Describe the pattern without inventing intent
Several fictional Linden comments describe changing priorities. One says, “I finish the urgent task and learn that something else was urgent.” That supports a question about prioritization; it does not establish a person’s motivation or intention to leave.
Keep the collection question and period with the theme. Comments about one recent change should not automatically become a permanent label on the organization or a manager.
Review the meaning and the disclosure risk
If AI groups comments, check the original passages for negation, qualifications, sarcasm and differences in meaning. A category count can hide comments that describe opposing experiences.
Before including a quote, ask whether its wording or context could identify someone. Removing a name may not protect a person who describes a unique role or event. Use an appropriate aggregate description or reviewed paraphrase where necessary, and label paraphrases accurately.
Keep sensitive concerns in the restricted handling process defined by the organization. A broad theme dashboard should not become the distribution channel for identifiable allegations or private case details.
Give the finding an owner and a next question
Write a review note with the theme, supporting scope, uncertainty and proposed next step. State participation limits rather than presenting comments as the view of everyone.
An action might be to clarify how priority changes are communicated and check later whether that helped. Do not jump from a theme to a consequential judgment about a particular employee or manager.
The useful role of configured analysis is to prepare evidence for responsible review. Human checking and appropriate access remain part of the workflow, including when the initial classification arrives quickly.
Work through the Linden example
This is a fictional teaching example. Adapt the fields and rules to the question your own workflow needs to answer.
| Review element | Example | Limit |
|---|---|---|
| Theme | Priorities change without clear explanation | Applies to supplied comments |
| Interpretation | The communication process may need attention | Not a finding about individual intent |
| Disclosure | A unique role is mentioned | Review before quoting |
| Action | Clarify the priority-change process | Assign an owner and later check |
Build this part of your plan in more detail
These lessons address the next practical questions in this module. Choose the detail your workflow needs, then return to complete the exercise.
- How to Analyze Multilingual Feedback and Evaluate Software
Preserve meaning when reviewing feedback in multiple languages.
- How to Analyze Open-Ended Survey Responses
Build and review a codebook, then report themes with a clear denominator.
More practical questions in this module (1)
- How to Analyze Sentiment in Survey Responses
Separate sentiment, issue, consequence and follow-up before drawing a conclusion.
Add this part to your plan
On workbook page 3, write a theme note from fictional comments. Include a disclosure check and a next question.
Download workbook (fillable PDF)Compare with a suggested answer
The note identifies a prioritization concern with its scope. It excludes identifying detail from the shared view and proposes a process review rather than assigning individual blame.
Self-check: Can a reader understand the finding without learning an unnecessary identity?
Questions you may have
Does removing names make comments anonymous?
Not necessarily. Context and distinctive details can still identify someone.
Can sentiment identify employees who will leave?
Do not infer individual intent from general comments. That would be a different, consequential assessment requiring its own justification and safeguards.
Apply the method to your work
Use the five-part plan to assess the sources, analysis and permissions your team needs. The solution page shows where a connected platform can support that workflow.
Explore the employee experience solution →