by Kathleen Groll Connolly and Paul M. Connolly
In a world where employer interest in workplace measurement is rising, employees are asked more and more often to complete a survey, test, or assessment inventory. Though they may feel they have little choice but to participate, their degree of cooperation is under their control. Not surprisingly, many employees ask themselves: Is this survey safe to answer and is it worth my time?
Imagine the experience of a new employee: First he is tested, and then interviewed. Once hired, he fills out lots of employment questionnaires and forms. His first month happens to coincide with the annual employee survey. In his sixth month he is asked to complete a 360-degree feedback survey for his new manager. Then the cafeteria vendor sends out a survey about the food. Is it enough already?
Employees today are exposed to a lot of data gathering. No, they're not seeing all the same types of surveys. Surveys and tests are not held at the exact same time, given to the exact same audience, at the same place or on the same topics. Nonetheless, one wonders: Do employees think we're creating a more perfect organization with all this data gathering? Or do they view each new survey with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome? From our experience of nearly 20 years in the survey business, obtaining employee survey responses is different than it used to be.
In many ways, the would-be survey giver is working in a new world. Confidentiality has always been a big issue in workplace surveys and it's bigger today than ever because of how easily responses can actually be tracked. Internet surveys & polls have acclimated a lot of people to lightening connections, instant reporting, colorful delivery and, in many cases, tangible incentives for participation.
Fight Survey Fatigue
If you want to increase and maintain responsiveness to organization surveys, the most powerful connection is within the basic employer/employee relationship. In our experience, the single largest determinant of response rate is the strength of that relationship. If the relationship is strong/meaningful/important to the respondent, response rates will be higher. Having said that, though, it is in your best interest to consider other factors in the battle for a high response rate. Perhaps your organization needs a survey precisely because the relationship is not strong.
Consider these sources of assistance:
1. Coordinate and schedule multiple survey efforts within the organization.
2. Understand the culture where the survey will occur.
3. Prepare and set the expectations of your survey audience.
4. Provide clarity about who "owns" the survey and their commitment to using the results.
5. Provide confidentiality, especially where respondents feel the answers they will provide may not be what the sponsor wants to hear.
Research Before the Survey
First, can your organization reduce the number of surveys? Find out if someone else in your organization already has (or is about to get) the information. Some large employers now have a central group which reviews surveys prior to distribution as a way to help protect employees from too many questions.
Second, understand the culture. Some of the culture variables that "interact" with a group survey include the level of trust between employer and employee, employee commitment, clarity on why the information is important, clarity on how the information will be used, perceived ease of completing the survey (easy is good!), and the amount of turmoil or change in the current work environment.
If you aren't confident you understand the culture, contemplate this sobering fact for a moment: When you get the survey responses, you may be the last to find out something important about the workplace. Particularly when the survey covers a very diverse group of departments, locations and professional disciplines, a focus group or a "review group" can go a long way towards helping you fit the survey to the audience.
We generally prefer "review" groups versus classic focus groups, as long as the group represents the full range of potential respondents. It is helpful to include people who will speak up and speak out. Though they may be people who are generally critical, involving this group has many benefits, as long as your intentions are sincere. You'll better understand the perspectives of these employees. You remove their incentive to second-guess the process, since they become a part of it. You establish a very effective informal communication.
When using review groups it is important to structure the task. For instance, present a "straw man" survey, and then ask the group questions. Ask about potential process stumbling blocks, reasons people might not participate, or other problems they foresee in the overall implementation plan.
Survey Communications
At Prudential, a large corporate survey happens twice annually. Rick Diesinger, who heads up HR Strategic Measures, says, "We've been working much harder on getting people engaged, doing a lot of additional work and publicity at both the corporate and business unit level." Diesinger says they've been rewarded for their efforts. "We've seen a steady increase in response rate, and achieved a 39% response rate last October and again this April." Also important is the fact that the information from the survey is actively used in department level meetings, where employees not only discuss results but also are active participants in suggested improvements.
Indeed, a survey that is part of a well-publicized corporate initiative almost always does better than one that is offered simply as a survey.
Bill Macey, for instance, is well positioned to see the effects of major communications efforts around a survey. As President of Personnel Research Associates in Chicago and President of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, he feels that organizations have learned the importance of pre-survey communications. "The big surveys are not affected by over-surveying," he says, "because of the major push that most organizations provide to get everyone to answer. If a person is going to answer just one survey a year, it is probably the annual all-company survey."
Some of the best pre-survey work we've seen includes steps such as these:
1. The survey "sponsor" or spokesperson within the organization is also the person who is perceived as best able to take action based on the results.
2. Respondents are informed there will be action based on the results. If this can't be promised sincerely, it may be best to do no survey at all. Remember: A question implies a promise of action.
3. A plan for reporting the results is made clear from the beginning.
4. The language of the pre-survey communications communicates sincere intentions for improving the workplace and its operations. If the survey is taking place under stressful conditions, the difficulties are acknowledged.
5. Confidentiality is addressed.
Surveys in Today's Workplace
Jim Miller of Questar Data Systems in Minneapolis sees a lot of surveys in his work as a survey professional. "There is a lot of pressure on people to answer surveys," he says. "Poor survey techniques definitely lead to problems. For example on Web surveys, not providing a very clear indicator of survey length and progress is a big mistake."
Miller's reflections touch on a key difference between surveys that work now versus 15 or 20 years ago. Today's audience is more demanding and protective of its time. We must write excellent surveys. With the number of surveys that people take, many have become aware of bad item writing, of leading questions, poorly designed scales and other survey flaws.
Above all, the overall tone and feel of the survey must communicate respect for the employee's time. Greg Barnett works for Hogan Assessment Systems in Tulsa, OK, a leading publisher of psychological tests used for employee screening. He says, "There is definitely pressure on test publishers to watch the length of tests. It is probably more a matter of time than of the number of questions."
Even the best pre-survey communications won't necessarily overcome the harried, out-of-time feeling that so many people live with today. We've seen some employers use incentives for replying by certain deadlines to increase the likelihood of response.
Incentives and Employee Surveys
One organization wanted to benchmark their progress on a large-scale change process re-engineering effort. To draw attention to the implementation of the program, as well as establish a strong diagnostic baseline through the survey, they advertised incentives for respondents. In this case they gave each participant a shirt with the project's logo, and also allowed employees to enter their own names into a contest to win a new car. The incentives worked, and the organization achieved a near 100% participation level.
In this case, the incentives helped. If other factors aren't in place, though, an incentive alone won't provide the needed increase in response.
Confidentiality is a double-edged issue in many surveys, especially when incentives are used. The receipt of the incentive is tied to survey completion, which may give the employee the feeling they can be identified with their responses. If the incentives are too strong, you also run the risk of repeated responses. You can provide a mechanism to allow only one response per individual, but this again may compromise the apparent confidentiality of the survey.
Most organizations deal with this by keeping any incentives relatively small, and by simply accepting the risk that a person could respond more than once. "Give me the problem!" is the lament of many survey experts, reflecting the fact that a bigger problem is getting people to respond once.
What about sampling to reduce the number of people who are exposed to surveys? Some doubt that a sample can "really" give you a reliable estimate of the answers of everyone else. This is healthy skepticism. Statisticians will tell you that sampling only works as long as participants are truly random - something that is rarely the case in real organizational work. Furthermore, if the purpose of a survey is to generate visibility or commitment to an important issue, sampling won't meet the need.
Nonetheless, asking a sample versus asking everyone in an organization can help reduce the number of people being surveyed. In our example above on the large-scale process re-engineering, the organization did use sampling on follow-up surveys. This was effective because they had near 100% baseline measurement.
Employee Survey Confidentiality
As we've already seen from several examples, people are concerned about privacy issues. There is an increasing demand to communicate why the information on the survey is important and how it will be used. In workplace settings where suspicion is a problem, you often have to allow the survey cycle to complete itself. The use of an outside vendor can be very helpful where trust and suspicion are issues.
A non-responding employee who witnesses a survey process where the results are valued, communicated and used is more likely to participate the next time if the right steps are taken.
Today's environment may demand more skill of the survey designer and administrator than before. Nonetheless, a survey can be a valuable opportunity to help employees let off stress. Says Al Davis, Ph.D., of Verizon Wireless, "We haven't really seen a decline in the willingness of people to respond to our surveys … I think people appreciate the opportunity to state their views, especially in the current business climate where there is so much turmoil." It is in times of great stress or change that people appreciate a safe opportunity to state their views.
Next time you are going to do a survey consider some of these factors to help improve your response rate. The good news is that survey fatigue can be beaten back and we can get the responses we need when the survey process is handled well.
The article appeared in the summer 2002 edition of Insights magazine, a publication of the Northeast Human Resources Association (NEHRA).
