"Survey Says..." and Now What?

If you are currently employed, chances are you have been asked to complete a survey designed to measure how you feel about your work, the people you work for and with, and whether you want to continue your career with the organization.

Early in my career, the go-to method for learning what employees thought about their work lives was the suggestion box. The idea was simple: Place a box in a central location where employees could anonymously submit ideas for improving the workplace.

In one memorable display of “Here’s what I think,” someone ripped the suggestion box off the wall. Suggestion noted.

The box soon went the way of smoking lounges and vending machines stocked almost entirely with carbohydrates.

Today, engagement surveys, pulse checks, "stay interviews," satisfaction surveys, and other feedback tools have become the norm. Companies regularly check in on the experiences and perceptions of their workforce. One interpretation of this trend is that organizations are increasingly concerned about what happens during the workday and how employees perceive everything from leadership effectiveness to the food in the cafeteria.

Why so many questions? How many ways can someone be asked, “Do you like working here, and do you want to keep doing it?” The rationales for these check-ins include establishing a baseline of perceived strengths and weaknesses, detecting problems sooner, giving employees a structured way to communicate concerns, and evaluating leadership and workplace practices.

Because many companies use multiple methods to test a workplace's waters, one might assume they have a clear understanding of how their workforce is functioning, what drives engagement, and whether employees are, to use an old-fashioned word, happy.

However, anyone who has reviewed the results of these “How are things going?” surveys knows that the findings do not always clarify the workplace culture. Sometimes the picture becomes even blurrier. In some cases, the solution is another survey intended to determine what went wrong with the previous one.

Survey fatigue among employees is a real experience. Signs may include:

• Intentionally taking time off while the survey is open.
• A growing sense of hopelessness that the survey will lead to meaningful change.
• Feeling mentally exhausted when trying to summarize a year's worth of frustrations for the "comments" section of the survey.
• Increasing suspicion that “anonymous” means, “You don’t enter your name, but we still know who you are.”

Even well-intended and carefully designed surveys have inherent limitations:

• They capture a snapshot of a moving picture.
• Measuring is not the same as understanding.
• Anonymity may lead to a negativity bias.
• Concerns about confidentiality may cause employees to withhold problems.
• Nonresponse bias can skew findings when those who participate differ meaningfully from those who do not.

Workplace surveys are unlikely to disappear, but those who interpret the results must avoid confusing the measurement of employee experience with an understanding of it.

Employees who faithfully complete surveys but see no meaningful change may become less willing to participate in the future. Their overall satisfaction, measured or not, may also decline.

So, what is a concerned employer to do? How can an organization truly take the pulse of its workforce in a way that employees experience as genuine, and focused more on listening than measuring?

Organizations can begin by focusing on three questions:

1. What are employees experiencing?
2. Why are they experiencing it?
3. What are we going to do about it?

To answer these questions effectively, leaders must be willing to move beyond the data and meet the people behind the numbers. Running survey results through the company’s AI platform cannot replace visible, present leadership or the crucial conversations that demonstrate a willingness to listen, learn, and, when necessary, acknowledge past mistakes.

References