Best Practices in Creating and Using Employee Survey Feedback Data as a Means to

Improve Retention and Engagement

Ardavan A. Shahroodi

Northeastern University

HRM 6040—Performance Human Systems and Development

Professor Elaine M. Walker

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Introduction

Competently constructed and implemented survey strategies enable a more clairvoyant

understanding of organizational dynamics. The information that is produced in surveys also

facilitates the adoption of policies and practices that is intended to improve desired

organizational objectives such as maintaining high levels of employee engagement and retention

rates. In this spirit, surveys must be viewed as extremely valuable communication instruments

that enable firms to enhance performance and compete effectively.

The Utilization of Employee Surveys as a Tool to Safeguard Organizational Assets

In order to regard employee surveys as an effective instrument in promoting employee

retention and engagement levels, organizations must begin with the recognition that their

“intangible assets” (Noe et al., 2013, p. 20) are crucial determinants of business performance.

These intangible assets that are labeled as the “human capital, customer capital, social capital

and intellectual capital” (p. 20) are “by one estimate, up to 75 percent of the source of value in a

company” (Ibid). Nevertheless, some organizations “still find it difficult to rationalize a focus-

and investment in-the human component” (Incorporating Employee Survey, 2010, p. 1) while

others have accepted the premise that survey induced “targeted engagement incentives can yield

significant, measurable improvement in business performance” (Ibid).

The improvement of organizational retention and engagement rates mandate that

employers possess a “clear understanding of the employees who make up the workforce”

(Managing Employee Surveys, 2012, para. 2) and “surveys are an excellent vehicle for gaining

that insight” (Ibid). In this light, surveys that are competently “designed and conducted” (para.

3) may “reveal a great deal of information about employee perceptions” (Ibid). In general the

level of importance that management attaches to “employee feedback leads to higher retention

rates, lower absenteeism, improved productivity, better customer service and higher employee

morale” (para. 3). In addition, in order “to manage more effectively” (para. 3) organizational

leaders must “gain insight into issues affecting their department or business” (para. 3).

In pursuit of measuring the linkage connecting “employee engagement and business

performance” (Sorenson, 2013, para. 3), the Gallup organization utilizes Q12 employee

engagement assessment/meta-analysis conducted in 2012 “across 192 organizations in 49

industries and 34 countries” (para. 5) analyzing data from “49,928 work units, including 1.4

million employees” (Ibid). The survey results has one more time (conducted seven previous

times) confirmed “the well-established connection between employee engagement and nine

performance outcomes” (para. 5) such as “profitability…productivity…turnover” (para. 6) and

other metrics. Indeed, Gallup’s research has found that the “top quartile in employee

engagement outperformed bottom-quartile units by 10% on customer ratings, 22% in

profitability, and 21% in productivity” (para. 9). Furthermore, the results of the study have

indicated that “work units in the top quartile also saw significantly lower turnover (25% in high–

turnover organizations, 65% in low turnover organizations)” (para. 9). In addition, Gallup’s

meta-analysis has illustrated that “companies with engaged workforces have higher earnings per

share (EPS)…recovered from the recession at a faster rate” (para. 12).

Survey Design and Feedback

Prior to initiating the design process, “a multilevel, cross-functional team” (Managing

Employee Surveys, 2012, para. 14) may be formed in order to “consider the organization’s real

motivation for conducting a survey” (Ibid). This is most important, since the nature of the

reasoning behind having a survey must ultimately play a determining role in the design process.

Accordingly, in a survey devoted to gauging employee retention and engagement, corresponding

questions must “yield information that isolates” (para. 16) related matters and “problems and

helps management address them” (Ibid). The specific rationale behind holding the survey (in

this case retention and engagement) will also narrow down the selection of the appropriate

consulting firm/vendor that will have the responsibility of conducting the survey in addition to

tabulating and analyzing the results. In the next step of the process, the HR Department and the

multilevel/cross-functional team must engage in a detailed study of “previous surveys and their

results” (Managing Employee Surveys, 2012, para. 14) in order to place the endeavor in

historical context and better understand the evolution of employee retention and engagement at

the firm. At this juncture, the organization may also solicit survey questions form the general

employee population.

In regards to the format of questions and the lengths of surveys, the template located in

the SHRM Web site titled Managing Employee Surveys (2012) argues that “most experts agree

that including too many items, and including items that are confusing and repetitious, can wreck

a survey” (para. 18). The template contends that “survey questions should be simple and short,

using terminology familiar to all employees” and must “take no longer than 20 to 30 minutes to

complete” (para. 18). On the other hand, Adam Zuckerman ( The Enduring Riddle, May 2013)

senior consultant at Towers Watson observes that “when done well, more information yields

more focused insights on the kind of action that is likely to improve the business…As the very

reason for doing a survey in the first place, this is hard to overestimate” (para. 2). Zuckerman

does acknowledge that during the review phase, managers “may be burdened by longer surveys

results” (para. 3) due to the scarcity of time. The solution, Zuckerman proposes are

“comparative and predictive analytics: current, robust and relevant benchmarks (industry-,

geography- and performance-based, etc.), together with analyses measuring the impact of each

question on key outcomes (employee engagement, customer satisfaction, company profitability,

etc.)” (para. 4). Here managers will receive in a “single sheet of paper” (para. 5) a survey report

“highlighting…critical issues and associated recommendations” (Ibid) generated on the basis of

“analysis and prioritization, and by packaging the information in a way that is “easily

assimilate[d]” (para. 7).

The SHRM article also warns against the usage of “double-barreled” (para. 19) questions

such as, “The pay and benefits are excellent at this company” (Ibid) since potentially some

employees “may think pay is great but not benefits” (Ibid) leading to the rendering of

non-“actionable” (Ibid) results. In addition, the SHRM article observes that “the major problems

with open-ended questions are the volume of data generated and the difficulty grouping and

analyzing them” (para. 21). The template asserts, this is why many experts advocate the usage of

surveys with “a finite number of answers [answers ranging from 1 to 5/strongly disagree to

strongly agree]—instead of a fill-in-the-blank approach” (para. 21). Four examples of survey

questions that have particular relevance to the topic of this paper are:

“I am extremely satisfied working in [insert your organization’s name]” (Kruse, 2012, p.

22).

“I rarely think about finding a new job in a different company” (Ibid).

“There is frequent, two-way communication at [insert your organization’s name]” (Ibid).

“[Insert your organization’s name] provides me with sufficient opportunities for learning

and development” (Ibid).

The SHRM template further recommends “doing away with…nice to know questions and focus

on questions essential in understanding what employees think about their workplace” (para. 22).

Lastly, the template emphasizes that surveys must include “negative” (para. 23) statements

guarding against being filled “with positive statements such as, My Boss is considerate” (Ibid)

leading to “unrealistically rosy” (Ibid) results.

With respect to post survey feedback, research at Towers Watson “shows that only 60%

of employees think leaders will act on survey findings, an opinion likely based on experience”

(Zuckerman, Acting on Employee Survey, March 2013, para. 4). In spite of most companies

emphasizing “the importance of follow-up action to accountable stakeholders” (para. 3), the fact

remains that “the single greatest failure of the employee surveys today, in the minds of

employees and leaders alike is a lack of follow-up” (para. 1). On the other hand in order to drive

the most form employee surveys, it is imperative that follow-up plans be “based on the findings;

have people in place to put those plans into action, and ask them to report back often on their

progress” (Arapoff, 2011, para. 25). Indeed one of the most fundamental principles in

conducting successful employee survey campaigns, whether to improve retention and

engagement rates or to measure and address other organizational metrics is to communicate

frequently with all the stake holders. This two-way communication process that will “make

employees feel valued” (Managing Employee Surveys, 2012, para. 39) must begin prior to the

actual conducting of the survey and continue beyond the delivery of results utilizing “cross

functional teams” (para. 36) in addition to “360-degree feedback, focus groups, small group

discussions” (para. 41).

One strategy that concentrates on “generating less-but more focused-post survey activity”

(Zuckerman, Acting on Employee Survey, March 2013, para. 5) mandates that “managers

scoring poorly (say, in the bottom 20%) are required to develop an action plan and submit it to

corporate HR for review and support” (para. 6). However, managers who comprise the top

segment of the survey are “not asked to develop an action plan, but instead to share their

successful practices with those who are struggling” (para. 7). Finally, those managers who form

the “greatest percentage” (para. 8) of the results, that is those in the middle who “may not have

an urgent problem to fix” (Ibid) are “given the option to develop an action plan” (Ibid). Those

who practice such a focused feedback strategy argue that in this manner companies may

“concentrate their often limited resources to support the post-survey work of managers who need

it most, leverage the good practices of those managers who are doing well and empower those

managers in middle” (para. 10).

Specific Strategies and Examples in Survey Usage Intended to improve Retention and

Engagement

When H.J. Heinz Co. decided to conduct a global employee survey, the challenge was to

create an instrument that would measure “employee engagement levels” (Arapoff, 2011, para. 9)

based on the firm’s “global growth strategy” (Ibid) namely “expand the core (markets and

products), accelerate growth in emerging markets, leverage scale and make talent an advantage”

(Ibid). Furthermore, the company intended the surveys to measure “talent” (para. 10)

management and “leadership development” (Ibid) and to follow the evolution of these efforts

“over time” (Ibid). In the first stages of the survey project, Heinz “created a global project

team…working with a number of HR business partners across geographies and business units”

(para. 11). Some of the most important elements of the initial stages of the project included

gaining “buy-in from senior executives across regions and business lines” (para. 7) and creating

a survey vehicle that is “culturally acceptable in all parts of the world” (para. 12). A further

crucial element also included communicating “clearly and often” (para. 14) with all the

employees.

The ultimate aim of the Heinz’s survey was to “uncover what factors drove employee

engagement and what impact various elements of the culture and the employee value proposition

had on individual and business performance” (para. 12). Eventually, the survey “included 48

questions translated into 15 languages” (para. 13) and was conducted with a participation rate of

84% (27,000 employees) and a “satisfaction score” (para. 15) of 71%. The survey did discover

organizational areas that need improvement such as “the relationship between employees and

supervisors…the enhancement of training and development opportunities and improvement in

the area of feedback about worker’s performance” (para. 16).

One of the most significant aspects of the feedback process became “creating customized

solutions for individual Heinz locations” (para. 17) while simultaneously generating “global

priorities for enhancing company culture and boosting engagement” (Ibid). As Towers Watson

(TW) consultant Kelly Harkcom stated, “One goal is to help managers become effective coaches

for their teams” (as cited in Arapoff, 2011, para. 19). Heinz’s chief people officer, Steve Clark

agrees with the above sentiments and argues that, “good people practices applied consistently

make good business sense-and good people sense” (as cited in Arapoff, 2011, para. 20). In

addition, Adam Zuckerman, Towers Watson’s senior consultant emphasizes that, “Business

leaders find it extremely valuable to see the relationships among company culture, employee

engagement and business performance” (as cited in Arapoff, 2011, para. 24).

In a further example, Astellas Pharma is a global pharmaceutical company that has also

utilized surveys in pursuit of implementing organizational policies and creating work

environments that would “attract top talent” (Minehan, 2012, para. 6). As Ken Jones, the CEO

of Astellas Pharma Europe states, “we knew we’d had to attract the best talent wherever we do

business. Some of our operations are in highly competitive areas, and our sharpest competitive

edge is our people. Some competitors might have similar technologies and systems; the real

difference is in the collective brain power” (as cited in Minehan, 2012, para. 5). Here, Arjen

Vermazen, Astellas Pharma’s senior VP for HR and procurement adds that the goal of the

company was to “create the dynamic environment that attracts high performers” (as cited in

Minehan, 2012, para. 8).

Astellas Pharma’s aforementioned goal of becoming the “employer of choice” (para. 9)

translated into “improving workplace effectiveness…managing…as the most admired

employers…building and supporting a positive working environment…creating a company

culture that inspires people to achieve their best” (para. 9). This entailed creating a survey

instrument that “would accurately assess the company’s culture and levels of employee

satisfaction and engagement, and provide data for benchmarking” (p. 12). The results of the

survey, as Steve Hoblyn, director of employee engagement and HR effectiveness observes,

allowed the company to acquire “robust data to benchmark…against high performing, global

pharma companies and help…set stretch goals” (as cited in Minehan, 2012, para. 11). In

addition, the survey results provided valuable information concerning “employees’ perceptions

of the employment deal-the unique set of work experiences that Astellas promises to deliver in

return for employees’ engagement, loyalty and performance” (para. 13) (i.e. rewards).

Adam Zuckerman, Towers Watson’s senior consultant states that, “We’ve statistically

linked employee engagement with nearly every organizational outcome or metric there is. By

almost any measure, more engaged employees produce better outcomes, ranging from more

satisfied or more loyal customers to higher revenue, more profit and greater efficiency”

(Viewpoints Q&A, 2011, para. 22). Nevertheless, an important development has occurred in the

manner by which organizations correlate engagement levels to employee performance. Here,

two additional variables namely “enablement and energy” (Viewpoints Q&A, Meder, 2011, para.

11) are seen as “crucial supplements to engagement in boosting performance” (Ibid).

Enablement refers to “barriers and obstacles” (Viewpoints Q&A, Zuckerman, para, 12)

that diminish performance since “workers can be excited about the company’s mission and

values, but if they aren’t enabled to do the job, that excitement will lead to frustration rather than

translating into high performance” (para. 13). In addition, engagement is sustained when the

“well-being” (para. 16) of employees connected to “social, psychological and physical” (Ibid)

factors of employment is protected and their energy has not been depleted. The new more

comprehensive model that is labeled as “sustainable engagement” (Q&A, Meder, 2011, para. 20)

is based on the combination of all three variables (engagement, enablement and energy). In

order to measure employee enablement and energy in organizations additional questions are

added to traditional engagement focused surveys allowing companies to “prioritize their efforts

around the factors most likely to enhance sustainable engagement” (para. 28).

Conclusion

Essentially, surveys are communication vehicles offering organizations valuable

information that would assist in safeguarding their assets and helping them compete

competently. This is only possible if organizations are actively listening to their employees on a

continuous basis and developing benchmarks that are compared to other firms in their sector and

furthermore evaluated historically. In that context, the information contained in surveys allows

companies to adopt commensurate strategies that enhance employee engagement and retain their

valuable human resources. Interestingly, the most indispensable feature of surveys is in the

characteristic that engaging in honest and two-way dialogue and conversation with employees

may lead to superior business performance.

References

Arapoff, J. (2011, December). H. J. Heinz Company’s Global Employee Survey Finds the

Ingredients to Attract and Keep Talent, Engagement Catch-Up. Strategy at Work.

Towers Watson. Retrieved July 23, 2013, from

http://www.towerswatson.com/en/Insights/Newsletters/Global/Strategy%20at%20Work?

2011/Engagement-Catch-Up

Kruse, K. (2012). Employment Engagement 2.0: How to motivate your team for high

performance (A real-world guide for busy managers) (3rd ed.). Richboro, PA: The Kruse

Group.

Minehan, M. (2012, June). Employee Survey Keeps Astellas Pharma Europe Ltd. Moving

Forward, Prescription for a Changing Tomorrow. Strategy at Work. Towers Watson.

Retrieved July 23, 2013, from

http://www.towerswatson.com/en/Insights/Newsletters/Global/Strategy%20at20%Work/

2012/prescription-for-a-changing-tomorrow

Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., Wright, P. M. (2013). Human Resource

Management: Gaining a competitive advantage (8th ed.). New York, NY: The McGraw-

Hill Companies, Inc.

Society For Human Resource Management. (2012, December 27). Managing Employee

Surveys. Retrieved July 23, 2013, from

http://www.shrm.org/templatestools/toolkits/pages/managingemployeesurveys.aspx

Sorenson, S. (2013). How Employee Engagement Drives Growth, Engaged Companies

Outperform their Competition, a Gallup Study shows. Gallup Business Journal.

Retrieved July 23, 2013, from

http://businessjournal.gallup.com/content/163130/employee-engagement-drives-

growth.aspx

Towers Watson. (2010, May). Incorporating Employee Survey Metrics in Incentive Design, The

Case for Adoption and Some Leading Practices in Design. Strategy at Work. Retrieved

July 23, 2013 from http://www.towerswatson.com/en/Insights/IC-Types/Survey-

Research-Results/2010/05/Incorporating-Employee-Survey-Metrics-in-Incentive-Design

Towers Watson. (2010, March). Viewpoints Q&A: Employee Engagement to the Power of

Three. Strategy at Work. Retrieved July 23, 2013, from

http://www.towerswatson.com/en/Insights/Newsletters/Global/Strategy%20at%20Work/

2011/Viewpoints-QA-Employee-Engagement-to-the-Power-of-Three

Zuckerman, A. (2013, March). Acting on Employee Survey Results: Why Less May be More.

Sustainably Engaged. Towers Watson. Retrieved July 23, 2013 from

http://www.towerswatson.com/en/Insights/Newsletters/Global/Sustainably-Engaged/

2013/Acting-on-Employee-Survey-Results

Zuckerman, A. (2013, May). The Enduring Riddle That is Employee Survey Length,

Sustainably Engaged: Best Practices for Engagement Surveys. Sustainably Engaged,

Towers Watson. Retrieved July 23, 2013, from

http://www.towerswatson.com/en/Insights/Newsletters/Global/Sustainably-Engaged/

2013/The-Enduring-Riddle-That-Is-Survey-Length