you hve a small organization, simply conduct a series of one on one meetings. If you are large enough to do a survey, hire a consultant who is familiar with the process and conduct one each year, or more often if you can. It is a great way to open up the lines of communication and to learn what people are thinking…which allows you to lead them more effectively.
One Important Caveat: While I am proponent of asking and listening, I urge caution in how you respond to what you hear. All of the feedback will not be good, and some of it may even be divisive. The key is how you handle what you hear and what you do to protect the messengers. It is also important to make sure that what you learn goes beyond individual biases and concerns…you want to tackle the stuff that gets in the way of productivity, not the stuff that is just grumbling and noise.
Share This
Read more at: .
|
