Continuing our study of the Wells Fargo Messenger, I want to look at an article from the operating officers 
that addresses the submission of anonymous letters to the Messenger.
As a publication actively seeking submissions from 35,000 express employees, you can imagine that those operating officers were dealing with a substantial amount of mail for each issue. The writer assures us that not one of the many letters submitted to the house organ would go unread. He says, in fact, "we derive some of the best of our suggestions for the conduct of this magazine," from the letters written by the Wells Fargo employees who read and respond to the Messengereach month.
Any letters, however, that arrive unsigned or are signed "Anonymous" are subjected to the "waste basket rule." That is, they are torn up and thrown away, not one suggestion or idea from said letter is utilized due to the belief that "suggestions avail little if their maker has not the courage to come out into the open and stand by them."
I appreciate how the writers of the Wells Fargo Messenger are not afraid to say exactly what they think of anonymous letter writers, and call upon their readers to stand by their convictions and to trust that if they send in a confidential letter, it will be honored as such.
How many large corporations would have the courage to be this forthright with their employees today?
It is also interesting to think of the comfort in anonymity in contemporary forums — on websites, through email, in chat rooms and even on blogs like Guided By History. Whether corporate or personal, many prefer to leave their grain of salt unclaimed , due to any number of reasons. It is certainly a curious phenomenon.
The closing statement of the article is incredibly direct (if not a bit "male-centric"):
Sign your name to what you write. It is a primary step in courage. It is "cards upon the table," a first declaration of good faith with the man with whom you treat. And to him it is an earnest that he is dealing with a man, a real man, who not only makes a statement but puts the force and strength of his personality behind it.
Although today's culture we would likely exchange "man" for "person," the idea remains relevant, as well as rousing.
That's interesting timing that this blog was posted. I recently read an article published in The New Yorker regarding public elections, and how they weren't done by secret ballot. The reasoning behind that being that if you didn't have the courage to stand up for your convictions, you didn't deserve to have your vote counted. The article also points out that this lead to riots, personal violence, and bribery. Good article.
I will have to check that out. Thanks!