I've used the phrase, "for additional information," because it covers the need for a minor clarification and a longer discussion if necessary.

OH! MY! GOD! David, you just gave me the ol' one-two right in the solar plexus! With all my big talk about bullshit and about how management ought to treat employees, I HAVE ACTUALLY WRITTEN THIS (or allowed it to stand when someone else wrote it). And OF COURSE it's what an adult would say to a child who can only worry but not ever take matters into his or her own hands like a real grown-up.

Thank you. Ouch, but thank you.

Well, Jane, don't feel too bad. I'm sure many an editor has fought heroically to just to introduce the dangerous possibility that someone might have a "concern"--let alone an actual disagreement with the big new initiative.

I think "concern" is the best thing we have going at the moment. Tom's "for additional information" is neutral, but somehow unsatisfying and equally disingenuous implication that, "if you only got more of the information that we've got, you'd feel better."

Maybe better: "If you'd like to discuss this ______ further, contact ....."

But perhaps if we can't invite employees to offer their actual criticisms, opinions or ideas in exactly those words, we should just end our articles with the immortal words of LFO:

"It's like that, and that's the way it is."

How about "If you have concerns, don't call Suzie in HR 'cause she really doesn't give a rip about your concerns." Now, that would be honest, not to mention refreshing. (Feel free to substitute "rip" with any other salty word of your choice.)

And really, by the time a troublesome decision appears in writing, there should have been an adequate number of honest employee information meetings so that most employees--including employees with "concerns"--no longer have questions. They have already had a chance to discuss said "concerns" with management or HR and are either satisfied or unsatisfied, but nonetheless know how things are going to be.

David - I often use the line "and let me know what you think." where the me is the voice in the piece.

Victor.

Yikes, Victor. What if they actually DO give you their thoughts, and they don't like what you plan to do, but it's a done deal that you can't change? I really love that you would use informal language and make the invitation clearly and openly, but when you invite employees' thoughts in this way is it always in a situation where they actually get to help decide the outcome?

We usually use, "If you have questions or would like more information, contact XYZ." Not the best way to initiate a dialogue, I'll grant you.

I can't recall the last time we used the "if you have concerns," however. Although, I know of at least once where we did a story in our daily online newsletter about an employee safety pilot program and invited employee feedback on the program. Then, about a week later we did a follow-up story on the feedback that was received.

Jane - it all depends if your are interested or just want to be seen to be interested.

Just because I ask for your opinion, there is no obligation on me to do anything about it. My obligation is to consider your feedback and tell you what we'll do with it.

I really think you have to be transparent in your decision making processes. Tell me what the issue is. tell me what factor's you're taking into account, tell me the decision you took and the reasons why.

I can't expect more than that.

If you set the expectations on engagement and then deliver to them - people understand the process and what the rules of the game are. I love TJ Larkin's methodology in this space.

Think it over and let me know what you think...

I have to disagree with the contention you can ask for feedback then not do anything with it. I have created employee surveys many times through the years, not only at a company wide level, but also for specific business units who need employee feedback on something particular.

What I have found is that if you ask employees (who are all too busy) to give their opinions on something you KNOW will not be changed or adjusted, they come back the next time you want to solicit feedback and say: "You ignored the feedback I gave last time, why should I bother to do it again?!" Doing this abuses the trust of the employees, shows a disrespect for their time, and suggests that management asking for opinions is simply for show.

The long-term results of this approach are not good for the credibility of the communicator, management or the business. When I create a survey for someone else, I tell them not to ask questions about things that are set in stone. Communicate them yes, but don't waste employees' time asking for their opinions about it, because many employees assume if you ask for feedback you mean to do something with it.

As far as the words at the end go, I usually use "I (or whomever) am/is the contact for this project. Feel free to call or email me/them." Personally, I think that, as with many communication issues, the words are mostly semantics. If your employees have learned they can trust you to listen to, and appropriately respond to feedback I don't think they care which word you use to solicit it. If they know you couldn't care less about their opinions, again, doesn't matter what words you use.

"For more information, call __________ (name) at ext. _____."

Putting a name and number together assigns accountability for the information. It's also a great way to end all your articles.

Will

I have concerns about this entry.

All--

Great discussion. Will, I especially appreciate the implication of your point: Make somebody accountable for every article; make it a habit and how you ask won't be a huge issue.

But how you ask matters too. Inviting "concerns" means something other than inviting "feedback" means something other than inviting "opinions."

David

Concerns and questions are items that can be reconciled by providing information. "[O]pinions, ideas, beliefs, complaints, criticisms, thoughts, issues and problems[...]" much the same as feelings, are too subjective. If I'm concerned, you can draw out my concerns and verify that they don't arise from misconceptions. If I have a question, you can provide (or promise to provide) answers. But if I "have a problem with this change..." you really can't do anything about it.

I don't defend the use of the phrase (as I believe it reflects a desire to minimize negative feedback; I'd rather see dialogue about it) but understand its seduction.

This is yet another example of the influence of lawyers on corporate speech -- more obtuse, less open equals less risky. But real conversation is risky. Real dialogue offers the possibility of disagreement. We have far to go.