Staff Engagement surveys: Pitfalls, benefits and future developments

Have you completed your annual (or bi-annual) staff engagement survey yet,….?? Do you receive the reminder emails ?? You know, the ones that make you wonder:

1.?????? whether you are being targeted (because you haven’t yet completed it)

2.?????? what might be the consequences of you don’t complete ?

3.?????? what might happen if you told “them” how you are really thinking and feeling !?

There is definitely a place for staff engagement surveys. ?They are a crucial part of the HR toolkit to provide both quantitative and qualitative data and hopefully insights to inform decision making.? Further, the plethora of DIY survey products now available empower even the smallest of organisations to conduct bespoke engagement surveys.

However, maybe it is a good time to pause and ask ourselves whether we are really getting a true picture of reality and achieving the desired outcomes,…or worst case, whether we are in danger of deluding ourselves! ?Some may even suggest the current approach to employee engagement has got a little out of hand.

Question creep can lead to lengthy questionnaires, hours spent by HR and others analysing and interpreting data to provide insights, project teams setup to address specific issues, team events delivered to address low scores associated with sometimes quite public, awkward conversations between Line Managers and employees.? Then there is the collation of actions taken and associated impacts to be ceremoniously presented back to the CEO, demonstrating how effectively middle management and the executive team have responded.? Finally, the generic communications back to the workforce, to convince them that they have genuinely been heard and their concerns addressed.? A cynical perspective might suggest there is a danger of creating an organisational machine, taking up scarce resources and delivering messages designed to comfort all, a self-fulfilling activity that can be periodically repeated to show positive, benchmarked trends of improvement,…hopefully !

A more generous view would be that the organisation is genuinely acting upon the feedback and launching initiatives to positively impact the workplace and organisational culture.? There is no doubt that surveys can help to identify opportunities for improvement,…but there are other ways and perhaps more importantly, other motives to identify and put these in place. How often do we find ourselves conveniently shoe-horning and justifying activities around the engagement survey machine ?

I once spent a whole morning with a CEO from a blue chip company as they went line by line through their recent results.? They were obsessed,….and I was intrigued,…..not by the results but by their behaviour.? I began to realise that being at the top of an organisation can be a lonely place.? How can A CEO really know what is going on within a sizeable organisation ?? Especially if they are surrounded by people who want them to know how great they are and that there are no issues within their respective division.? Add in a little paranoia, the desire to succeed and the necessity to navigate the political landscape and you can start to understand the perceived value and importance of the survey.

However, beware top brass, as the picture your survey creates, may be a distorted version of reality.

So you have got a completion rate of 80%.? Fantastic news ! ?Doesn’t that sound good !?? However, don’t forget that means 20% are not even engaged enough to respond. ?Let me suggest (perhaps conservatively) that approximately 50% of those that do respond, are also not engaged and are deliberately choosing to provide false feedback.? That would make a total of 60% of people being disengaged, still way better than the 88% reported for Eu employees by Gallups State of the Global Workforce 2024 report.? So what might account for this apparent discrepancy in the results between surveys personalised for specific businesses and the more generic surveys ?

Firstly, many people do not believe company level engagement surveys are truly confidential.? Although there is usually a requirement for a minimum of 5 responses per reporting group to ensure confidentiality, year on year comparisons can be made when changes in team composition occur.? Yes it is not 100% proven who has responded in what way but people will always infer that certain responses and comments have been made by particular individuals. Despite regular advice not to, it is only natural for people to be curious and to try to determine who is the source of various messages.? This lack of confidentiality (perceived or otherwise) is likely to influence how people respond.

Secondly, regardless of the real degree of anonymity, I propose that over time employees learn how to respond to regular staff surveys (and fudge the results) in different ways, depending upon their personal disposition and desired outcomes.

Perhaps the most common category of respondent we can label the “accommodators”.? They will do what a child does when they want the sweets,…they tell you what they think you want to hear.? But not too much, otherwise you might get suspicious.?? Mostly good ratings with a little bit of variation and the odd comment that is not too contentious.?? That way no alarm bells go off. ?Line Management is happy and there is no need for those awkward conversations about how things could be improved around here and what could be done differently by the Line Manager.? These smart employees have learnt how to survive and prosper.? Keep your Line Manager happy and on-side.? All is good,…maybe reduce the prices for tea and coffee in the canteen a little but otherwise we are all well, happy, motivated and performing. Rock on !

Next we have the “overly positives”.? Everything is wonderful,……the leaders, the working environment and the culture are great, there are no operational barriers and we work in an agile and dynamic way,…..pass me all of the sweets now please !

Then there are the “moaners”.? They will regardless of the consequences, use the survey to express their dissatisfaction and attempt to use it as a bargaining tool against middle management.? They know the top brass will want to see evidence of actions taken to drive up the results.? Any perceived issues could have significant implications for the managers that are perceived to have failed to address them.? In response, the managers, may try to identify the culprits and worse case, weed them out of the organisation,….so it’s a risky business being a moaner but the reality is that some are able to hide.? A positive demeanour, the right words at the right time to indicate a positive attitude in the office can hide the survey moaner, although in the long term, it may become difficult to hide from the emerging trends in the data.? So, the moaners are also smart, using the survey as a tool to manipulate upwards, assuming they can hide well and survive long enough to reap any benefits.

And lets not forget the “stitch up merchants”.? They are serious game players and are in it to win a bigger competition.? They offer ratings and tailor their comments to sound like they have been made by another person, or group of people and then sit back to watch the consequences.

Finally, there is you and me, the “honest souls” who always provide fair ratings and constructive feedback comments for improvement that reflect our true perceptions,……really ?

There are no doubt other categories of respondents, but maybe ask yourself what percentage of the above you might have in your organisation.

Thirdly, have you ever noticed that responses generally indicate that the immediate team is functioning rather well but that it is the other groups of people (or interactions with them) that are problematic ? “We are alright,….its the other people that are the problem”.? This is a reflection of the natural in-group, out-group bias effect that we are all prone to.? A tendency to disproportionately perceive and attribute positive characteristics to in-group members and attribute more negative characteristics and labels to members of an out-group. ?Another bias effect may impact upon responses to questions that relate to the individual e.g. “I invest discretionary effort to get work done”.? A strong response to this question probably reflects the desire for a positive self-image, of being a hard worker who is deserving of more recognition or support, as opposed to strong organisational engagement.

Of course the actual questions used within a survey (and the type of statistical analysis used) will also influence the results.? So how many questions are needed to indicate how engaged people are and how they are feeling ? Gallup have managed to restrict theirs to 12 questions based upon their research into employee needs.? But beware of using them without consent, as they have Copyright protection. ?A variation of the Net Promotor Score “How likely are you to recommend XXX as a place to work ?” (and why) might be the most condensed approach.

So, maybe we have created a situation where the senior leaders look to the survey data for issues but also for comfort,…to know that things are going well, that they are doing a good job leading the organisation and addressing any flaws.? The middle management live in a state of fear, hoping that the results will be at least OK (if not good), that the actions they have taken and the carefully timed and crafted employee communications they send just before the survey opens will nudge the results up enough to hit their bonus KPI’s.? The employees divert their attention from their day jobs and comply enough to play the game accordingly, depending upon their personality, strategy and situation.? The end result ? A shared perception of organisational reality that provides a comfort blanket for all.? How nice,…best not tip the apple cart, as you don’t know what the consequences might be.

I know this is a cynical perspective and don’t want to undermine the value that such surveys can provide but am highlighting the dangers of becoming over reliant, if not over-dependent on them.? There are other options for leaders to stay in touch with their workforce.? Management by walkabout is severely underestimated and practiced, as it can be difficult for senior leaders to spark up conversations with relative strangers, especially if they know little about the immediate business operational activities. On the other hand the opening question of “tell me more about what you do around here” ?can be a good starting point.

Another option is various types of focus and engagement groups.? These can target specific topics with different employee segments and can be independently facilitated, sometimes with senior leadership present and other times without them. ?Employee Resource Group’s focused on specific organisational priorities are currently in vogue and can also be a good source of robust insights.? More formally, employee consultation forums can be effective although this depends upon how they are setup and run.? I quite like the idea of offering the opportunity to share an informal lunch in the staff canteen with senior leadership but the success of this may depend upon your organisational culture and leadership personalities.

Of course both quantitative and qualitative approaches have a role to play and it can be really useful to have trend data to inform insights.? But take some caution, especially of you link survey outcomes to performance KPI’s, as this may drive unexpected behaviours that increase the scores, regardless of whether they reflect reality and the true engagement levels of your employees.

Looking forwards, with Ai we can expect more sophisticated analysis and insights linking the data to other metrics like performance management, retention, training, DEI, talent ratings and promotions.? Other technological advances are providing more diverse and powerful tools in addition to traditional engagement surveys.? For example, Organisational Network Analysis explores the relationships between people e.g. through their frequency and style of communications. ?Another option is to offer employees a choice of when, how and on which topics they provide feedback.?

Alternative approaches include the Customer Service Index and Line Manager Index (24) How Collaborative Behaviours Enhance Business Performance | LinkedIn) which help reveal organisational relationships and their impact upon performance and engagement. Longer term, the inclusion of psychological and physiological measures may be added to the mix of variables, although there are still some ethical questions that need to be addressed here first.

In summary, focus on what really matters to avoid responder fatigue, be aware of and compensate for survey drawbacks, use a variety of approaches and consider experimenting with different survey methodologies. And remember, people will always learn and adapt how they respond to achieve a perceived beneficial outcome,…which might not always be as you expect.

Please note: the views expressed in this article are the authors only (no Ai input excluding graphic) and are not to be associated with their employer. They are offered in good faith to provoke original thinking, extend the boundaries of our understanding and help identify new methodologies.