MSI Press Blog

  The Reverse Evaluation doesn’t end when the public meeting adjourns. Its power lies in what happens afterward — the steady rhythm of reporting, follow‑up, and transparency that keeps trust alive. Post‑RE reporting ensures that every due‑out becomes visible progress, not forgotten promise. 1. The Post‑RE Assembly: Reporting to the Entire Organization Shortly after the RE, the senior‑most manager convenes a full organizational assembly. This meeting is open to all employees. Purpose Describe what happened during the RE. Present the list of due‑outs — the actionable commitments generated from the RE. Invite questions, suggestions, and refinements. Participation Anyone in attendance may ask questions, propose adjustments, or express concerns about priorities. Unit representatives and leaders may respond directly to questions and comments. It is rare, but possible, for due‑outs to be modified during this assembly if new insights emerge. This meeting reinforces transparency: everyo...

  A Reverse Evaluation is not a survey. It is not a town hall. It is not a 360. It is not a complaint session. A Reverse Evaluation is a governance practice in which employees — through elected or trusted unit representatives — gather concerns, observations, and successes confidentially and anonymously , and then present those findings publicly to management . After the presentation, employees and managers work together in small groups to generate actionable due‑outs : concrete commitments with timelines, owners, and follow‑up mechanisms. The RE is built on three pillars: 1. Truth flows upward without fear. Employees speak honestly because their voices are protected. Managers listen honestly because the process is public. The power dynamic is temporarily inverted — not to humiliate, but to illuminate. 2. Problems are solved collaboratively, not defensively. The RE is not about blame. It is about clarity. Once the issues are on the table, mixed groups work together to design soluti...

  A Reverse Evaluation (RE) is not a performance review. It is a day of truth‑telling, problem‑solving, and collective accountability. Its success depends on structure, neutrality, and trust. Below is the framework that has proven effective across years of practice. 1. Prior to the Meeting Agenda Setting The coordinator and management jointly set the agenda. It includes: Presentation of findings by unit representatives Categorization of issues (technology, facilities, processes, etc.) Small‑group problem‑solving sessions Prioritization and due‑out formation Briefings Before the meeting: The coordinator and management brief leaders and unit representatives separately. Both groups review the rules of engagement : Representatives present neutrally — no editorializing. Leaders remain silent — no rebuttals, explanations, or interruptions. Leaders may ask for clarification only if they do not understand an issue well enough to record it accurately. No repercussions for anything sa...