SurveyOpen

TeamPulse pilot readiness survey

4 questions · 4 responses

Three questions to validate the pilot risk before launch.

4 questions

4 responses per question

What would make you answer a weekly pulse check?
single
q1What would make you answer a weekly pulse check?
Clear anonymity
2
Visible follow-up
2
Manager endorsement
0
Nothing
0
Which proof would matter?
multi
q2Which proof would matter?
Owner named
3
Due date shown
2
Team result visible
1
Export for works council
1
I would support a four-week TeamPulse pilot.
scalestance-mapped
q3I would support a four-week TeamPulse pilot.
oppose
1
skeptical
0
neutral
1
conditional
1
support
1
Council prediction (4)
Real answers (4)
What would make this unacceptable?
text
q4What would make this unacceptable?

„If my team thinks answers can be traced back to them.“

„Launching without a privacy explanation.“

„No stop/go rule.“

„-“

4 responses

persona:lead
4 answers1 Jun

What would make you answer a weekly pulse check?Visible follow-up

Which proof would matter?Owner named, Due date shown

I would support a four-week TeamPulse pilot.conditional

What would make this unacceptable?If my team thinks answers can be traced back to them.

persona:hr
4 answers1 Jun

What would make you answer a weekly pulse check?Clear anonymity

Which proof would matter?Export for works council, Team result visible

I would support a four-week TeamPulse pilot.support

What would make this unacceptable?Launching without a privacy explanation.

r_showcase_finance
4 answers1 Jun

What would make you answer a weekly pulse check?Visible follow-up

Which proof would matter?Owner named

I would support a four-week TeamPulse pilot.neutral

What would make this unacceptable?No stop/go rule.

r_f691f0975a882c63
4 answers16 Jun

What would make you answer a weekly pulse check?Clear anonymity

Which proof would matter?Owner named, Due date shown

I would support a four-week TeamPulse pilot.oppose

What would make this unacceptable?-

open

Feedback

Sent along, transparently: Page · Version 0.2.0

Or open a GitHub issue ↗