zlacker

>>dale_h+(OP)
Pointy-haired boss: "According to the anonymous online employee survey, you don't trust management. What's up with that?"

<Dilbert looks back with a blank stare>

---

Godspeed Scott. Thank you for all the laughs.

>>CSMast+hf
I actually had this happen back in high school. The teacher gave us “anonymous” surveys to gauge her performance. She analyzed the handwriting to determine which one was mine. I actively tried to change my handwriting as well, but I guess not well enough. I’ve never trusted a survey was actually anonymous after that.

>>al_bor+Dh
We've been tasked by a client for 2 years to create an anonymized survey, and my mind has gone to great lengths to devise a survey where even our own employees (or superusers with full DB access) cannot figure out who a respondent is.

It's been a fun exercise in software architecture. Because I actually care about this.

But we keep pushing this annual survey another year since we never seem to be ready to actually implement it (due to other priorities)

>>atonse+ZC
I have a few friends working at CultureAmp (who - amongst other things - do anonymous employee surveys).

Management can 'drill down' to get information on how specific teams responded.

One of the things they mentioned doing is using a statistical (differential privacy?) model to limit the depth, to prevent any specific persons responses being revealed unless it was shared with a substantial number of other responses.

Surprisingly difficult when you consider e.g. a team lead reading a statement like "of the 10 people in your team, one is highly dissatisfied with management" - they have personal knowledge of the situation and are going to know which person it is.

>>daniel+Ge1
Couldn't this be lessened by intentionally introducing false information, e.g. specifying that 10% of the time the response will be randomized?