At work, I'm blessed with a small tool that will ask me once a week how I am at work - how my energy level is; do I get good feedback; do I appreciate my boss; would I recommend my workplace to others. If there are any points where I think there is room for improvement, I will be asked anonymously to put an idea forward on how the improvement could take place.
That way, my boss gets a snapshot of the satisfaction level in the department, and an insight into whether there may be points where something should be done.
It is all very well.
Apparently.
Because I've discovered that unconciously, I will start thinking: if I answer this question in this way - will the tool come forward and ask me why? And would I have the energy, the space, the time or the ability to explain why?
Once you have this kind of thoughts, it suddenly becomes all to easy to jump to the conclusion: I just answer a little more positively than what I really feel - then I will not be asked.
The problem is: if I do, I simply undermine the whole process.
So, therefore, I've made a virtue out of - especially when I get that kind of thought - answering as honestly as possible. In the anonymous answer to the question that will follow, I will always be able reflect my thoughts as well as possible. Including whether I have to refrain from answering because I do not have the energy, the space, the time or the ability to explain adequately.
In that way, we maintain at least one figment of justification for spending time on such things.
(Translated from Noget om at svare ærligt, originally published March 18th, 2017)