I’m starting a new series called Tools of the Devil. Here’s where we’ll take a look at some of the more idiotic things that organizations do usually without thinking how idiotic they really are. The series kick-off is focused on the ridiculous exercise of employee surveys.
Employee satisfaction surveys are a waste of time and energy but nearly all organizations continue to do them. Why? Undoubtedly, it’s the feel-good factor of crossing something off the list of things you’re supposed to do. And of all the things you’re supposed to do as an HR manager, the employee survey is right there at the top. You’re supposed to ask your employees if they are satisfied. You’re supposed to ask your employees if they know their jobs. You’re supposed to ask your employees about their managers. You’re supposed to ask a lot of things…
Here’s the problem: a survey is a craptacular tool for determining any of this in a meaningful way. What these survey questions aim to understand, on a surface level, is satisfaction, but on a deeper level the purpose is to understand the relationships between an employee and his or her work…which, if you think about it, is rather absurd. Would you send your spouse a survey to measure their satisfaction with your relationship? How about your kids…they’d love that, right? So why the hell do most organizations continue with this shallow and increasingly pointless exercise?
Organizations are - and always have been - fixated on benchmarks and quantitative measures. Notice how many organizations survey their folks and then quickly go to compare their results with other organizations? It’s like when my daughter brings home a 95% on a test but then quickly states that her friend only got 90%. What does that mean? Absolutely nothing. What I’m more interested in is whether she actually retains enough of the learning, not whether she could pass the damn test again. Again, it’s the relationship…in this case the relationship that my daughter has to the learning.
I can practically hear the response now, “But Chris, how can we be sure that we’re making progress on our goals if we don’t have some type of measurement?” My response is, “How can you be so sure that your precious survey is an honest assessment of whatever it is that you’re trying to measure?” What a typical employee survey does is try to ask very general, shallow questions in an attempt to get a broad, baseline understanding of the company’s human resources. If you think you can understand the relationship between individual and organization through such an instrument, I have some land that I’d like to sell to you.
A survey allows for anonymous feedback which will be more honest. The notion that ‘anonymous = honest’ is a myth. Let’s step back and ask why someone might want to conduct an employee survey. Worst case scenario is that it’s done just to cross something off a managerial to-do list. Not too far behind this rationale is that it’s done because other organizations do it. But somewhere edging toward a more noble reason is because you want to learn about your employees. Yet, just because it’s noble still doesn’t make it the best option.
Here’s a fairly typical scenario for thinking about honesty through anonymity. You send an employee survey out asking for frank and honest feedback. Employees, in an attempt to maintain their anonymity, will try to keep their remarks general so their comments can’t be traced back to them. The remarks tend to also be shallow, never really getting to the root of the issue because the survey asks for feedback out of context to the situation. Then, at some point in the process, the manager receives the feedback. What do they do with it? Let’s say its negative feedback. Because it’s anonymous, the manager questions the validity since no one is openly responsible for the comments. Or perhaps the manager wants to learn more about an employee’s opinion, but can’t because he or she has to keep up the facade of anonymity. Which all begs a question…do anonymous employee surveys diminish instead of build the kind of organizational trust needed to put the feedback into action?
If you really want to know what your employees think about their work, their managers, their colleagues, and most importantly, their relationship to the organization, step out from behind your desk and start asking questions face-to-face. Stop relying on surveys and making ritual sacrifices to the gods of quantitative measurement. I won’t lie. If this is a new practice in your organization, it’s going to take time and effort to cultivate an open dialogue. Conversations about work and meaning and individual purpose are hard, but the fruit of these conversations will be a hell of a lot better than yet another spiral bound survey analysis report gather dust on the corporate bookshelf.
Okay, this is the best blog post I have read in months! I will compose a post about it over the weekend, but I at least wanted to say, well said!
Darn good praise and much appreciated. Glad it struck a chord with you, Jamie. Can’t wait to see your post/response.
Chris: Sorry to get here so late This is a wonderful post. It reminds me of a time when I got involved with a really large organization. They’d done a big employee survey and surprise surprise the outcome was criticism of “upper management” for failing to communicate and making poor decisions. So I went to the head of the organization and asked, what do you think about the results? He said, “The employees are absolutely right. When I look at the people who report to me [VP level folks], I know exactly what the employees are talking about.” So then I had conversations with all the people in that senior group and I asked them what they thought of the survey results. And they said, “The employees are absolutely right! Look at the guy who says he’s leading us. He is the problem around here!” It didn’t take a brain surgeon to see the problem. But the kicker was when I went back to the top guy with my observations about what he and the top team were saying about one another, his first question was, “Well, do you think it’s time to run that survey again?” And he was serious. HELPPPPPPPPP!
Oh Dan, I’m chuckling as I respond…looks like they were doing their damnedest to prove their people right. Now I’m curious…what’s the rest of the story? Did you bail? Did you pull the CEO and the VPs together in the same room in the off-chance they might actually see reason?
Lots of self-deception, denial, and poor leadership at that org…but then that org’s employees already knew that.
Oh, I didn’t bail, and in fact did quite a lot of work with the executive over the next year. And while there was a certain ironic chuckle that went round when I reflected back the story of the employee survey to the executive and top team in a group setting, it really didn’t change anyone’s mind about what was going to go down. I had been hired by the top exec to help him gain insight into the effects of his style, which I was able to do at a certain level, and I believe my work helped him personally become a little more effective. But the overall picture was grim. The senior group decided they wanted nothing to do with a facilitator — or rather thought they could facilitate their own work on “undiscussables” at the bar one afternoon each week (against my recommendation). That finally stopped when someone in the group almost called the police because things were on the edge of getting physical. I witnessed meetings of the top executive, senior group, and larger management team that would break your heart, they were so incorrigibly wasteful — one involved 75 people, both local (including a number called back from vacation) and from the home office in another state to sit for two days at a single very long table while two high-level factotums argued points from a powerpoint that no one could see and which never led to any form of group discussion. The meeting had been set in a state halfway to the home office because placing the meeting either locally or at the home office would have been seen as a political win for one side or the other, so everybody traveled. Direct and pointed feedback from me and other high-priced consultants asked to attend was dismissed as irrelevant or “too negative.” The organization had federal dollars (an unbelievable number of them) and what dominated internally was a show of politics much stronger than any form of conscience or vision or information from employees that I or anybody might bring. A big part of what kept the cultural system in place was the reporting relationship to the home office that was, if anything, even more corrupt. How anything got done on this outpost’s 1.7 billion dollars of revenue per year, I’ll never know. The employee survey was something the home office had purchased and imposed on everybody, so it was just another ticket to punch and simply didn’t matter. Reports were written, promises were made, nothing happened. Employees continued to work for the place because the benefits were outrageous and the local operation was in an area where it might be hard to find other kinds of work at the same level of compensation — at least that’s what I was told.
This story is fifteen years old, so I have no idea if things have changed.
Thanks for sharing the rest of the story. Perhaps the most astounding thing is that 15 years have passed and we’re still dealing with the same monkeycrap within orgs. It’s a mixed blessing for workplace consultants - great because this means there’s always business…frustrating because nothing really gets solved. The issues for this org will likely only change when there’s a critical mass from within who rise up like Peter Finch in Network and yell out, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore.”
Or maybe this org is the ideal stopping point for boiled frogs other lemmings who’ve given up on finding purpose in their work.
Thanks for letting me vent, Chris! On to better things….