Sept. 29, 2026 | TRUST Pt. 3
If you want to send messages that contradict a narrative about HR being untrustworthy, then you need to do the opposite of the things people complain about.
Do this publicly and repeatedly, over extended periods of time.
To find some examples, let’s peruse the complaints of disgruntled employees in r/ToxicWorkplace on Reddit…
(By the way, posts are regularly removed, so if a link breaks, you’ll just have to take my word for it.)
((Oh, also—I have no idea whether these stories are true, but I’ve heard many stories like them.))
One. Sissy3463 reports a scenario with this progression:
- HR initially ignored certain complaints.
- Next, they held a team meeting for employees to express their concerns.
- Afterward, they described employees’ complaints as inflammatory, disruptive, and abusive.
- Finally, they asked employees to sign forms agreeing that they had made statements that were inflammatory toward management and abusive toward coworkers.
Again, I have no idea if this really happened or if the actions of HR are represented fairly or accurately.
Of course, we could get into various possible interpretations…
- Perhaps the listening session was really just a way to pinpoint discontented employees and then reprimand them?
- Perhaps HR genuinely did want to better understand employees concerns, but then discontented individuals began screaming threats of violence?
- Perhaps the entire story was fabricated to win fake Internet points?
We weren’t there, so we have no idea.
But it doesn’t really matter. The point is that HR’s alleged actions were perceived as a trap.
The fact that the context was an exercise ostensibly designed to build trust (i.e., identify concerns so that they can be resolved) makes it that much more combustible.
So, what’s the “anti-complaint” here? What statements and actions would completely contradict the narrative?
The first complaint was that HR ignored some problem or concern.
Do the opposite: Respond to all concerns in some way. Even if the response doesn’t give the employee what they want every time, it’s still preferable to ignoring the concern.
The second complaint was that HR tricked discontented employees into revealing themselves, then punished them.
Do the opposite: Obviously, never use data collection to target individuals who express concerns.
If trust is low, then take action to both assure and ensure anonymity. Provide options for sharing feedback that make it impossible to identify which individual expressed a particular concern.
If trust is moderate or high, then anonymity may not be necessary. (Ideally, you are building a culture of trust and psychological safety, such that everyone feels comfortable expressing concerns.) In that case, you can reward individuals for expressing concerns, especially when it leads to important improvements.
Okay, this took up more space and time than I expected. I’ll consider another example tomorrow…
