Two years ago, I received a survey at work that, quite frankly, pissed me off. It presented me with a Likert scale asking me to rate from 1-5 how much I agreed with the statement
I can be replaced by A.I.
There is no suitable answer to this question. The question itself is inappropriate. The most apt answer is “fuck you”, but that’s not considered proper in most cultures.
And here’s why.
Generally, responding with hostility to “a simple question” is very rude! But that’s because most questions come with an assumption of good faith, a “sincere intention to be fair, open and honest.”
This question — even when answered anonymously — is inappropriate, and doubly so when coming from an employer.
The “appropriate” answer is to mark the box that says “I prefer not to answer”, but that’s the coward’s choice, to docilely accept that the question has merit. Really, there’s no reason why anyone should pick anything other than “strongly disagree”.
As I commented to a friend at the time, when the wolf comes to the door asking how juicy a steak you’d make, you DON’T answer.
If there’s a moral to this, it’s that civility is important when discussions are civil, but isn’t owed if the faith is bad.
Related, I have complex thoughts on “tone policing” as a concept, which I will not share here, but broadly boil down to “people can express themselves however they want, but if the goal is to be heard by a specific audience, then you need to communicate in a way that that specific audience will hear you. Using strong language will cause some audiences to tune out, which is a problem if that’s the audience you’re trying to reach.”