Those charts are titled “How well does your NC communicate” and “How credible do you find your NC” that’s not a measure of actual support. It’s a misrepresentation to present it that way.

I can believe they communicate well and are credible, and still do not support them.

Every email they send they are brutally honest that they made no progress, have no vision, and see no path forward. They are honest. They have also failed. Good riddance.

 

The data I see shows a mere 6% who say the NC doing "not a good job at all"

 

Not buying it, the term used was mostly good. I have no idea what mostly quantifies for somebody taking the poll. As I said before people are good natured and when given that question if they don’t think someone is doing a good job on something, when offered the option will side with mostly a good job because it signifies dissatisfaction without condemnation. There was only 20% support for a very good job and that’s all you can read out of that question and group of answers. We just have to disagree there.

 

You are making **** up to conform to your own preconceived beliefs.

 

The polling question, "How do you think this person is doing?" with the answers:
a. a very good job
b. a mostly good job
c. not a very good job
d. a poor job
...is considered a moderately loaded or biased question. While it can be used to gauge support, it is designed to guide respondents toward a positive view, acting more as a measure of reputation than an objective performance audit.

Here is a breakdown of the implied bias and why it might not be the best tool for an unbiased assessment:
Implied and Other Biases

• Leading/Assumptive Framing: The question implies that the person is doing a job. The options "very good" and "mostly good" assume a positive baseline, making "good" the dominant tone.
• Lack of Neutrality: There is no explicit neutral option (e.g., "Adequate" or "Fair"), forcing respondents to choose between two shades of positive or two shades of negative.
• Unbalanced Scale: The structure is skewed toward positive reporting (two positive options vs. two negative options).
• Negativity Bias Management: By framing the options as "not a very good job" rather than "bad job," the question subtly softens the negative options.

Effectiveness for Finding Support
If the goal is to generate positive data to show support, this question is effectivebecause it minimizes negative choices.
However, if the goal is to get an accurate, actionable, and unbiased assessment of performance, it is a poor question

 

And you’re buying into the bull**** that someone who created that garbage poll wanted you to.

 

Oh jeez, cherry picking to misrepresent reality.

How about 80% was favorable?

Do you think an 80% favorable feeling amongst the membership as a whole is a reason to burn the ****ing place to the ground?


Now you're going to move the goal posts?


You're rationalizing an absolutely destructive process instigated by a vocal and ignorant minority.

 

That is not correct. Over the last couple of months they said the company, under new leadership was more receptive, progress was being made, and they were even meeting outside mediated sessions. You cannot disregard the last couple if months and once progress has started to take place, blow the whole thing up. It just makes no sense. Unless these guys were part of a union busting team and decided to take the union down BECAUSE progress was being made….nothing else makes sense.

 

That question format—often called a job approval question—is standard in polling (used by outfits like Gallup or Pew Research Center). The structure:

• very good
• mostly good
• not very good
• poor

is actually fairly balanced in intent:

• Two positive options, two negative options
• Symmetrical wording (“very” vs “mostly,” “not very” vs “poor”)
• No explicit emotional or leading language (“disastrous,” “amazing,” etc.)

So calling it “moderately loaded” is a bit of a stretch.

 

An 80% result for options a and b would be considered statistically unreliable as an "accurate" assessment of performance. Because the question is biased, the data it produces is also biased.
In professional polling, this is often called "manufacturing consent." The 80% figure likely represents an inflated number rather than a true reflection of sentiment for the following reasons:
1. The "Forced Choice" Inflation
By removing a "Neutral" or "Fair" option, you force the "middle" people—who might actually think the person is just "okay"—to pick a side. Because "Mostly good job" sounds less harsh than "Not a very good job," those middle-ground respondents (who can make up 30-40% of a population) often lean toward the softer positive option. This artificially bumps the 80% figure.
2. Acquiescence Bias
People have a natural tendency to be polite or agree with the phrasing of a question. Since the question asks "how" they are doing and provides "very good" as the first option, it sets a positive anchor. Many respondents will choose the positive path simply because it's the path of least resistance presented by the survey.
3. Accuracy vs. Directional Support

• Is it accurate? No. You cannot know if that 80% actually likes the work or if they just don't dislike it enough to choose the "negative" options.
• Does it show support? It shows directional support, meaning the person is likely not hated. However, you cannot use that 80% as a scientific "grade."

Summary of the "80%" result
If you see an 80% score on this specific poll, a more accurate interpretation would be: "The majority of people do not have a strong enough grievance to select a negative option." This is very different from saying "80% of people think they are doing a good job."
If you'd like, I can help you:[list]