Friday, October 14, 2005

Workers proud to be associated with Lab

October 14, 2005

Checkpoint Survey results in

Nearly eight in 10 University of California Laboratory employees who completed the 2005 Checkpoint survey are generally proud to be associated with the Laboratory and are satisfied with their work. And more than six in 10 respondents said they would recommend Los Alamos as a good place to work.

The findings were compiled recently by Compensation, Analysis and Systems (HR-CAS), which analyzes the results and distributes them to Lab managers.

[...]

Full Story

Comments:
The big question that comes to mind upon reading this announcement is what percentage of LANL staff filled out their "Checkpoint Survey"? I know that since 1994, I filled mine out exactly once. Then, after I saw how little good it did, and realizing (ok, I'm a slow learner -- it took me a year to realize this) how slanted the questions were towards the obvious goal of attempting to make LANL management look good I never wasted the time filling it out again.

I suspect the statistical significance of these "findings" are in the single digits.

--Doug
 
Just when you thought the bar couldn't be set any lower regarding honesty and LANL management. Nice job Sue. You proved us wrong.

"Nearly eight in 10 University of California Laboratory employees who completed the 2005 Checkpoint survey are generally proud to be associated with the Laboratory and are satisfied with their work. And more than six in 10 respondents said they would recommend Los Alamos as a good place to work."

Indeed. What did the other 8,241 employees say? Oh, wait! You don't know, because they didn't fill out their Checkpoint surveys!
 
Actually, quoting from the article:

"Forty percent of the surveys sent out to UC Lab employees were completed and returned, slightly lower than last year’s 43 percent response rate."

Still, one does still have to wonder how statistically significant the presented results are. Who were the 40% who filled out the survey, broken out by job classification: TSM, SSM, TEC, AS, MGT? What, statistically speaking, were the differences between the managers' responses vs. the other classifications?

--Doug
 
This thread is an interesting juxtaposition of thoughts.

1) I don't waste my time filling these stupid, corrupt things out.

2) Poor statistics, I don't believe the results!

3) Only a forty percent return rate? The results must be dominated by managers and their minions.

The only thing one has to wonder about is how you have the gall to complain about the results of a survey that you disdain and admit that you did not participate in. Isn't it kind of like voting? If you don't vote, then you should keep your mouth shut about the results.

I agree that the upward appraisal is not a very useful tool for causing change in my managers' behavior. I think the only thing that really influences my local managers is what their managers say and do. If enough people consistently filled out the forms and added real content via the written comments sections then maybe some day one manager might get some different direction from above.

But maybe I am just dreaming.
 
Actually, WFO, you are so pessimistic that you make me look like an optimist.

The reality is that those questions in the Checkpoint Survey are of the the following character:

1. How well did upper management perform at LANL this year?

a. Really well
b. Really, really well.
c. Unf*ckingly believably well.

2. How much did you improve your understanding of why is is bad to lose track of CREM?

a. A bunch
b. A whole bunch
c. An unf*ckingly believable bunch.

3. How proud are you to be a LANL staff member?

a. A bunch
b. A whole bunch
c. An unf*ckingly believable bunch.

Is it any surprise that only 40 percent of staff even bothered to fill out that piece of whitewash garbage?
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?