The program itself may be stupid, but I don't know any company that would allow these terms in internally visible recognition.
My company uses manual review for recognition, but I would expect a call from my manager if I sent a public kudos "Great job fighting for union pay raises for the slave labor at our company"
The people behind the project are self-aware enough to realize these are such big issues that people will talk about them, but I guess they'd rather prevent discussion altogether than deal with the actual problems.
Like "great job working with the union and the company on that safety issue!"
Why call it something else? Do you know more about its functionality you wish to share with the rest of us?
>In November 2021, Amazon convened a high-level meeting in which top executives discussed plans to create an internal social media program that would let employees recognize co-workers’ performance with posts called “Shout-Outs,”
>Shout-Outs would be part of a gamified rewards system in which employees are awarded virtual stars and badges for activities that “add direct business value,” documents state.
>“With free text, we risk people writing Shout-Outs that generate negative sentiments among the viewers and the receivers,” a document summarizing the program states. “We want to lean towards being restrictive on the content that can be posted to prevent a negative associate experience.”
To me this sounds exactly like the directed recognition at many tech companies and those I have used. You dump a thank you in a text box, and someone gets a notification their manager can see. It is not a place to talk about your kids, dog, or weekend plans. It is not a place to submit "constructive feedback" on your peers or company.
If someone feels so strongly about the issue that they want to send someone a kudos using the specifi words "union pay raises for slave labour", that's definitely something I'd want to encourage as much as possible of, because it is a strong indication I'm doing something wrong as a leader.
You have to admit people won't use those words for fun in a professional environment. Those messages would be one of the most important signals uncovered by such a program.
I just don't get why you'd want to bury it.
----
Though reading my own comment, it's clearly selection bias: leaders who encourage workers' open discussion of slave-like conditions would never institute slave-like conditions, and vice versa, I suppose.
It's horrible PR. Will the achived effect be worth it? I doubt that.
Certainly not the case at every organisation; unions have a strong presence in some long-established private industries and public sector organisations, including general communications.
"Good job taking out the *** from the ****** when the janitorial staff was out getting the ******!"