In today’s workplace, understanding the sentiments, needs, and engagement levels of employees is more critical than ever. With disengagement and distrust reaching concerning levels, organisations are using employee surveys and other listening techniques to guide their strategies. Some organisations design, deliver, and analyse these surveys in-house as a cost-saving measure. While this approach might seem budget-friendly, it can lead to significant hidden costs that far outweigh any immediate financial savings.
The expertise dilemma: pay now or pay later
There is a fundamental principle to keep in mind: you either pay for expertise upfront or you pay for not having it later. Employee surveys are not just about asking questions; they require expertise in several key areas:
Survey planning: crafting a survey that aligns with organisational goals and elicits actionable insights is a nuanced process. Missteps here can result in surveys that are too broad, too narrow, or disconnected from strategic priorities.
Question writing: the phrasing of questions dramatically impacts the quality of responses. Leading questions, ambiguous phrasing, or poorly structured scales can bias results or leave critical insights undiscovered.
Data analysis: extracting meaningful patterns, correlations, and drivers from survey data is a specialised skill often using highly technical software. Without professional data analysis, organisations risk overlooking key issues or misinterpreting findings.
Strategic recommendations: turning data into actionable strategies requires expertise in organisational behaviour, employee engagement, and change management. Internally managed surveys often fall short in bridging the gap between data collection and actionable insights.
Neutrality: internal teams may unintentionally shape survey design or analysis based on preconceived notions or organisational politics. This lack of neutrality can skew results and undermine the credibility of findings.
The trust factor
Another significant risk of managing surveys in-house is the issue of trust. Employees are more likely to answer surveys honestly when they feel their responses are confidential and handled by an impartial third party. If employees suspect their feedback could be traced back to them or manipulated, they may withhold critical information or provide overly cautious responses. This lack of candour can lead to:
Missed red flags: key issues may remain hidden, leaving leadership unaware of brewing problems.
Skewed data: inaccurate responses lead to flawed insights, resulting in misguided strategies.
The risks of getting it wrong
When internal surveys fail to meet professional standards, organisations risk misallocating resources and addressing the wrong problems. Consider the following potential pitfalls:
Failure to identify problems: a poorly designed survey may fail to highlight the root causes of employee dissatisfaction or disengagement.
Missed correlations and drivers: internal teams without advanced data analysis expertise and software may overlook critical relationships, such as the link between team dynamics and retention rates, or the role managers have on eNPS results.
Ineffective interventions: misguided strategies based on flawed data waste time, money, and effort, further eroding employee trust.
The cost of addressing these issues can quickly spiral, overshadowing any initial savings from conducting the survey in-house.
The current context: a time for precision
The workplace landscape today is fraught with challenges. According to Gallup’s 2023 state of the global workplace report, only 23% of employees worldwide feel engaged in their work. This alarming statistic underscores the urgency for organisations to gain an accurate understanding of employee sentiment and focus their efforts where they can make the greatest impact.
In this context, the risks of getting it wrong are higher than ever. A misstep in survey design or analysis could mean missing critical opportunities to rebuild trust, improve engagement, and boost organisational performance.
The solution: investing in professional expertise
Partnering with professional organisational diagnostics firms offers several advantages:
Tailored expertise: professionals bring experience in survey design, advanced analytics, and actionable recommendations tailored to your organisation’s unique needs.
Neutrality and trust: external firms ensure confidentiality and neutrality, fostering honest employee feedback.
Strategic focus: professional insights help leaders focus resources on high-impact areas, delivering measurable improvements in engagement and performance.
While the initial investment may seem significant, the long-term benefits – improved engagement, reduced turnover, and more effective strategies – far outweigh the costs. In fact, the return on investment often manifests in both financial gains and enhanced organisational resilience.
Case studies and supporting evidence
A 2022 study by Gartner found that organisations with poorly executed employee surveys were 30% more likely to experience increased turnover within 12 months.
In one case, a mid-sized company conducted an internal survey that failed to identify a toxic managerial culture as a key driver of attrition. By the time the issue was uncovered through exit interviews, the company had lost several high-performing employees and incurred substantial recruitment costs.
Final thought:
Internally orchestrated employee surveys represent a clear false economy: an apparent financial saving that in fact leads to greater expenditure.
Buy cheap, buy twice
Penny wise and pound foolish
The greater the risk and the higher the opportunity for reward, the more important it is that you make the right choice the first time around. The time lost recovering from the wrong approach will prove significantly more costly, than mitigating the risks more quickly, accurately and effectively with a more robust approach from the off-set.