Bashing annual employee surveys has definitely come into fashion. All too often, headlines recommend that companies scrap their annual engagement or satisfaction surveys and instead put boots on the ground and experience work from the employee perspective. Get out there, talk to people and you will get a sense of what is going on. That was the focus of a recent article on Forbes by Liz Ryan, suggesting that we “Ditch the Employee Engagement Survey – Here Are Ten Better Ways to Listen.”
The article misses the mark in its criticism of employee surveys. Perhaps it could be construed as an indictment of the way surveys are being used in some organizations today. After all, modern surveying capabilities allow anyone, regardless of survey design expertise, to utilize the tool, and because data collection is easy and efficient, it often replaces more beneficial, yet time-consuming, ways of collecting robust information from across the organization.
However, a quarterly or annual survey, when designed correctly, still serves an important function in organizations. It permits the organization to assess the current state of the workforce, whether in terms of engagement, job satisfaction, turnover intentions, or some other constructs. When coupled with modern analytics and visualization capabilities, organizations can effectively identify changes over time, specific issues that need to be addressed, and problem areas within the organization.
Anecdotes are not surveys
These benefits cannot be realized using any of the tactical approaches Ryan recommends in her article. Many of the approaches she mentions (e.g., being available for group conversations, quick one-on-one conversations) could be used to add more focused discussion based on survey results, but they will not replace the quality of information obtained in a survey of the workforce.
The reason for this is that surveys provide a broad collection of information across a wide variety of individuals within the organization. Data are collected and analyzed in a systematic way, and therefore, the results provide a more inclusive cross-section of the organization than any other tactical approach.
Meetings and town hall forums, suggestion boxes, and lunch room conversations may produce a host of anecdotal data, which can be highly fruitful and produce ideas worth considering and vetting for possible implementation across the organization. However, such data are typically non-representative and increase our likelihood of succumbing to one of many cognitive biases. If your primary (or only) way of assessing the state of the workforce is through the use of anecdotal data, you will likely walk away with a biased, unrepresentative view of your organization.
Instead, a more systematic approach would be as follows:
- Survey employees about their attitudes using broad, validated metrics and in a way to optimizes response rate and willingness to respond candidly.
- Use multifaceted approaches (e.g., town hall meetings, online suggestion boxes, lunch room conversations), more boots on the ground approaches to discuss survey results, get a sense of individual employee concerns and ideas for enhancing the organization’s overall effectiveness.
- Synthesize and evaluate the possible options for moving the organization forward that were generated during Step 2. If multiple options are being considered, perhaps poll employees to get a sense of their preferences for the options in the list.
- Begin implementation of initiatives, finding ways, when possible to get employees involved.
- Assess the quality of implementation in the next round of surveys and begin the process all over again.
Such an approach recognizes that organizational effectiveness cannot be enhanced with a “one and done” process. It requires a systematic, recurring process that relies on data being collected in multiple ways and integrated to optimize the likelihood of successful strategies and initiatives.
http://bit.ly/2faF21t / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
from Good Company Blog http://bit.ly/2faFVXM
via Tumblr http://ift.tt/2eMoTLh
