Employee survey

This article or the following section is not adequately provided with supporting documents ( e.g. individual evidence ). Information without sufficient evidence could be removed soon. Please help Wikipedia by researching the information and including good evidence.

As part of an employee survey, quantitative data is usually collected from the employees of a company. It is a sensitive human resource management instrument that can be used for different purposes. Typically, an employee from personnel development is involved in such a project, if not even working as a project manager. Classically, an employee survey is a large-scale organizational development project in which all employees are regularly surveyed anonymously and on a voluntary basis on a wide range of topics (e.g. every two years). Extensive follow-up processes often follow an employee survey. Almost 90% of the largest companies in Germany, Austria and Switzerland carry out employee surveys - the majority of them regularly.

General information

Surveys are an effective instrument for obtaining control data in all areas of management . The evaluation of the mood of employees determined in a survey enables the improvement or correction of the market-driven orientation of the entrepreneurial activity, the product range and the strategic use of resources - also in the area of ​​"human resources".

The particular sensitivity of this instrument requires a professional conception and implementation: Even one-off, small mistakes can lead to a considerable loss of acceptance and trust on the part of the respondents. A loss of trust generally means that the data collected can hardly be used any more and the survey instrument has been disqualified for a long time due to the workforce's “collective memory” .

Definition

An »employee survey« is understood to mean: An instrument of participatory corporate management with which

• on behalf of the management,
• in cooperation with the employee representatives,
• with the help of standardized and / or (partially) standardized questionnaires and / or (partially) structured interviews,
• anonymous, on a voluntary basis,
• directly with all employees or representative samples,
• Problems with their individual components and / or influencing factors,
• taking into account methodological, organizational and legal framework conditions,
• Information about the attitudes, ratings, expectations and needs of employees,
• related to certain areas of the company working environment and / or the environment,
• in order to gain indications of operational strengths and weaknesses,
• their causal relationships either from the collected data itself,
• or to be clarified in a dialogue between employees and managers in order to initiate specific change processes.

Involvement of employee representatives

In order to increase the acceptance of the survey by the employees, the involvement of the employee representatives (e.g. works or staff council ) - if available and responsible ( § 5 BetrVG ) - is useful and in certain cases also necessary. Relevant in this context are, among others, § 80 , § 87 and § 94 BetrVG. Of § 80 para. 2 gives a right to information of the works council if the employee survey thematically touches the duties of the council. The works council may have a right of co-determination if the employee survey touches on topics in which the works council has a right of co-determination ( Section 87 (1) BetrVG). If personnel questionnaires are used - this involves the non-anonymous collection of personal data from employees - the works council is subject to approval ( Section 94 BetrVG).

Anonymity and data protection

In employee surveys, it must be ensured that the anonymity of the respondents is guaranteed. In the case of online surveys in particular, it must be ensured that personal data (e.g. computer addresses that can be assigned to a workplace) are separated from the survey data by technical measures. In order to prevent conclusions about the participants and their survey data, the results of an organizational unit or department may only be shown separately if a previously defined minimum number of survey participants in this unit has been reached. A minimum sample size of eight respondents applies here as a guideline.

Content-related design of the questions in the employee surveys

In some cases, overlapping content can be found between the questionnaires used. An example of this are the 33 auditor questions from the nine EFQM work areas . The nine question areas are (with sub-questions, see EFQM):

• How satisfied are you with your manager's leadership skills?
• How clear are the goals of your department to you?
• How satisfied are you with your personal training?
• How satisfied are you with corporate communications - do you get all the information you need to work?
• How much of an opportunity do you have to influence the improvement of work processes?
• How closely does your department pay attention to the satisfaction of its customers?
• How satisfied are you with the implementation of measures to increase employee satisfaction in your area?
• How satisfied are you with your company's social commitment?
• How well are you familiar with the company's results, successes, and profits?

Further questions and topics can follow.

Involvement in personnel and organizational development

As part of the conception of the survey, consideration should be given to how the follow-up process should be designed. In the past, a project design in six phases has proven itself:

1. Goal setting

The objectives of the survey are defined in individual discussions with managers and the works council as well as in workshops. The following questions are helpful: "How would we know at the end of the project that it was successful?" "What must not happen here?"

2. Planning

The content of the MAB and the project plan are developed in the planning process. The project team is made up of the project manager (mostly PE, OE or QM) and employees from different departments and hierarchy levels. Professional project support enables the definition of a questionnaire in the planning phase that exactly corresponds to the project objectives. Editing of pre-formulated aspect maps, for which corresponding benchmarking values ​​are also available, is of great help when compiling the questionnaire.

3. Analysis

As many employees as possible are interviewed using an anonymous questionnaire (“Paper & Pencil”) or online. Good communication and staging are essential. Managers and employees should know and support the goals of the project. From a logistical point of view, the process must be set up in such a way that employees can take part in the survey as easily and conveniently as possible. In well-staged surveys, response rates of over 80 percent can be achieved. If appropriate measures are then implemented and this implementation is also communicated with reference to the MAB, the response rates increase slightly if the MAB is repeated.

4. Information

First of all, the results are presented to the project team. The preparation in the form of instructions for action is advisable. For example, both the degree of agreement (satisfaction) and the importance of the aspect from the employee's point of view should be shown for each aspect queried. Action portfolios are very suitable for this. It is also essential to show the differences in the results between countries, plants, departments, and demographic and demographic groups. This process step is known as (internal) benchmarking. In some cases, companies also carry out an external comparison. External benchmarking is not without controversy due to various methodological problems.

5. Implementation

The effectiveness and acceptance of MABs depends very much on which implementation measures the employees can recognize as a consequence of the MAB. For this it is important that the project is supported and promoted by top management. Usually one or two essential decisions are derived from the MAB and communicated at the overall company level. In addition, the results are discussed in workshops at department level and a few specific measures are decided. The implementation of measures is usually monitored by the central project management. The implementation of change agents who accompany both the implementation and the communication at the department level has often proven itself.

6. Evaluation

By repeating the MAB after one to two years, it is usually evaluated how the values ​​have changed. This shows which measures were useful and which were not. When repeating the MAB, it must be ensured that the important questions in particular are repeated identically in order to obtain information about the time series.

Trends

Historically, employee surveys are rooted in the approach of organizational development, according to which those affected should be made involved. Accordingly, it was argued, especially in the 1990s, that one could bring about positive changes for the organization as a whole through employee surveys by involving employees and on the basis of survey results. In the past, these expectations have only been confirmed to a limited extent, as mere survey results can rarely bring about lasting changes.

That is why more and more companies are using the instrument of employee surveys for strategic purposes. The focus here is much less on employee satisfaction than on the understanding and organizational commitment of employees to strategic issues of companies.

For many strategically thinking business leaders, however, this approach falls short. Rather, the employee survey can also be used as an active communication tool towards employees and thus not only serves as an instrument for obtaining information. Employee surveys are often used successfully, especially in the implementation of strategic initiatives such as change management or post merger integration .

Another trend arises from the growing interest in so-called benchmarks . It is noticeable here that there is increasing demand for comparative figures for terminology that are traditionally difficult to measure, such as loyalty , motivation , commitment and the like. More and more advanced methods are required here, especially in the survey architecture and analysis.

literature

• Arndt Zeitz: The survey feedback as a management tool for the design of strategy-driven change processes in large organizations . Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1998, ISBN 3-631-33553-9
• Bettina Geuenich: Using employee surveys sensibly: In conversation with the expert Rüdiger Hossiep . personal manager, 2/2008, 50–51.
• Deitering, Franz: Follow-up processes for employee surveys Munich, Rainer Hampp, 2006, ISBN 3-86618-009-8
• Frank Gehring, Joachim Schroer, Hannah Rexroth & André Bischof (eds.): "The employee survey. How you use the feedback from your employees for the success of your company. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel, 2015, ISBN 978-3791033853
• Ginger Borg: management tool employee survey . Göttingen: Hogrefe, 2003, ISBN 3-8017-1716-X
• Ingwer Borg with Paul M. Mastrangelo: Employee Surveys in Management . Göttingen: Hogrefe, 2008, ISBN 978-0889372955
• Lutz Dziarnowski & Stephan Schütze: Success factor work atmosphere . Lohmar: EUL, 2007, ISBN 978-3-89936-608-2
• Michel Domsch & Desiree Ladwig (eds.): Manual of employee survey . Berlin: Springer, 2006, ISBN 3-5402-9379-5
• Randolf Reifert: Employee surveys as an instrument of change management: Preparation of executives for the follow-up processes at Continental AG . Saarbrücken: VDM, 2008, ISBN 3-6390-1876-1
• Ulrich Stephany, Simone Gutzan & Jürgen Schultz-Gambard: When the big ones ask. How and with what objectives do large German companies conduct their employee surveys? . Personalwirtschaft, 5/2012, 64–66. ISSN  0341-4698
• Walter Bungard & Ingela Jöns: Feedback instruments in the company: Basics, design tips, experience reports . Wiesbaden: Gabler, 1997, ISBN 3-409-12738-0
• Walter Bungard & Ingela Jöns: Employee survey . An instrument of innovation and quality management . Weinheim: Beltz, 2002, ISBN 3-621-27387-5

Web links

• Technical article on online employee surveys (PDF file; 766 kB)
• Study on the distribution of employee surveys in Germany, Austria and Switzerland (PDF file, 565 kB)

Individual evidence

1. ^ Ginger Borg: employee surveys . In: MA Wirtz (ed.): Dorsch - Lexicon of Psychology . 18th edition. Hogrefe, Bern 2017, p. 1109 .
2. ↑ Philip Frieg, Rüdiger Hossiep: Employee surveys - still an established classic among companies . In: Business Psychology Current . No. 4 , 2018, p. 13-16 .
3. ↑ Ingo Weinreich, Christian Weigl: Corporate advice on occupational health protection management: Basics - methods - personal skills , 2011, ISBN 978-3503130573
4. ↑ Guide for online employee surveys ( Memento of the original from March 27, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , published by NEON, working group in the BVM professional association of German market and social researchers, p. 8 ff. 
5. ^ I. Borg: Management Instrument Employee Survey , 3rd edition, Hogrefe Verlag für Psychologie, Göttingen 2003, section 1.2. Measure versus intervene
6. ^ I. Borg: Management Instrument Employee Survey , 3rd edition, Hogrefe Verlag für Psychologie, Göttingen 2003, p. 26
7. ^ I. Borg: Management Instrument Employee Survey , 3rd edition, Hogrefe Verlag für Psychologie, Göttingen 2003 p. 103
8. ^ M. Carbon, H. Preyer: E = m.k² - where dedication counts. EUCUSA non-fiction book, Vienna 2005. with good explanations of the EUCUSA method

Please note the information on legal issues!