Sometimes it is just always better

[Hack]

I had to complete a survey here at work.

One of the questions was: "My team leader always compliments my achievements."

The choices were:
Never
Rarely
Usually
Sometimes
Mostly
Frequently

My questions are:

How can you ALWAYS do anything Never?
Is it possible to ALWAYS do anything Rarely?
How does one accomplish ALWAYS doing something Usually?
Can you MOSTLY ALWAYS do something? Frequently ALWAYS do something?

How would you always answer these questions most of the time?

This survey was created by our Corporate Communications department. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Surveys developed in house tend to suck. We did a survey several years ago to ask the general public what they wanted. I could see trouble coming, so I asked about the bias in the questions, and was assured that it would be managed. This is a group of scientists, so I kind of figured that they could figure out some survey questions correctly. When the survey came out, it was clear what the results would show. The questions were biased such that the response would be that people want more services and want to pay less for them. And that, of course, was what the survey showed.

[Hack]

I don't care about the purpose of the survey.

I don't care all that much about what the results of the survey will demonstrate.

I'd just like to see something that comes out of Corporate Communications that ask questions which are grammatically correct. Is that too much to ask?

There are members of this forum who learned English as a second language that possess more English linguistic skills, both reading and writing, than a large portion of the allegedly native English speakers with whom I am forced to associate.

I get a stiffy when I see anything published by anything corporate that is grammtically correct.

I don't get a lot of stiffys.

[EntityX]

The question could have been done better of course but what is meant by the question I can easily understand and I bet you can too. Basically what is meant is that you should replace the word always with one of these :
Never
Rarely
Usually
Sometimes
Mostly
Frequently

That way always would be left out as an option but frequently would be closest to always.

That's the way I interpret it and I think that is more or less what they are asking. They could have done the question like this.

Which of the following is most true?
My team leader always compliments my achievements.
My team leader never compliments my achievements.
My team leader rarely compliments my achievements.
etc. etc. using usually, sometimes, mostly, frequently.

Or they could have had a blank where the word always is and then have the options for the different words with which to fill in the blank. That would use the least amount of text.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I get a stiffy when I see anything published by anything corporate that is grammtically correct.

I don't get a lot of stiffys.

There are pills you can take....though, quite frankly, grammar doesn't have that effect on me, whether right or wrong.

[baja_yu]

Chitchat needs a rating system

[Hack]

The question could have been done better of course but what is meant by the question I can easily understand and I bet you can too.

What is "meant" or what was "intended" is beyond the definition of irrelevant. The one and only thing that is relevant is what was written. No one should have to interpret messages sent out by the Corporate Communications department.

This isn't somebody sending a note to a friend. This is a communication from a company to its employees. If they do not take the time and effort to ensure what they do is without flaw, how can they expect us to take the time and effort to ensure what we do is without flaw?

What they sent out is shameful. If I were the Vice President of Corporate Communications and my people sent out something like that every single person in my entire division would be attending remedial English classes.

[FunkyDexter]

Technically it is grammatically correctly. It is possible to say "I never always write rubbish surveys" because it's possible to describe a state of always writing rubbish surveys and it's possible to never be in that state.

It's still a horribly written question though and whoever wrote it deserves to be in a state of being beaten to death with a baby seal... always.

grammar doesn't have that effect on me

It all depends on the particular grammar in question and who's using it.

[Spoo]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Hack

Cry

Here's another one that gets me (ahem) stiffy.
"There's three ways you can do that."
Arrrgh...

[EntityX]

I get a stiffy when I see anything published by anything corporate that is grammtically correct.

If they do not take the time and effort to ensure what they do is without flaw, how can they expect us to take the time and effort to ensure what we do is without flaw?

It's not easy always doing things without flaw.

[Hack]

It's not easy always doing things without flaw.

I would even take this one step further and say that it is not always necessary to be without flaw. If all you are representing is yourself, then you may be as careless and reckless in your speech and written communications as you wish.

But, the line is drawn when you are representing an entire organization which is what everything that comes out of any Corporate Communications department does.

I stand firm...if they were my people at best they would be in remedial English...at worst they would be looking for jobs.

[LaVolpe]

Maybe it was just a typo in their "template"

Take the sentence again: My team leader always compliments my achievements.
Possibly always was meant to be removed and added to the list of possible answers. Kinda like this:

My team leader compliments my achievements.
Never
Rarely
Usually
Sometimes
Mostly
Frequently

Edited: BTW what's the real difference to a layperson between frequently & usually, frequently & mostly, frequently & sometimes or maybe sometimes is less frequently? Sounds more of a question for shrinks

[FunkyDexter]

But, the line is drawn when you are representing an entire organization

Personally I'd say the line is drawn when your sole purpose in life is communication. I expect the Customer Service Department to be good at providing serice to customers. I expect the installations department to be good at installing. I expect the sales department to be good at selling. So why is the communications department so inept at communicating.

Hack, my previous pedantry aside, I'm with you on this one.

[InvisibleDuncan]

In my current company, any system problems that IT want to inform the users about have to go via the marketing department. As the marketing department are both gramatically-challenged and technically lacking, their missives tend to result in a flood of calls to the help desk asking for a translation.

To make matters worse, by the time marketing have finished rewriting the original IT message to remove any technical words and any likelihood of it being understood by the recipients, the system problem has often already been rectified.

[abhijit]

In my current company, any system problems that IT want to inform the users about have to go via the marketing department. As the marketing department are both gramatically-challenged and technically lacking, their missives tend to result in a flood of calls to the help desk asking for a translation.

To make matters worse, by the time marketing have finished rewriting the original IT message to remove any technical words and any likelihood of it being understood by the recipients, the system problem has often already been rectified.

A long time ago [2005], we had a communications leader who's sole job was to send out a list of system changes to the users in the field. Every missive he sent resulted in several calls to the helpdesk. The helpdesk was able to resolve the calls very quickly, mostly because they were informed in advance of the changes being done to the system. The communications leader never bothered to actually check the system. He just went by what the IT / Business managers told him.

This resulted in massive boost for the helpdesk's SLA, a measure that they used to calculate their performance.
WIN-WIN