Thread regarding CVS layoffs

The survey is anonymous. I’ve seen it from the workforce strategy side, and from teams trying to react to low scores for their orgs.

Your comments may give people a clue as to who left it. Make valid critique. Don’t just vent.

Leaders with less than 5 in SoC do not get breakdowns to individual responses.

Leader’s comp is tied to their results. I don’t know a single VP that didn’t take their score seriously. If they were effective in addressing it is another matter…., sometimes they have their hands tied, and sometimes pizza and march madness brackets doesn’t cut it)

The surveys were never anonymous at CVS. You had to put your employee ID number in, which they know who you are.

You can’t bring up the real problems, Bosses are protecting bosses. You’re just putting a target on your back. Document their slights and willingness to do the right thing on your own stationary. You might need it later.

@t2 not true!

This fear of reprisals is borderline deranged and couldn’t be further from the reality. The push for “100%” is to ensure there is a balanced view of feedback. Studies have shown that respondents are overindexed on those with negative views. Higher participation yields a more complete picture. Results are only attributable to managers who have more than 5 respondents.

This was true. There is growing concern about how the company’s Colleague Engagement Survey is being used. Recent observations suggest that the survey may be functioning less as a tool for workplace improvement and more as a mechanism for identifying employees for potential layoffs.

Multiple colleagues have reported being terminated regardless of whether their feedback was positive, negative, or neutral. This has created the perception that text-based responses are being analyzed in ways that allow virtually any answer to be interpreted negatively or used to justify termination decisions.

Additionally, although leadership has stated that the Colleague Engagement Survey is anonymous, certain actions have raised doubts about those claims. For example, some leaders have referenced exact participation percentages in emails, while others have contacted specific employees reminding them to complete the survey before deadlines. These actions suggest that leadership may have visibility into who has and has not participated, undermining confidence in the survey’s anonymity.

There also appears to be a troubling pattern associated with participation itself:
• Negative feedback may be interpreted as a lack of “culture fit.”
• Highly positive feedback may be flagged as insincere.
• Even balanced or neutral responses have reportedly been followed by terminations.

Wish we cared about customers half as much as we care about 100% response rates. I’ve never seen anything pushed for so hard by leaders as the response rates on this.

This is true.
Gave my manager a mediocre score. Laid off, even after receiving numerous accolades.
The problem with CVS is they do not move leadership around enough. Other companies DO NOT have the same people reporting to LD and ED for years and years. Report to the same LD for 10 years...wonder why it's toxic?

I worked in the quality profession for CVS briefly and there is nothing that the leadership can do to better the organization other than leave because they view themselves as know it alls. Instead of useless badgering as a measure of employee engagement, I consistently advocated that every employee at a manager level and above should have to work at the entry level jobs each year for three days. No cell phones, useless meetings, fluffy speeches that say nothing.
GO AND LEARN WHAT ITS LIKE TO EARN A LIVING THERE USING PROVIDED RESOURCES.
The leaders participating would be required to create a top ten list of what needed to change upon exiting. No list? You get to look harder over a repeat rotation of Back to Basics.
Prior to the gig at CVS, I worked at a company that did this. I ran the host store. I and the staff loved giving them a true rotation in the real world. The result was that employee feedback in surveys was taken seriously and acted on. No repeating complaints other than health insurance costs (still an issue everywhere). Nonsense politics, policy and procedures were short lived and customers loved giving us their money. Retention was not an issue. They could not deny what they experienced or excuse it away.
I left CVS when I realized that leadership was never going to look in the mirror and see the problem. It’s staring back at them every time.

It hasn't closed yet, it's open until Sunday. They've always pushed for 100% participation rates. If they didn't, they're much more likely to only hear from people who are disengaged and want to share their grievances. The results are primarily used in ESG reports shared with investors to make the company look good, so they have a financial interest in getting high participation rates to offset the disengaged.

It has nothing to do with upcoming reorgs or layoffs. It's the same song and dance every engagement survey for every publicly traded organization.