Survey | Companies satisfied with just collecting numbers fail to capture the true feelings of the front lines
Survey
There are companies that conduct surveys but fail to notice changes in their organization.
The response rate is not bad.
The scores have not dropped significantly.
They are looking at results by department.
They are collecting comments.
They are reporting to management meetings.
HR is also thinking of improvement plans.
Even so, the front lines do not change.
The atmosphere in meetings remains heavy.
Participation does not increase.
Consultations are slow.
Managers are exhausted.
Dissatisfaction with evaluations remains.
Young employees do not step forward.
Collaboration between departments does not improve.
In this state, management and HR think as follows.
"We are conducting surveys"
"We are looking at the numbers"
"The results are not significantly bad"
"Let's continue to monitor this next time"
However, it is dangerous to stop here.
The point of a survey is not just to conduct it.
It exists to look at the numbers and identify where the organization is blocked.
And if you do not act after identifying the issues, the survey will actually lose credibility.
Last time, I wrote that HR initiatives do not necessarily work just by increasing them.
Click here for the previous article
Surveys.
1-on-1s.
Evaluation systems.
Training.
Recognition programs.
Onboarding.
Internal events.
Even if there are many initiatives, they are meaningless if they do not address the organizational blockages.
The important thing was to look at where the blockages are before deciding what to do.
This time, I will write about representative measures for finding those blockages.
The theme is surveys.
A survey is a diagnosis, not an initiative
When you hear the term engagement survey, it is sometimes treated as an initiative in itself.
Certainly, it is better than a company that looks at nothing.
It is important to monitor the state of the organization at fixed points.
It is also necessary to collect the voices of employees.
It is better to look at numbers and comments than to talk about the organization based only on intuition.
However, there is something you must not get wrong here.
Taking a survey itself does not change the organization.
A survey is a diagnosis.
Just as you do not get healthier simply by having a medical checkup, an organization does not improve simply by taking a survey.
Where are the abnormalities?
In which department is the misalignment occurring?
At which level is dissatisfaction strong?
Which items are related to performance and turnover?
Where should we take action first?
It is for finding these things out.
Therefore, the real work of a survey begins after the responses are collected.
Read the results,
formulate hypotheses,
verify with the front lines,
and turn them into action.
Only by doing this much does a survey have meaning.
---
Companies that have numbers but do not see the front lines
I have seen companies that take surveys carefully but fail to capture the changes on the front lines.
The response rate is high.
The reports are well-organized.
Scores are listed.
There are comparisons by department.
Free-text comments are also read.
At first glance, it looks like they are looking at things quite properly.
But when you enter the front lines, there is a sense of discomfort.
In a department that looks like it has no major problems in the numbers, managers are actually quite exhausted.
The average score is not bad, but only the young employees are strongly disillusioned.
The overall score is stable, but in some teams, consultation has stopped.
It does not appear in the comments, but no one is speaking their true feelings in meetings.
Only after turnover occurs do they realize that there were signs in the previous survey results.
The numbers were there.
But they were not being read.
What is dangerous about surveys is not just low numbers.
It is overlooking organizational changes while thinking you are looking at the numbers.
Looking only at average scores.
Looking only at the comparison with the previous time.
Looking only at the response rate.
Looking only at the company-wide score.
If you do that, you won't be able to see the truly dangerous areas.
This is because organizational problems do not always appear clearly in overall averages.
---
Average scores can hide organizational distortions
When looking at surveys, many companies first look at the average scores.
Of course, that is necessary.
However, if you only look at the average scores, you may overlook distortions in the organization.
For example, the company-wide average is not bad.
But a specific department is extremely low.
Department averages are normal.
But the younger employees are low.
The overall situation is stable.
But the management layer is exhausted.
The scores are not bad.
But the comment section shows signs of resignation.
It is dangerous to look at this state using only average scores.
This is because organizational problems do not always appear in the form of the 'whole being bad'.
Rather, they appear in parts at first.
Small distortions appear there.
And if you leave them alone, they will spread throughout the organization over time.
Looking at average scores in surveys is not enough
You need to look at where the differences are.
What you should look at in a survey is not just whether it is high or low.
It is where the distortions are.
---
True feelings appear more in comments and silence than in numbers
In surveys, comments are just as important as scores.
However, a high volume of comments does not necessarily mean that true feelings are being expressed.
In fact, in dangerous organizations, the number of comments can sometimes decrease.
Nothing changes even if I write it.
I'm afraid that who wrote it might be identified.
It won't be read anyway.
I wrote about this before, but nothing changed.
I don't have any expectations anymore.
When people think this way, comments become superficial.
"Nothing in particular"
"No problems"
"Everything is fine as it is"
"Nothing special"
These kinds of responses increase.
At first glance, it might look like there are few problems.
But, as I wrote last time, silence does not always mean agreement.
The absence of voices can itself be a sign.
The same applies to surveys.
A state where a large amount of dissatisfaction is written is dangerous.
But a state where nothing is written is also dangerous.
The numbers haven't dropped significantly.
There are few comments.
No strong dissatisfaction is being voiced.
Therefore, you cannot say that everything is fine.
What you really need to look at is whether the numbers, the comments, and the atmosphere on the front lines align.
The scores are high, but there is little input from the front lines.
There are few comments, but turnover is increasing.
The response rate is high, but no suggestions for improvement are coming forward.
Satisfaction levels are not bad, but fewer people are taking on challenges.
If you don't look at these discrepancies, the survey will only be a superficial check.
True feelings are expressed not only in the words that are written but also in the words that are left unwritten.
---
The problem is not the absence of numbers, but the failure to turn those numbers into action.
Companies that conduct surveys are not lacking in numbers.
In fact, they have plenty of numbers.
If you want to look, you can see many things.
However, those numbers sometimes fail to translate into action.
Survey results are shared at management meetings.
HR creates a report.
Results are handed to department heads.
Managers are asked to make improvements.
They wait and see until the next survey.
And that is where it ends.
As a result, the front lines feel this way.
"I answered, but I don't know what changed."
"The survey comes every time, but I don't see any improvements."
"In the end, aren't they just collecting numbers?"
"There's no point in writing my true feelings."
When this feeling spreads, it becomes harder to get honest feedback in the next survey.
They will answer.
But they won't write anything deep.
They will answer safely.
They won't express strong discomfort.
They will stop expecting anything.
Surveys are meant to collect the voices of employees.
However, if you don't act on the voices you collect, you will lose their trust instead.
The problem is not the lack of numbers.
The problem is not reading the numbers, returning them to the front lines, and turning them into concrete actions.
Companies that change nothing after a survey lose their employees' voices
The most dangerous thing about a survey is not a low score.
It is changing nothing after a low score is produced.
It ends with just sharing the results.
No concrete improvements are visible.
It is not decided who will change what.
How to check next time is also vague.
All that remains for the front lines is a "Thank you for your cooperation."
When this is repeated, the front lines learn.
Even if I say it, nothing changes.
Even if I write it, nothing changes.
Even if it shows up in the numbers, nothing changes.
So, next time, I'll just answer safely.
When this happens, the accuracy of the survey drops.
A survey is a mechanism for collecting voices, but it is also a place where employees observe how the company handles those voices.
Employees are watching how the company acts after the survey.
Are they really reading it?
Are they taking the issues seriously?
Are they leaving it entirely up to the managers?
Are improvements being returned to the front lines?
Is the next action visible?
I am looking at it to that extent.
That is why companies that change nothing after a survey lose their voice.
And an organization that has lost its voice becomes quiet.
---
First, I want you to pose this question
When looking at a survey, it is better not to look only at the high or low scores right away.
That is important.
However, there is a different question you should pose first.
What kind of organizational blockage does this number indicate?
It is better to look at this.
If trust in supervisors is low, is there a problem with how managers engage?
If satisfaction with evaluations is low, is there a problem with expected roles or feedback?
If understanding of the company's direction is low, is the management message not reaching the front lines?
If the sense of growth is low, is work not connected to development?
If inter-departmental collaboration is low, are goals or priorities misaligned?
If psychological safety is low, is there an experience where speaking up was not handled?
Do not just look at the numbers and finish; read the structure from the numbers.
And once you have read the structure, confirm it with the front lines.
Only by proceeding this far will a survey lead to organizational improvement.
Looking at a survey does not mean looking at scores.
It means reading the blockages on the front lines that lie behind the numbers.
If you miss this point, the surveys will continue.
But the organization will not change.
---
There is only one thing I want to leave with this article
A survey is not for collecting numbers.
It is a diagnosis to find where the organization is blocked and turn that into action.
Trust in a company is determined by what you change after the survey.
How did we create a strategy after the company fell apart?
I wrote about that story here.
"Because we didn't die, we were able to create a strategy"
In this series, I will write about engagement, MVV, and HR policies, starting from the structures that weaken an organization.
I would be happy if you could like and follow so that you receive the rest of the series.
Next time, I will write about 1-on-1s.
I am listening to what they have to say.
I am holding meetings.
I am also setting aside time every month.
But the organization does not change.
1-on-1 | Just listening to what they have to say will not increase engagement