On the work front, am semi-fascinated by the new-found emphasis on camaraderie and engagement. You know something's up when they spring for free beer and pizza at a nearby watering hole/restaurant. It's as though Uncle Employer has read some psychology and group dynamics and has determined to make sure that being well-loved counts. Indeed, the whole new customercentric focus makes those things understandable. I survived all the cuts made for job effectiveness; will I survive cuts made on personality, outgoingness? Of course if you hang around long enough there's bound to be something that will go to your weak point.
It feels a farce, but it's a farce they intend to put some muscle behind. Even were we to get all the questions 100% "correct" that would result in too much explaining. Perfect scores for engagement are not the endgame. I took some joy in pointing out, albeit a foolish risk to do so, that it's odd that those groups who didn't actually work on their engagement ended up having higher engagement than we did. But our manager is a strict constructionist when it comes to things of this nature. A very much by-the-book, follower-of-rules guy. I can't tell if he really believes in it, or is just crossing his t's and dotting his i's. It is interesting that none of the other managers took it seriously enough to actually complete the requirements. I think it may be related to how secure they feel in their job.
(This post, by the way, swimming in commas as it is, is dedicated to Amy Welborn Dubruiel who apparently has a laptop without a working comma.)