An attitude survey presents a snapshot at a point in time of an employee group and its response to certain items. As a management tool, a survey has severe limitations. While national norms are available on some standard instruments and can be developed on in-house instruments, they are valuable only as reference points. Management should not conclude that a survey has succeeded because survey results are good compared to norms. Higher morale does not necessarily mean operational success, nor are "happy" employees necessarily productive. Management should look at survey results as information that can be used to improve operations from whatever base point has been chosen. Among other things, care should be taken in making comparisons between two groups of employees on the basis of survey results. Relatively higher scores in one group may not mean better supervisory/employee accomplishments.
A technique which is sometimes enlightening is to give the various levels of supervision the attitude survey before employees go through the process. Supervisors at each level are asked to forecast the answers employees will give. It can be sobering to find that each succeeding level of supervision is less accurate in predicting employee attitudes, with the foreman the most accurate, the top manager the least.
The reasons for the survey and the method of conducting it should be explained in advance. Employees should know not only why the survey is being conducted, but also how and when they will be notified of results and what follow-up is planned. Confidentiality or anonymity should be promised and strictly observed.
It is therefore important that sufficient time and attention be given to the mechanics of conducting the survey. Employees will not feel that the survey is important and credible unless it treated as if it were.
The analysis and recommendations which result from the survey can have more effect if supervision participates in making them. Otherwise, the staff member or consultant making them will be struggling uphill to get supervision's acceptance and support.
If the tone set by management is clearly positive, geared toward helping employees improve job effectiveness, and supervision approaches the survey and its results in a similar manner, positive upward employee communications will be achieved. Feedback on results and follow-up actions should come quickly; follow-up actions should be pertinent and carried out in a businesslike manner, with good downward employee communications.
Diagnostic surveys can be purchased commercially from consulting firms or can be developed in-house. Like the attitude survey, the diagnostic survey is a change mechanism and requires from management a commitment to objectivity and a willingness to act upon results.
Among the methods suitable for conducting diagnostic surveys is the group interview technique. This technique involves selecting employees at random from several job levels in all major organizational units, forming interview groups, and excluding supervisors and their subordinates from the same group. Working with groups of from six to 12 employees, two experienced interviewers explain the subject(s) to be covered during the interview, set the time span, and outline procedure.
The group is asked to identify those forces which are helping to achieve organization objectives and those which are impeding progress toward objectives. Ideas that promote positive forces and lessen negative forces are solicited. While one interviewer leads the discussion, the other records the comments and ideas on flip charts. Through the exchange of ideas the group attempts to reach a consensus and establish priorities.
After interviewing several groups, the interviewers analyze their findings. In large organizations with several teams of interviewers, teams compare their respective findings. Normally, all unit employees, not just those in interview groups, receive the findings and recommendations from the survey.
As in employee attitude surveys, advance explanation is important. The rationale for the survey and the survey methodology should be made known, as well as management plans to use survey results. Care should be taken in selecting experienced interviewers who will not lead the group. Sufficient time should be allowed for data analysis, and objectivity should be stressed. And, finally, to ensure supervisory acceptance of the surveys, supervisory personnel should be included in interview groups and should assist in data analysis, the development of recommendations, and follow-up.
Attitude and diagnostic surveys demand a heavy management commitment.t-They also demand that managers have strong stomachs because they will "hear it like it is," perhaps for the first time.
Asking employees to talk, or merely giving them an opportunity to talk about their jobs, brings about an obligation to listen and to respond.