Feedback



  • @_gaffer said:

    Wow. It's like the management survey version of "If I ask you for sex, will your answer be the same as to this question?".
     

    To which the correct answer is always "maybe".  Duh.



  • @snoofle said:

    Q1. Do you think we are ethical? (pick one)
    a. We encourage ethical behavior
    b. We are always ethical
    c. We provide an ethical environment
    d. We provide training on ethics

    First, "We are always ethical".  "Ethical" is open to debate and personal interpretation; so how could you possibly answer this question?  [my child and wife are in peril, and I can save one; what is the "ethical" choice?]

    Second, These 4 options appear to be yes/no questions on their own.  "We provide training on ethics" (yes/no) does not exclude "We encourage ethical behavior" (yes/no).



  • Maybe that was a sad attempt at "humor"?


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @spamcourt said:

    Maybe that was a sad attempt at "humor"?

    How... ironic.



  •  This can't possibly be real. It's got to be some sort of a joke or something a C*O typed up blind drunk one night.



  • @snoofle said:

    d. Ethics do not apply to my job function

     What jobs don't require ethics?  Off the top of my head:  assasin, bank robber, CIA Director



  • I actually like the idea of putting the "Ethics do not apply" answer on the form.  It lets you know who to either give remedial ethics training to or, more appropriately, who to fire.



  • @DOA said:

     This can't possibly be real. It's got to be some sort of a joke or something a C*O typed up blind drunk one night.

    Sorry dude, it's real, tho not cooked up (directly) by the brass. They delegated someone to act as a go-between with some management consulting company to create the survey, and they kept sending it back until they liked it. The consulting company obviously just typed what they were told.



  • @sprained said:

    @_gaffer said:

    Wow. It's like the management survey version of "If I ask you for sex, will your answer be the same as to this question?".
     

    To which the correct answer is always "maybe".  Duh.

    Or "My answer would be a complaint to HR for sexual harassment."



  • @snoofle said:

    Q2. How effective is our ethical program? (pick one)


    Did you send an e-mail suggesting that the ethical program clearly wasn't very effective and offering this survey as evidence?



  • The quick definition of ethics is simply "rules of conduct". There is no value judgement as to whether these are good rules or bad rules.

     If 100% of your work day can be defined by "rules of conduct", then you can be replaced by a robot or computer program.

     



  • @Rick said:

    ... then you can be replaced by a robot or computer program.

    Crap ... not AGAIN!



  • @snoofle said:

    The consulting company obviously just typed what they were told.
     

    Which makes them clearly competent to consult on ethics. Oh, the irony!

    If you go back and look at the entire survey replacing "ethical" with "management-approved", does it suddenly make a whole lot more sense?




  • @snoofle said:

    And they wonder why these things don't ever lead to effective change.

    The implicit assumption here is that Team C* wants effective change. But why would they? They're already at the top of the heap, and I'm sure they are keenly aware that any actually effective change would involve at least some risk of upsetting the established order.

    Far safer to keep following standard procedure.



  • @sprained said:

    @_gaffer said:

    Wow. It's like the management survey version of "If I ask you for sex, will your answer be the same as to this question?".
     

    To which the correct answer is always "maybe".  Duh.

    I'd say "No, because when you ask for sex, I'll run away screaming."



  • Something tells me that this is how the questions on the ballot would be formulated if North Korea ever held a referendum.



  • @_gaffer said:

    I've seen some shitty management feedback, but this is definitely the most blatant bias.



    Our most recent survey had "What change has had the most value?" which rather naively assumes that a.) more than one change was going to happen, b.) those changes have actually occurred in the recent past and c.) that these changes had positive value.

    The only change I've seen is a couple of pizza parties for the office... management is still clueless, people don't get raises, and HQ still has no strategy accept "do what Gartner recommends." Pretty sure most people responded with "Something changed? Really? Are you sure?"



  •  I remember having the same kind of survey, less biaised thought, at my company.

     

    Some of the question where on the form:

    In a range of 0 to 5, How much support do you consider you get from your N+1, and lots of quesitons about your N+1 and N+2

     

    Two weeks after starting the survey,  they had to send the whole company a document stating who was N+1 f who, people didn't even know who their head was :D And for people who knew, they had the surprise to discover they actually didn't know!



  • It seems to me that most management think that 'Ethics' is a county on the East coast of England.



  • @Ex-Navy Dude said:

    The only change I've seen is a couple of pizza parties for the office...

    What puzzles me most about these things is how well they work on some employees. The attitude seems to be "Oh WOW! FREE PIZZA!", and a genuine opinion that the company is being generous.

    I get this attitude in places like call centres, where pay isn't great, and time to socialise at work is rare, but seeing highly paid contractors react like that is odd. Free pizza during your normal lunch break just shouldn't be that exciting when most of you are getting paid 5-10x what the pizza cost for your time eating it.



  • @ip-guru said:

    It seems to me that most management think that 'Ethics' is a county on the East coast of England.

    From which it naturally follows that what the company actually needs is a vajazzle.



  • @_gaffer said:

    @Ex-Navy Dude said:
    The only change I've seen is a couple of pizza parties for the office...

    What puzzles me most about these things is how well they work on some employees. The attitude seems to be "Oh WOW! FREE PIZZA!", and a genuine opinion that the company is being generous.

    I get this attitude in places like call centres, where pay isn't great, and time to socialise at work is rare, but seeing highly paid contractors react like that is odd. Free pizza during your normal lunch break just shouldn't be that exciting when most of you are getting paid 5-10x what the pizza cost for your time eating it.

    Reminds them of college or something? Here, they are at least doing pizza and beer at 6pm on an occasional Friday but they cancel out the positive by including little speeches from local managers. 10 minutes of blather from the accounting controller kills even the hint of fun.



  • @Ex-Navy Dude said:

    @_gaffer said:
    @Ex-Navy Dude said:
    The only change I've seen is a couple of pizza parties for the office...

    What puzzles me most about these things is how well they work on some employees. The attitude seems to be "Oh WOW! FREE PIZZA!", and a genuine opinion that the company is being generous.

    I get this attitude in places like call centres, where pay isn't great, and time to socialise at work is rare, but seeing highly paid contractors react like that is odd. Free pizza during your normal lunch break just shouldn't be that exciting when most of you are getting paid 5-10x what the pizza cost for your time eating it.

    Reminds them of college or something? Here, they are at least doing pizza and beer at 6pm on an occasional Friday but they cancel out the positive by including little speeches from local managers. 10 minutes of blather from the accounting controller kills even the hint of fun.

    Also, being at work at 6pm on Friday would cancel almost any fun for me. Actually, the speeches before being allowed at the food were almost always the most entertaining part. The content of the speeches was just as awful, but it was fun watching the chunkier members of staff trying to shuffle themselves closer to the food without being obvious, so they could be in prime position at the end of the speech. As soon as eating time started, a dozen meaty paws would plunge into whatever food was provided, and the gorging would begin.



  • @DrPepper said:

    First, "We are always ethical".  "Ethical" is open to debate and personal interpretation; so how could you possibly answer this question?  [my child and wife are in peril, and I can save one; what is the "ethical" choice?]

    Easy answer: save the child

    Reasoning:

    If you could ask your wife if she wanted you to save her or the child, and she said herself, then what kind of mother is she, therefore save the child.  If she says save the child then you better do what your wife says.

    Secondly I would have planned in advance for some crazy situtation like this by having life insurance taken out on my wife, so if she dies I would get money.

    Thirdly if carrying is involved, getting a small child out of danger is easier than a full grown adult, so you have a better chance of success.

    In the end I can save the wife, and end up with either a horrible or very upset wife or I can save the child and get a lot of money.

    Does not seem that complicated to me.



  • I encountered a feedback form like this on a Sony website (must resist urge to rant about Sony.... resisted).



    Same sort of thing, back when I had to (my previous employer bought a lot of vaios because the higher ups like having bling laptops) navigating their websites to get something as simple as a set of drivers for a system being re-installed was a nightmare. So When the chance appeared to fill in one of those "How did you find your experience on our website" surveys, I clicked it in the hope that I could have a rant.



    The survey was much the same as the one described here, purely an exercise in fudging the statistics with questions like "How easy was it to navigate out website?" and "Was our website helpful in finding what you wanted." all with answers like "A. Absolutely top notch, B. Very good, C. Fucking amazing" (not actually quote obviously). The option to provide and answer they didn't want to hear simply wasn't provided.



    The end result being of course that Sony could publish something internally or externally saying "We surveyed X people and 95% of them were satisified (with a 5% margin for error)."



  • @ip-guru said:

    It seems to me that most management think that 'Ethics' is a county on the East coast of England.

     

    That's the one from the proverbial "you can the girl out of Ethics, but you can't get Ethics out of the girl", innit?



  • @justanotheradmin said:

    it will allow you to answer No, but you cannot then submit the form. Instead, you are told "Please discuss any unsatisfactory answers with your supervisor, and resubmit the form when the issues have been resolved"
     

    Is anyone tracking outstanding forms?

    "why haven't you submitted your form yet?"

    "my supervisor is still waiting on $management to resolve my issue, but apparently creating useless questionnaires is a higher priority than resolving my issue, so the form resubmission has been delayed"

    @Ben L. said:

    @sprained said:

    [quote
    user="_gaffer"]Wow. It's like the management survey version of "If I ask
    you for sex, will your answer be the same as to this
    question?".

     

    To which the correct answer is always "maybe".  Duh.

    I'd say "No, because when you ask for sex, I'll run away screaming."[/quote] 

    But
    if the "other" question was "will you raun away screaming when asked
    for sex" then your response to the survey would be "yes".

    Very meta.

     

    Footnote: we had a staff survey in which all answers were anonymous, except they were to be submitted via an envelope with our names penned top-right. I made a point of scoring specific people low on certain areas, with justification that if we were genuinely interested in making improvements then they'd call me up (or out) to discuss the reasons behind those scores.

    So far, nobody's come knocking...

     



  • I don't know if your environment needs to be SOX compliant, but I seem to recall that SOX requires an anonymous, out of band reporting mechanism be available to employees to report ethical violations within the company. A cooked "ethics survey" would seem to qualify.

    Wikileaks also comes to mind.



  •  On a scale of fantastic to amazing, how awesome are we?



  • @Cassidy said:

    But if the "other" question was "will you raun away screaming when asked for sex" then your response to the survey would be "yes".

    Answer to second question: First answer
    Affirmative Negative
    Desired Sex Yes. Yes.
    outcome No sex [paradox] Get the fuck away from me!


  • @Anketam said:

    Easy answer: save the child


    Disagree: If the child has, let's say, 6 year, it will take you about 7 year to grow back a new child to this level and perhaps more children. Growing back a wife will take you about 20 years if you want a young one. More over, if you are leftover single dad, it will cost you money and can reduce your chance of "finding a new wife" (if you don't want to go thru the grow process).

    In terms of experience lost, money lost, and time investments, save the child is always a bad option.



  • Pretty sure that was a plot point in the Will Smith I, Robot movie.



  • I worked at a company a few years ago that sent out a similar survey to all of their employees.  The survey was extremely clear that it was anonymous feedback.  It went out to around 1000 people.  Bear in mind, the survey was only accessible through the company's intranet...  As a contractor I decided not getting involved was the best bet.

    A few days later the CTO and CEO came up to the guy sitting next to me (also a contractor) and asked him to pull up the logs on who submitted a particular set of survey responses.  He did.  Those people (about 60) found that their positions had been eliminated due to cost savings that afternoon.

    Point is: unless you have praise for the company you shouldn't respond to these.



  • @hunter9000 said:

     On a scale of fantastic to amazing, how awesome are we?


    -2.5 amazing



  • @_gaffer said:

    Wow. It's like the management survey version of "If I ask you for sex, will your answer be the same as to this question?".

     

    Hm..."No, my answer would be much less polite than this one."


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @tchize said:

    @Anketam said:

    Easy answer: save the child


    Disagree: If the child has, let's say, 6 year, it will take you about 7 year to grow back a new child to this level and perhaps more children. Growing back a wife will take you about 20 years if you want a young one. More over, if you are leftover single dad, it will cost you money and can reduce your chance of "finding a new wife" (if you don't want to go thru the grow process).

    In terms of experience lost, money lost, and time investments, save the child is always a bad option.

    To answer your last sentence, this is only true in a subsistence environment. To answer your first paragraph, it's all stuff and nonsense. You don't "grow back a wife." If you wanted another one you would look through the pool of adults (generally those in your age range, but of course it doesn't have to be.)

    Absent a subsistence environment I would be leery of any parent whose answer wasn't "save the child." In particular, I wouldn't want to associate with any mother who said "save me," because they're almost certainly morallly defective. I can only assume you're not a parent.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @NotHere said:

    I worked at a company a few years ago that sent out a similar survey to all of their employees.  The survey was extremely clear that it was anonymous feedback.  It went out to around 1000 people.  Bear in mind, the survey was only accessible through the company's intranet...  As a contractor I decided not getting involved was the best bet.

    A few days later the CTO and CEO came up to the guy sitting next to me (also a contractor) and asked him to pull up the logs on who submitted a particular set of survey responses.  He did.  Those people (about 60) found that their positions had been eliminated due to cost savings that afternoon.

    Point is: unless you have praise for the company you shouldn't respond to these.

    We're well into topic drift here, but my company's web product has an "anonymous suggestion" feature. We take pains to point out to customers that it's not, strictly speaking, truly anonymous, although we have one customer who thought it was. And then someone actually trolled through database logs to find out who'd submitted a "suggestion" she found offensive.

    Interestingly enough, they wanted a truly anonymous suggestion box. We pointed out to them several times that that meant, you know, serious-sounding death threats, for example, couldn't be traced, which was more or less exactly why the original feature wasn't truly anonymous and they said they'd take the risk, so I wrote a replacement version for them that was as anonymous as possible. Now theoretically someone could do mass examinations of employees' browser caches or something, but it'd be a lot harder to track down who submitted a suggestion.



  • @FrostCat said:

    @tchize said:
    @Anketam said:

    Easy answer: save the child


    Disagree: If the child has, let's say, 6 year, it will take you about 7 year to grow back a new child to this level and perhaps more children. Growing back a wife will take you about 20 years if you want a young one. More over, if you are leftover single dad, it will cost you money and can reduce your chance of "finding a new wife" (if you don't want to go thru the grow process).

    In terms of experience lost, money lost, and time investments, save the child is always a bad option.

    To answer your last sentence, this is only true in a subsistence environment. To answer your first paragraph, it's all stuff and nonsense. You don't "grow back a wife." If you wanted another one you would look through the pool of adults (generally those in your age range, but of course it doesn't have to be.)

    Absent a subsistence environment I would be leery of any parent whose answer wasn't "save the child." In particular, I wouldn't want to associate with any mother who said "save me," because they're almost certainly morallly defective. I can only assume you're not a parent.


    I'm pretty sure he was mildly joking however I do agree that the only rational choice is to save the mother unless there are special circunstances but I don't get how saving X over Y is morally defective (after all self preservation is a basic instinct which we have and lack of it would make me suspect that there is something really wrong about that person) or how parenting would make you a better judge on a life or dead situation (I would assume that it would be a deterrent as feeling would cloud your reasoning)



  • @serguey123 said:

    I'm pretty sure he was mildly joking however I do agree that the only rational choice is to save the mother unless there are special circunstances

    Sure, sure, it's just a 24th trimester abortion, after all.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @serguey123 said:
    I'm pretty sure he was mildly joking however I do agree that the only rational choice is to save the mother unless there are special circunstances

    Sure, sure, it's just a 24th trimester abortion, after all.


    If you have provable rational arguments that contradict that proposition you are more than welcome to post them, I would love to read them. If you prefer to use the abortion debate, I also welcome provable rational arguments on whichever side you like as well as solutions if you like.



  • @serguey123 said:

    @boomzilla said:
    @serguey123 said:
    I'm pretty sure he was mildly joking however I do agree that the only rational choice is to save the mother unless there are special circunstances

    Sure, sure, it's just a 24th trimester abortion, after all.

    If you have provable rational arguments that contradict that proposition you are more than welcome to post them, I would love to read them. If you prefer to use the abortion debate, I also welcome provable rational arguments on whichever side you like as well as solutions if you like.

    So, what's the rational reason for saving the mother instead of the child?

    I would state that one of the primary purposes of being a parent is to protect the child. Also, the mother's instincts would be to protect the child. Since both the father and the mother generally hold the child's well being above their own, isn't the rational thing to respect those wishes? Now, there are exceptions and horrible human beings. It may be better if those people do not have offspring who reach maturity.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @serguey123 said:
    @boomzilla said:
    @serguey123 said:
    I'm pretty sure he was mildly joking however I do agree that the only rational choice is to save the mother unless there are special circunstances

    Sure, sure, it's just a 24th trimester abortion, after all.

    If you have provable rational arguments that contradict that proposition you are more than welcome to post them, I would love to read them. If you prefer to use the abortion debate, I also welcome provable rational arguments on whichever side you like as well as solutions if you like.

    So, what's the rational reason for saving the mother instead of the child?

    I would state that one of the primary purposes of being a parent is to protect the child. Also, the mother's instincts would be to protect the child. Since both the father and the mother generally hold the child's well being above their own, isn't the rational thing to respect those wishes? Now, there are exceptions and horrible human beings. It may be better if those people do not have offspring who reach maturity.

     

    Taken from a solely and coldly rational standpoint, the purpose of being a parent is to propagate one's genes. One does so more successfully by surviving (and one's mate's surviving) to support any existing children and create more children, than by sacrificing one's life to save a single offspring that is likely too young to survive on its own.  That is, if one is still young and healthy enough to procreate and support children.  That equation changes if one has aged past the point of fertility or the ability to contribute significantly to the feeding and care of the offspring.

     

     



  • @boomzilla said:

    So, what's the rational reason for saving the mother instead of the child?


    A full explanation would require some math and would be fairly long so I'll simplify it by saying that a child is a long term/high risk investment and an adult is in most cases the opposite of that, a safe bet and the reward for a child in relation to the adult is not guaranteed to be better (by reward I mean the net benefit of that person in society at large).@boomzilla said:

    I would state that one of the primary purposes of being a parent is to protect the child.


    Agreed, most mammal including humans do tend to their cubs in some fashion, however they do so to further their gene pool so unless your wife is too old to procreate and help raise the child (in which case you should save the child) or if you are too old to procreate (in which case saving neither is also acceptable).
    @boomzilla said:

    Also, the mother's instincts would be to protect the child.


    No such thing exist. Humans as well as most mammals do have some imprinting that makes most of them react favorably to younglins (that is why most people likes pictures of babies or puppies) as well as some basic herd instinct to protect them even when they are not their own, but this is not particular to females or parents. Furthermore most mammals including humans can easily overcome this if the situation requires it.
    @boomzilla said:

    Since both the father and the mother generally hold the child's well being above their own


    Do you have statistical proof of this? Again, this flies against the basic instinct of self preservation so I highly doubt that is true.
    @boomzilla said:

    there are exceptions


    I agree but I think that what I consider exceptions is totally different to what you consider exceptions
    @boomzilla said:

    isn't the rational thing to respect those wishes?


    No, not really.
    @boomzilla said:

    horrible human beings.


    ?? This baffles me a lot, I have never heard of an actual horrible human being, unless you mean ugly and that is of course subjected to cultural and race differences
    @boomzilla said:

    It may be better if those people do not have offspring who reach maturity.


    Hmm, I would say that parenting requires some effort that not everybody might be willing to do or not be equally committed but some interesting humans do come from broken homes and there is at least a correlation between their nurture and later life acomplishments.



  • @serguey123 said:

    @boomzilla said:
    So, what's the rational reason for saving the mother instead of the child?
    A full explanation would require some math and would be fairly long so I'll simplify it by saying that a child is a long term/high risk investment and an adult is in most cases the opposite of that, a safe bet and the reward for a child in relation to the adult is not guaranteed to be better (by reward I mean the net benefit of that person in society at large).

    That's some high quality trolling. Wow. I see how you did it. Nothing as explosive as a moral issue, so you hop on it, make a bold statement contradiction the common sentiment, and, bang!, you're a successful troll. And then some hand waiving about "require some math", I mean: brillant! Let them defend themselves for saving the child. Wonderful strategy. You say maths, and everyone overlooks the load of assumptions that have to be made to turn a problem like this into math. You get away the winner.

    Successfull troll is successfull!



  • @sprained said:

    Taken from a solely and coldly rational standpoint, the purpose of being a parent is to propagate one's genes.

    Masterful conflation of disparate aspects of the word "purpose" there. Golf clap.



  • @TGV said:

    Nothing as explosive as a moral issue
     

    This thread has no explosive content. I think you're tired and have reduced perspective. You should get a good night's sleep.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @serguey123 said:

    @boomzilla said:
    @serguey123 said:
    I'm pretty sure he was mildly joking however I do agree that the only rational choice is to save the mother unless there are special circunstances

    Sure, sure, it's just a 24th trimester abortion, after all.


    If you have provable rational arguments that contradict that proposition you are more than welcome to post them, I would love to read them. If you prefer to use the abortion debate, I also welcome provable rational arguments on whichever side you like as well as solutions if you like.

    I'll start: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100189912/irelands-abortion-laws-we-need-to-get-the-facts-straight/



  • @serguey123 said:

    @boomzilla said:
    So, what's the rational reason for saving the mother instead of the child?

    A full explanation would require some math and would be fairly long so I'll simplify it by saying I have an excellent proof of this that is too long to fit into this post, but I'll say that a child is a long term/high risk investment and an adult is in most cases the opposite of that, a safe bet and the reward for a child in relation to the adult is not guaranteed to be better (by reward I mean the net benefit of that person in society at large).

    FLFPTFY. Well, even with your math, I'm sure it comes down to what you value more, and that's a starting assumption, so we're just talking past each other now. And I can assure you that the reward on the investment in the child is not entirely long term.

    @serguey123 said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Since both the father and the mother generally hold the child's well being above their own

    Do you have statistical proof of this? Again, this flies against the basic instinct of self preservation so I highly doubt that is true.

    I can't imagine what statistical proof for or against could possibly be. A lot of things fly against the basic instinct of self preservation. Just look at any blakeyrant. That sort of rage in anyone can't be good for your health.

    @serguey123 said:

    @boomzilla said:
    horrible human beings.

    ?? This baffles me a lot, I have never heard of an actual horrible human being, unless you mean ugly and that is of course subjected to cultural and race differences

    I'm a person. I judge things. And people. That's my judgment (which should have been obvious). I don't apologize for thinking that some cultures / civilizations / behaviors are superior to others. If you are the sort of person that does enough things that I judge horrible, then you probably earn an "horrible human being" rating. I can't explain your inability to do so.



  • @TGV said:

    That's some high quality trolling


    I would call it playing devil's advocate but you are free to call it whatever you want
    @TGV said:

    Nothing as explosive as a moral issue


    This is where we disagree, I don't see it as a moral issue, more to the point, morality is something that changes to reflect society so whatever we consider the moral choice winner today was not so yesterday and would not be the same tomorrow.
    @TGV said:

    hand waiving


    I do not see how waving a hand or any part of my body would help, unless the audience had the mental maturity of a toddler, which I guess is a fairly accurate description how most people think of the average YouTube commenter but I though we were more exclusive than that.
    @TGV said:

    Let them defend themselves for saving the child.


    I merely would like to hear the rationale behind it.
    @TGV said:

    You say maths, and everyone overlooks the load of assumptions that have to be made to turn a problem like this into math.


    I just consider forum posting not the best medium for actual meaningful discourse, so I use shortcuts instead of boring the audience, you are more than welcome to study math and anthropology to see if we arrive at the same conclusion, again if you possess interesting insight into it I would love to read about it



  • @serguey123 said:

    I just consider forum posting not the best medium for actual meaningful discourse,
     

    The alternative is vocal discussion, which is abysmal in every way.


Log in to reply

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.