The Ritual of Resignation

The cursor hovers over the ‘2.’ It’s an act of calculated self-sabotage, an honest assessment of the air in the room. But I won’t do it. I’m rating my psychological safety on a 1-to-5 scale, a metric used to assure the executive team that we are, if not thriving, then certainly not actively fleeing.

This is not a feedback mechanism; it’s a digital lie detector test designed by people who only want one answer: We are good, and we are safe. The underlying purpose is not to gather honest, actionable feedback that might disrupt the hierarchy. The purpose is to generate a positive aggregate score that HR can present to the board as proof of a healthy culture, justifying the 41 dollars they spent per employee on the survey vendor.

The Magic Number: 4.1

The goal, therefore, is not change; the goal is the score. The magic number they aim for is always 4.1. If you hit 4.1, the manager gets praise and perhaps a small bonus. If you dip below 3.1, you get an action plan, a consultant, and a deep dive that often concludes with the demoralized employees being blamed for their own lack of engagement.

Notice how the goalposts are set: nowhere near a perfect 5. No one wants utopia, because utopia implies stasis, and stasis means they can’t justify the existence of the apparatus that measures the stasis.

The Library of Screaming Silence

I was trying to explain to my grandmother, bless her soul, what the internet was last week… “No, Granny, it’s like a library where everyone is screaming and the only thing they measure is the volume.” That is exactly what these surveys are. They take the raw, painful, honest silence-the 2s and the 1s-and they filter them into a meaningless aggregate of 3.1s until the noise sounds like applause.

“

But the real, insidious problem isn’t the score. It’s what this annual ritual teaches the workforce. We learn the language of self-censorship. We learn that visibility is risk, and silence is survival.

We internalize the organizational lesson that the appearance of listening is vastly more important than the act of hearing. But how do you ever build something genuinely robust, something that lasts longer than 51 quarters, if the very foundation is built on polite fiction, on the tyranny of the tolerable 3.1?

Inhabiting the Opponent’s Logic

This brings me back to Muhammad B.-L. He was my debate coach back in university, a man who believed the greatest act of preparation was understanding the opposition.

“You can’t argue a case effectively if you haven’t truly considered the opponent’s best point. You must inhabit their logic, feel its weight. If you refuse to hear it, you haven’t won; you’ve just covered your ears.”

That is the missing step in corporate feedback. The company refuses to inhabit the employee’s logic. It designs a system where the honest feedback (the opponent’s best point) is structurally punishable. The survey asks, “Rate your manager’s communication,” but the underlying, deeply understood question is, “Do you want to remain employed here?” The resulting score of 3.1 is the cost of buying temporary peace, of avoiding the confrontation necessary for genuine growth.

It requires organizations to prioritize direct, transparent systems, where the mechanism for feedback is inherently built on immediate action and not delayed, statistical aggregation. Where managers are trained not to manage the score, but to manage the relationship, knowing full well that vulnerability goes both ways.

The Necessity of Direct Reality

There are businesses, often those rooted in specific service and quality, that understand this deep, elemental need for honest repair and forthright interaction, where the process of fixing things is transparent and immediate. They don’t require an annual theatre of anonymity to gauge health. The feedback is constant, direct, and non-optional.

The silence of the honest is louder than the cheers of the compliant. This cycle is corrosive. Every time that survey pops up, it reinforces the lesson that management is not ready for the truth.

Measuring the Wind with a Fishing Scale

We live in a world obsessed with measuring things, sometimes things that are inherently unmeasurable, like the weight of a thought or the pressure of unspoken stress. But quantifying emotional safety is like weighing the wind using a fishing scale. You might get a number, but that number tells you nothing meaningful about the system itself.

The true cultural score, the one that measures how willing people are to take a genuine risk for the betterment of the company, is dipping dangerously close to 1.1.

If the organization truly wanted the answer to “How safe do you feel?” they wouldn’t ask you to rate it. They would look at how quickly you admit a mistake that cost $1,201, or whether you feel comfortable contradicting a senior leader.

The Path Beyond Compliance

So, here is the question we should be asking ourselves, the real reflective conclusion: If the organization had a gun to its head and absolutely *needed* the honest answer to that toxic culture question, would the current survey be the tool they would deploy? Or would they tear it down and build something entirely different, something risky, transparent, and immediate?

The fact that they keep sending the same survey, year after year, is the answer itself. They don’t want the truth. They want the performance review for HR.