Can we survey our way to better employee engagement?

Unhelpful reports

Can we survey our way to better employee engagement?

Unhelpful reports
Photo by on Unsplash

From a Gallup report issued in 2022, there was this conclusion: “Employee engagement levels in the UK are one of the worst in Europe with fewer than one in 10 UK employees feeling enthusiastic about their job.”

In the old days there were attitude surveys, and they just about always resulted in some sort of report.  Today they are called employee engagement surveys, and now sometimes employee experience surveys, but little has changed except the name.  Otherwise, the issues remain – including one over-riding thought.  If employee engagement surveys are such a good idea, how come there is still a problem?

Time for an explanation and some thoughts on how to do better?

Just get some data and make some changes

The logic is fine; survey our people, get some data, use data to change some stuff, employee engagement improves.  Except, in practice, according to Gallup at least, it doesn’t.  “Employee engagement levels in the UK ranked 33 out of 38 European countries, and suffered a two-point drop in score compared with last year’s survey.” If anything, it looks like it might be getting worse.  The good news, and goodness we need some, is that more and more organisations are taking this issue very seriously; the fact that we haven’t “shifted the needle” has in no way deterred us from trying.  Also encouraging is the recognition of the need for good data to guide decision-making.  However,  employee engagement is a complex output formed in an emergent way from many complex inputs, and will never be resolved through simple, one-dimensional actions.

But what data and what changes to make?

What are reports for?  If this is not clear, known and accepted by all, from the outset, and nailed down through some sort of charter, then it is highly likely that the purpose will either get distorted or forgotten completely.  In those circumstances, it sounds like another heavyweight report consuming loads of storage space and producing little in return.  Defining a clear purpose might seem like an indulgent use of time, but it is essential to staying on course.

Once purpose is clear, it will probably be possible to answer some more key questions: Who is in the target audience?  What are their goals?  How is the report supposed to help them achieve their goals?  Clarity here will help with making important design decisions, not only about the survey itself and the report generated but even more about the process by which the data is reviewed, analysed and used to design and implement improvement action.  Without that action there is little or no chance of anything actually getting better.

If the response rate to your current survey is in decline, take this as a strong indication that a fundementally different approach is required.  

And who should make the changes?

Another key question to help with those design decisions: is the report something that is ‘done to people’ or is it something that helps the employees themselves to identify and address the issues that need attention?  If the target audience is only managers (or even worse only select managers) don’t expect a lot of improvement action.  The ‘iceberg of ignorance’[1] will strike here.  As a generalisation, managers do not know what the key, operational issues are in their organisations – and they will know even less about the causes of those issues.  More of which later.

Then there is the risk of the report’s existence becoming an end in itself – another box ticked every year or two.  And the longer and more glossy the report is, the less likely that action will result.  Managers are busy people – however pretty the report may be, if it is long, there is little chance that it will be read and studied – and even less that it will stimulate improvement action.  And if the report does not result in some sort of improvement, then what is the point of the report?

[1]     The “iceberg of ignorance” is a concept popularized by a 1989 study by Sidney Yoshida. It posited that front line workers were aware of 100% of the floor problems faced by an organisation, supervisors were aware of only 74%, middle managers were aware of only 9%, and senior executives were aware of only 4% of the problems.

The presenting problem is rarely the one that needs to be fixed…

Symptoms of problems may be useful, in that they may help identify a cause or causes, but in themselves the have little value.  And the one thing that is for sure is that tackling symptoms alone is never going to solve the problem.  Try giving aspirin to someone suffering with a headache.  The symptoms may be controlled, but the person may die because of a much more serious ailment, the symptoms of which were being covered up by the aspirin treatment.

Employee engagement surveys will seldom produce any really valuable insights into causes, which are generally hidden from view.  In the absence if any diagnostic capability, they produce a description of the current state as it is experienced by the employees – but they are just symptoms.  Part of the issue here is the nature of the questions used in the surveys.  Generally, they are questions calling for some sort of judgement.  And direct, judgemental questions may identify symptoms but will never identify causes.  And so valid improvement action becomes an impossibility.  They also invite conscious and unconscious bias….

The opportunities to improve reside in your organisation, not anyone else’s

Finally, how does anyone know what constitutes a good result?  Comparisons with other organisations or aggregated statistics showing norms are not going to help identify whether or not the organisation is a good performer, against a researched model of what good looks like – except in merely relative terms.  “We are better than the average”.  Is the average itself good?  Or rubbish?  “OK, so the average is getting better and so are we”  Does that mean approaching close to perfection?  Or climbing out of the pit of ‘deplorable’?  (Whatever that might mean.)

What are the research data being used to identify an external standard for ‘good’?  If there is one, to what degree does the research identify individual management practices that can make the difference between success and non-success?  Back to symptoms and causes! 

What if we enabled our people to lead the change?

What if there were an alternative approach?  A very different means of generating data, one capable of providing insights into both symptoms and causes.  What if that diagnostic processes also identified top priority, key causes, with no need for long reports.  What if those insights were specific to each and every team in the organisation, thus bypassing the ‘iceberg’ problems.  What if those teams were supported by external facilitators to define their own safe-to-try improvements, to improve the climate in their own team.

Moreover, high levels of diversity and psychological safety in decision-making groups guarantee high levels of inclusion.   These groups always generate higher quality decisions and improvement where it is needed most – that is, where the problems are.  And guess what happens to levels of engagement?

Enabling each and every team in the organisation to work on those areas of practice that will have greatest benefit to their Employee Engagement is the essence of The Vitality Index. You can read more about it here.

If you are curious about shifting the approach to improving Employee Engagement or if you can’t bear the thought of commissioning another report or if you’d just like a thinking partner to help you nail that purpose statement, then we’d love to help.

This post was written by Denis Bourne, co-founder or Organisational Vitality.  Denis ran the research that the Vitality Index diagnostic is based upon.   He has over 40 years’ experience helping organisations become more autonomous, innovative, and change enabled, and, as a happy consequence, also enjoying fantastic employee experience.

Let's talk

The conversation has the potential to change the future of your organisation.

How to engender higher performance and happier people – for free!

Hertzberg - motivators and hygiene factors

How to engender higher performance and happier people – for free!

Hertzberg - motivators and hygiene factors

The research is over 50 years old – but with the challenges of today – employee engagement, talent retention, remote working, well-being, old ways of working being rejected – it is just as valuable for line managers today as when it was first exposed to the public gaze – back in 1968.

That was when Frederick Herzberg first published his motivator-hygiene theory in HBR, the article being entitled “One More Time, How Do You Motivate Employees?”

The Herzberg model

The argument goes that within each of us, operating singly or in groups, there is norm of work output to which we will achieve.  Some aspects of the work environment may drag actual performance below that norm, while others will boost it far above.

What are hygiene factors?

The hygiene factors, below the line “norm of work output”, have to be appropriate.  If any of them is significantly adrift from what is needed and reasonable, then performance will suffer.  If employees are at odds with any aspect of the reality of their context as listed in the chart, then they will perform less well.  But, and it is a very big but, the indication is that how ever well the organisation delivers on the hygiene factors, performance is unlikely to rise above the norm, unless something else and different is also as it should be.

We simply can’t “hygiene factor” our way to high performance

Just to illustrate this there is some evidence that changing salaries will produce a short term up-tick to performance, but the improvement does not last.  We very soon shift our expectation (and our spending) to the higher level of disposable income, at which point higher pay has stopped being a motivator.   The same is true of other perks and bolt-ons. Strangely, it is with these hygiene factors that so many organisations try to motivate, attract and retain their people.   But if there is a war for talent, we can do so much better than trying to outgun rival employers by raising the stakes through our hygiene factors.

…how ever well the organisation delivers on the hygiene factors, performance is unlikely to rise above the norm…


If the hygiene factors don’t work…

… enter the motivators. These include meaningful and rewarding work; recognition; personal and team mastery; being involved and trusted.   Once these things are all in place, then performance will begin to fly.  This is even true if some of the hygiene factors are not totally ‘good’.  It is acknowledged that in those circumstances it is more difficult to motivate people to deliver starring performance, but it can be done.  We have seen plenty of teams deliver outstanding performance out of crumbling offices, and using IT that is well past it’s sell-by date.   Such de-motivators are no match for high-trust teams, engaged in meaningful work, in a climate that encourages people to experiment and give the best of themselves. 

What needs to change and what will it cost?

All of the above is conventional and largely as Herzberg had it, But what follows are additional and valuable insights from the model that don’t often get talked about.

First, we can think of an ‘organisation’ as an entity in its own right.  It has a structure, resources, processes and behavioural norms.  Then there is the individual manager.  This is the person who has a formal, structural relationship with the employees assigned to the manager, flowing from the organisation structure itself.  Complicated maybe, but able to be depicted with words, numbers and diagrams. We could call that the “Map”.

But there is also a whole set of interactions between the manager and employees, singly or in groups, and these exist regardless of the formal structure.  They are also highly variable and volatile, and operate on the basis of feed forward and feedback loops, each modifying behaviour in the next turn around, with results that are highly emergent in their nature.  Messy, unpredictable and intangible, the reality of the organisation is truly complex.  This we could call the “Territory”.

A quick glance at the Herzberg chart raises a simple question – who provides what?  The answer is that it is the formal organisation that provides the hygiene factors and the individual manager who looks after the motivators.  Hence the reason why even with deficient hygiene factors it is still possible for an effective manager to motivate employees to delivery great performance.

A second question is how much does it cost to meet these various needs?  The answer is that the hygiene factors cost mega bucks, whereas the motivators are totally free.  All they need is the investment of physical, intellectual and emotional energy by the individual manager into getting the motivators to be in a good place, and the superstars in all of us will do the rest.

If you believe that navigating your way around with only a map as your guide is OK, then good luck to you.  Our experience suggests that knowledge and understanding of the territory is also rather important!


…high performance is an outcome of good management practices by individual managers – and it’s totally free! 


Mirror, mirror on the wall…

So, the bottom line is this.  If you want to know why you are not looking at a team of highly motivated superstars, all pulling together, sharing information, solving shared problems and the learning that follows, don’t blame the organisation.  The organisation cannot deliver that.  Take a walk into the nearest bathroom – they all have one feature in common – and have a look in the mirror.  There you will find the cause of all your problems, along with the solution.

The fact of the matter is that high performance is an outcome of good management practices by individual managers – and it’s totally free!  Moreover, the effect is long-lasting since it is a change that feeds on itself.

No excuses – no budget required!

So no budget needed and a positive outcome for the business, its people, its customers and suppliers, and its local partners.  So why has the Herzberg approach not been adopted more widely?  And, especially now with the current focus on employee engagement, linked to ever better performance?

In the first instance, many people have not stumbled across the Herzberg stuff.  In the second is that nasty personal accountability stuff implied by the ‘bathroom mirror’ test.  Unless the managers in question acknowledge that they are part of the problem there is no way forward.  If there are performance problems, and the managers actions are making a difference, then they must be part of the problem.  If their actions are not making a difference, then they are part of the problem, by definition.

Then there is that physical, intellectual and emotional energy required to be invested in the organisation’s people, including the building of all-round trust.  And which can only come from individual managers.

So, how to get started?

The answer lies in the Herzberg model itself.  Check the entries for ‘Responsibility’, ‘Involvement’ and Personal Growth’.  Use these as the point of entry into the local system.  Go ask the people what needs to change to give them greater feedback ‘above the line’.  Including changes in management practices.  Run with whatever they come up with to get a process of never-ending experimentation and learning started.  Once through the pain barrier of getting started, it’s all great fun, for everyone.  What ever you do, make sure you are working “in the territory” not “on the map”

Sounds like better employee experience and better performance – at the same time – and it’s all for free!

Denis Bourne is a Co-founder of VitalOrg and has been helping courageous and curious folk bring greater autonomy to their organisations for over 40 years

Let's talk

The conversation has the potential to change the future of your organisation.