"Click five to survive"

[Jean Douglas, CMC]

These four words say it so well.

Background - This is how a colleague explained what they think is happening in their organization's engagement survey. The pressure is on at the executive level to "get the scores up" and is a component of some managers and the executives performance metrics.

My concerns - This is something that I have been concerned about for some time. I have heard in focus groups and other conversations stories of how the intent of the engagement survey and the wonderful information it can provide are being undermined by managers and executives whose focus is soley on the number - the "score".

Some of the things I have heard include:
- Employees being chastised for marking the survey incorrectly.

- Managers when handing out a survey or explaining the survey process telling employees which column to check when answering the survey.

- Employees feeling bad that their manager will lose a bonus if they get a poor mark on the survey (i.e., the engagement score for their unit).

-Employees worried that there is too much at risk to chance answering negatively.

My Question: I was wondering if any one else is seeing this increase in biased answering of engagement surveys?
I also wonder if this is happening (starting to happen) to employees in companies who participate in the "Best Company/Employer" lists?

[Craig Althof]

Surveys and the attitude toward them can both say a good deal about an organization. I was with one company where there was a deep climate of distrust and fear of retribution. "There's no such thing as an anonymous audit. I'm not answering / participating"....even when the survey was from a third party, well-recognized firm.

It was noted there are issues with inaction or failure to communicate survey results. The most irrational reaction I've seen was the opposite..."Next time, I'm making sure my people respond like everything is GREAT here so we don't get any assignments out of it."

It seems the more the organization' s culture indicates the need for open feedback and change, the tougher it is to get meaningful data and initiate value-adding action. Patient is terminal...pull the plug? Tempting.

[Ben Simonton]

Craig wrote - "It seems the more the organization' s culture indicates the need for open feedback and change, the tougher it is to get meaningful data and initiate value-adding action."

After management destroys trust by the way it manages employees, employees know better than to be open. In order to protect themselves from further abuse, employees chose to tell management what they want to hear. To do otherwise would be really stupid.

But getting meaningful data is still very easy to do one-on-one or in a group meeting. The experts tell us that about 7% of all communication is verbal with the rest being tone of voice and body language. The only way to get meaningful data is to get the full message, not just words, directly from the person not through some survey. If the person listening is experienced, meaningful data is easy to get one-on-one. I know it is easy from firsthand experience as the new boss and as a consultant.

By experienced, I mean someone who understands that the most basic needs of employees are to be heard and be respected, and understands the full spectrum from totally not meeting these needs to fully meeting them. If these needs are not being met, employees will be demotivated and demoralized and will act accordingly. Experienced observers know it is the way management treats employees that dictates how employees act in the workplace and that how employees act thus tells precisely how management is treating them. If the observer is not experienced, there is no way to get meaningful data.

I agree. If the patient is terminal, pull the plug on the managers and get some who know how to treat employees with great respect and thus cause them to unleash their full potential of creativity, innovation, productivity, motivation, and commitment on their work.

Best regards, Ben
http://www.bensimonton.com/articles.html

[Doug Shaw]

Good points Craig. There's a big problem with lack of trust over anonymity where I am right now, your second point about it's all great is alive and well too. I went ahead and asked the pull the plug question, at least for a while (maybe a year). Too much fear about the place to contemplate that, though there is increasing recognition that the wheel's are coming off :(

Still, another new boss has just arrived, I'm an optimist let's hope he is eh?

[Craig Althof]

Ben's points about one-on-ones and group meetings is dead-on. Just went through the survey and validation process, using a very credible outside resource as a partner. The numbers definitely told a story, but the between-the-lines plot was the really telling stuff.

I was a relative newcomer, and managed to build a good level of trust and credibility with the do-ers. So I was getting the stright story. But when I shared trends, observations and recommendations with the decision-makers, my newness got in the way. Of course, I absolutely protected my sources, even in the face of "WHO said that?" demands. I've since moved on-life is too short.

Doug, I hate to say it but it's "good" to hear others share my pain.

[Mike Healy]

All,

I would be fascinated to see Doug's revised survey questionnaire.....any chance of having a look, Doug? Please e-mail me.

I am very interested in the conversation. I was trained in psychometric testing ( Saville & Holdsworth) and I know the scientific research that went into establishing normative data and proving the validity of the data.

I agree that to obtain data is one thing but interpretation is another and this aspect can bring a great deal of subjectivity back into the equation.

I have been developing an approach using the mathematical computational power of an Artificial Neural Networks to map competency levels in companies and I am now looking to do somethng similar with engagement. Anyone like to learn more. Just let me know.

I too have personal knolwedge of engaging staff who didn't trust management (see Forum topic Engaging the Enemy). Its a good feeling to have done it but it is hard to explain to those who have not been involved, but I would hesitate in saying there is a formula which applies to all circumstances. In my situation there were several people who could not/would not play along. They eventually left the organisation......this is painful reality.

[Jean Douglas, CMC]

It is disheartening to see and hear about the abuse of surveys and their data. And, by people, that very likely believe that they behave in an ethical manner in their everyday lives. Perhaps we also need to do a better job of articulating the professional and ethical rules/codes of conduct of survey use. Make sure HR and other associations, organizations are aware of these codes.

I recently purchased a book: "The Ethical Practie of Psychology in Organizations" edited by Rodney L. Lowman, 2nd Edition, 2006. It provides excellent examples of the misuse of surveys, assessments, etc. A must read for any one who is consulting to organizations on issues affecting employees. It gives a case study, the codes that are violated, explains what was done wrong and offers alternative actions.

The most perfect survey in the world cannot do its job if those using it (the data) do not uphold the codes.