Phishing licence
Phishing is a major security concern, no doubt about it, and it's one that troubles InstantlyForgettableNameCorp greatly. We're constantly reminded, as if we were attention-deficient toddlers, about the dangers of phishing attacks. IT security tries to trap us on occasion, by sending us test messages with naughty links, as if we didn't have anything better to do than play silly-bugger games. They even preface all external mail with a warning that gets in the way of scanning messages for prioritisation in the Outlook inbox.
I have recently received a dodgy-looking survey from an external source carrying that very warning. Twice. I have dutifully reported it to IT security as a suspected phishing attack. Twice. Aren't I a good boy? Twice.
And it appears I'm not alone: my colleagues have also reported the same phishing attack. But it turns out that this survey is the HR employee satisfaction survey, redux. And we're expected to complete it so as to keep the somnambulant mouth-breathers among the executive leadership team happy.
The last survey seems to have amounted to square root of bugger all really, and I wouldn't expect this one to be any different. Nevertheless, there's some seriously mixed messages being sent here.
If I didn't already know the answer, I'd question whether anyone had thought his shit through.
Look on the bright side
The survey is supposedly anonymous; but it's not, at least not completely, it can't be. For a start, we've each received a link to the survey with a unique token. And we've had feedback from management as to how many of us degenerates have completed it, at a line manager level. How could they know that, if the respondents' identities weren't logged? It's not as if it's needed to prevent double-dipping, simply a record of which tokens have been used would suffice.
It's highly likely that the third party collects the identifying data solely for the purpose of managing the survey, and it's not passed over to HR. That would be a significant reason for outsourcing in the first place. So I assume the survey is effectively anonymous to HR. Then again, I can think of no reason why the unique tokens should be linked to employees' identities. And is it worth running the risk of submitting a brutally honest response, when nothing changes anyway?
It's probably best to just give them positive feedback, and leave it at that. As Young Mr Grace would say to his staff in '70s British sitcom, Are You Being Served?: You've all done very well!
The difference being, he meant it.
Completed. And with only one snarky response. I just couldn't help myself!
- Organisational transformation and change is managed well at [InstantlyForgettableNameCorp].
- 2/10. The IT migration has left a lot to be desired. My 8 year old could have done a better job, and he's a golden retriever.
It's a lie. I don't have a golden retriever. They don't know that though.
Two of the twenty-one questions related to DivErSitY AnD InCLuSiOn
™, but they're only there as a sop to boost the ESG rating, and probably aimed more at our US colleagues; DEI doesn't appear to be a major topic here. Personally, I think people should be hired on merit, and without prejudice, not to satisfy some arbitrary points system. Then again, I'm old skool. Besides, there are so many other things wrong with HR that pissing about with quotas is the least of them.
The IT migration failure didn't end with the Office 365 MFA debacle, it's still ongoing. (rolleyes)
Holy shit! Only eight months have passed, and another satisfaction survey's doing the rounds. Twenty-one questions, and five minutes of our time; although given that two of the questions are largely repetitions, they could've tightened it up a tad. Nevertheless, the response rate lies at only 53% after two weeks, suggesting a healthy cynicism among my colleagues. I was tempted not to bother either, but the first question was too good to pass up!
- How likely is it you would recommend [InstantlyForgettableNameCorp] as a place to work?
- 2/10. Has anyone noticed the increase in the cost of living? Because payroll hasn't!
- I'm satisfied with [InstantlyForgettableNameCorp]'s efforts to support diversity and inclusion (for example, in terms of gender, ethnicity, disability, socio-economic status).
- Unrated. DEI is a sop. We should be hiring the best people for the role, blindly and irrespective of quotas, not based on ticking checkboxes.
- A diverse workforce is a clear priority at [InstantlyForgettableNameCorp] (for example, in terms of gender, ethnicity, disability, socio-economic status).
[This question seems barely different to the one above] - Unrated. My feelings on this are the same as for the question asked earlier, we should focus on fitness-for-role, not box-ticking.
- Employee health and wellbeing is a priority at [InstantlyForgettableNameCorp].
- 9/10. Any serious LTI will affect all of our bonuses, even for those of us who have no specific role to play in the incident or its mitigation. So, either employee health and wellbeing is a priority at [InstantlyForgettableNameCorp], or it's saving money that's the priority. But I'm pretty sure it's employee health and wellbeing.
- Senior leaders at [InstantlyForgettableNameCorp] show that employee wellbeing is important to them.
- 9/10. Any serious LTI will affect all of our bonuses, even for those of us who have no specific role to play in the incident or its mitigation. So, either employee health and wellbeing is a priority for senior leaders, or it's saving money that's the priority. But I'm pretty sure it's employee health and wellbeing.
- Organisational transformation and change is managed well at [InstantlyForgettableNameCorp].
- 4/10. The IT migration is still a mess.
I doubt anything will change, and the next survey will be the same crap again; rinse, repeat, etc. Hey ho. (shrug)
Who'd've thought that a revolving door of mediocrity among the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) wouldn't be a recipe for success? Only two years since inception, InstantlyForgettableNameCorp is already on its second CEO, and other members of the ELT have come and gone almost without note. Now the company's being restructured because it's not meeting profit targets, and has to save money to success. As a consequence, my position has been eliminated as part of the plan. Or has it?
The decision in my case was made by the ELT themselves, which seems odd for a lowly peon such as myself to come to such high-level attention. Another explanation is that they didn't like my responses above; forced the third-party surveyor to reveal my identity; and used the restructuring as an excuse to can me without prejudice
.
So, could it simply be a case of fragile egos being unable to bear harsh truths?
Oh well, if it were a job I was passionate about, working for a company I held in high regard, I'd be devastated. Then again, if it were a job I was passionate about, working for a company I held in high regard, I wouldn't have given the high-ranking somnambulists the feedback I did in the first place. Whatever.
And speaking of revolving doors, during my combined twenty plus years at MegaCorpGB and MegaCorpUSA, I had a total of five line managers come and go. In contrast, less than nine years at MegaCorpCH followed by InstantlyForgettableNameCorp have seen no less than seven; none of those were related to me moving within the organisation.
HR was no different; no sooner did we learn of the appointment of a new HR partner, than they'd left. The HR drone who handled my release from the company has herself resigned. (rolleyes)