SURVEY FEEDBACK
II. Problem Solving with Survey- Feedback Data
A. Chunk the feedback. If a lot of data are being fed back, use your knowledge of the group and the data to present small portions of data. Stop periodically to see if there are questions or comments about each section or “chunk” of data.
B. Stimulate discussion on the data. What fol- lows are various ways to help get the discussion going.
1. Help clarify the meaning of the data by asking
• What questions do you have about what the data mean?
• What does [a specific number]
mean?
• Does anything in the data surprise you?
• What do the data tell you about how we’re doing as a group?
application 8.1
PART 2 The process of organization Development 144
2. Help develop a shared diagnosis about the meaning of the data by commenting
• What I hear people saying is . . . Does everyone agree with that?
• Several people are saying that . . . is a problem. Do we agree that this is something the group needs to address?
• Some people seem to be saying . . . while other comments suggest . . . Can you help me understand how the group sees this?
• The group has really been strug- gling with [specific issue that the facilitator is familiar with], but the data say that we are strong on this.
Can someone explain this?
3. Help generate action alternatives by asking
• What are some of the things we can do to resolve . . . ?
• Do we want to brainstorm some action steps to deal with . . . ? C. Focus the group on its own data. The major
benefit of survey feedback for EI teams will be in learning about the group’s own behavior and outcomes. Often, however, groups will avoid dealing with issues concerning their own group in favor of broader and less helpful discussions about what other groups are doing right and wrong. Comments you might use to help get the group on track include:
• What do the data say about how we are doing as a group?
• There isn’t a lot we can do about what other groups are doing. What can we do about the things that are under our control?
• The problem you are mentioning sounds like one this group also is fac- ing [explain]. Is that so?
D. Be prepared for problem-solving discussions that are only loosely connected to the data. It is more important for the group to use the data to understand itself better and to solve problems than it is to follow any particular steps in analyzing the data.
Groups often are not very systematic in how they analyze survey-feedback data.
They may ignore issues that seem obvious to them and instead focus on one or two issues that have meaning for them.
E. Hot issues and how to deal with them.
Survey data can be particularly helpful in addressing some hot issues within the group that might otherwise be over- looked. For example, a group often will prefer to portray itself as very effective even though group members privately acknowledge that such is not the case.
If the data show problems that are not being addressed, you can raise this issue as a point for discussion. If someone denies that group members feel there is a problem, you can point out that the data come from the group and that group members reported such-and-such on the survey. Be careful not to use a parental tone; if you sound like you’re wagging your finger at or lecturing the group, you’re likely to get a negative reaction.
Use the data to raise issues for discussion in a less emotional way.
Ultimately, the group must take responsibility for its own use of the data. There will be times when you see the issues differently from the way group members see them or times when it appears cer- tain to you that the group has a serious problem that it refuses to acknowledge. A facilitator can- not push a group to do something it’s not ready to do, but he or she can poke the group at times to find out if it is ready to deal with tough issues.
“A little irritation is what makes a pearl in the oyster.”
The survey instrument is administered to all members of the organization or department. This breadth of data collection is ideal, but it may be appropriate to administer the instrument to only a sample of members because of cost or time constraints. If so, the size of the sample should be as large as possible to improve the motivational basis for participation in the feedback sessions.
The OD consultant usually analyzes the survey data, tabulates the results, suggests approaches to diagnosis, and trains client members to lead the feedback process.
Data feedback usually begins at the top of the organization and cascades downward to groups reporting to managers at successively lower levels.
This waterfall approach ensures that all groups at all organizational levels involved in the survey receive appropriate feedback. Most often, members of each organiza- tion group at each level discuss and deal with only that portion of the data involv- ing their particular group. They, in turn, prepare to introduce data to groups at the next lower organizational level if appropriate.
Data feedback also can occur in a “bottom-up” approach. Initially, the data for specific work groups or departments are fed back and action items proposed. At this point, the group addresses problems and issues within its control. The group notes any issues that are beyond its authority and suggests actions. That informa- tion is combined with information from groups reporting to the same manager, and the combined data are fed back to the managers who review the data and the recommended actions. Problems that can be solved at this level are addressed. In turn, their analyses and suggestions regarding problems of a broader nature are combined, and feedback and action sessions proceed up the hierarchy. In such a way, the people who most likely will carry out recommended action get the first chance to propose suggestions.
Feedback meetings provide an opportunity to work with the data. At each meeting, members discuss and interpret their data, diagnose problem areas, and develop action plans. OD practitioners can play an important role during these meetings,7 facilitating group discussion to produce accurate understanding, focus- ing the group on its strengths and weaknesses, and helping to develop effective action plans.
Although the preceding steps can have a number of variations, they generally reflect the most common survey-feedback design. Application 8.2 presents a contemporary exam- ple of how the survey-feedback methodology can be adapted to serve strategic purposes.
The application describes how Prudential Real Estate Affiliates combines attitudinal sur- veys with hard measures to increase change ownership in real estate sales offices.8 Survey Feedback and Organizational Dependencies
Traditionally, the steps of survey feedback have been applied to work groups and orga- nizational units with little attention to dependencies among them. Research suggests, however, that the design of survey feedback should vary depending on how closely the participating units are linked with one another.9 When the units are relatively inde- pendent and have little need to interact, survey feedback can focus on the dynamics occurring within each group and can be applied to the groups separately. When there is greater dependency among units and they need to coordinate their efforts, survey feed- back must take into account relationships among the units, paying particular attention to the possibility of intergroup conflict. In these situations, the survey-feedback process needs to be coordinated across the interdependent groups. The process will typically be managed by special committees and task forces representing the groups. They will facilitate the intergroup confrontation and conflict resolution generally needed when relations across groups are diagnosed.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Operations Review and Survey Feedback at Prudential Real Estate Affiliates
Prudential Real Estate Affiliates, Inc. (PREA) is a subsidiary of the Prudential Insurance Company of America. Throughout the United States, it franchises the Prudential name to independently owned and operated real estate offices that help people buy and sell homes and commercial real estate. PREA works with approximately 1,200 of these offices. Although some real estate firms are large, multioffice organizations, many are small independent offices with an owner/manager and several sales associates. PREA’s primary work is to help the offices do their job better by offering a range of support services, including technical support, sales training, advertising, and business assistance.
PREA has adapted successfully the survey-feedback technology to assist its customers in improving profitability, productivity, and sales associate work satisfaction. The survey-feedback methodology is called an “operations review.” It is a voluntary service annually provided free of charge to any office. PREA describes the operations review as an “interactive process.” Each office manager is required to gather internal information about its operations and to send the data to PREA. In addi- tion, each sales associate completes a confidential 43-item opinion survey that is returned directly to PREA for analysis.
These data are entered into a database, and a four- color report is produced. The report is then fed back to the owner/manager of a single office or to the management team in the larger offices. In the best cases, all or part of the data is then shared with the sales associates at a sales meeting. The data are discussed, areas of improvement are identified, and action plans are developed. “When there are dis- crepancies, especially on the sales force attitudes, it is a great opportunity for discussion,” says Skip Newberg, one of the process designers.
The data are presented in three major areas: finan- cial performance, including income, expense, and profit ratios; productivity, including units sold or revenues per full-time sales associate; and man- agement practices, including office climate, service orientation, and sales associates’ attitudes. The data
for each question are presented in colorful graphs that compare the office’s productivity with that of similar offices (in terms of size or structure) and with the productivity of the top-performing sales office in the country. “Presenting the data in this simple way has an impact. Reams of computer printouts with numbers are not interesting. . . . Graphs and colors grab a manager’s attention,” says Newberg.
Although the financial and productivity data are important, it is the management practices data that get the most attention in the feedback proc- ess. Newberg believes that “the power is not in the printed book; the power is in the skill of the people who sit down with the sales office people and help them interpret it. A skilled person can show an office their strengths and weaknesses in such a way that they can use the data to make improvements.” The “management practices” sec- tion examines three areas that are related to sales office performance: climate, service orientation, and fundamental attitudes. Climate refers to the associates’ perceptions of the extent and degree to which their work and well-being are promoted by management and other associates. It also indicates the degrees to which associates have a sense of pride in their office. Items in the survey, such as
“This real estate office is considered to be a leader by others in the market” and “We get a lot of cus- tomers in this office based on customer referrals,”
tap that dimension. Service orientation refers to an office’s emphasis on service quality and customer satisfaction. To assess this dimension, the survey asks sales associates to agree or disagree with statements such as “Our office places so much emphasis on selling to customers that it is difficult to serve customers properly” and “Our advertising is consistent with the service we deliver.” Finally, fundamental attitudes of sales associates and their perceptions of management’s attitudes can range from optimistic to pessimistic. The survey taps these attitudes with statements such as “Clients have no loyalty regardless of how you treat them”
and “Giving customers truly excellent custom serv- ice takes too much; it’s just not worth it.”
application 8.2
Including sales office performance next to sales asso- ciates’ opinions and attitudes provides an impor- tant motivational aspect to the feedback process.
Newberg believes that “there isn’t a manager alive who doesn’t want to know how they compare to their peers. The profit and productivity information gets the office’s attention and makes it easier to get the message across.” The message he refers to is the results of research conducted by PREA. It has pro- duced some remarkable evidence of relationships between sales office performance and the attitudes and opinions of the sales associates. For example, PREA’s research has provided strong evidence of a positive relationship between the fundamental atti- tudes of sales associates and sales office profitability.
Invariably during the feedback session, owner/
managers or senior managers say, “OK, that’s great—sales associate attitudes and office perform- ance are related. But how can I improve sales associate attitudes?” Glenn Sigmund, a PREA manager who has worked extensively with the operations review, says, “If we can get managers to
this point, we have their interest, motivation, and most importantly, commitment to address change.”
Additional research by PREA found certain key behaviors, practices, and policies that were directly related to positive scores on fundamental attitudes, service orientation, and office climate. These prac- tices and policies give the sales office something tangible to work with and implement.
Response to the system has been favorable. More than 20,000 sales associates have taken the sur- vey, and many offices are back for the third year of feedback. One CEO from a large multioffice firm said, “This is one of the most valuable serv- ices PREA offers. Our managers see it as a great tool and one of the best mechanisms for feedback from our sales associates to check how we’re really doing.” Another manager in a smaller office reported that “the operations review has had a definite impact. It helps us focus on carrying out our business plan and increase profits. We also use it to help our sales associates plan how to improve their own effectiveness.”
Limitations of Survey Feedback
Although the use of survey feedback is widespread in contemporary organizations, the following limits and risks have been identified:10
Ambiguity of purpose. Managers and staff groups responsible for the survey-feedback process may have difficulty reaching sufficient consensus about the purposes of the survey, its content, and how it will be fed back to participants.
Such confusion can lead to considerable disagreement over the data collected and paralysis about doing anything with them.
Distrust. High levels of distrust in the organization can render the survey feedback ineffective. Employees need to trust that their responses will remain anonymous and that management is serious about sharing the data and solving problems jointly.
Unacceptable topics. Most organizations have certain topics that they do not want examined. This can severely constrain the scope of the survey process, par- ticularly if the neglected topics are important to employees.
Organizational disturbance. The survey-feedback process can unduly disturb organizational functioning. Data collection and feedback typically infringe on employee work time. Moreover, administration of a survey can call attention to issues with which management is unwilling to deal, and can create unrealistic expectations about organizational improvement.
1.
2.
3.
4.
148 PART 2 The process of organization Development
Results of Survey Feedback
Survey feedback has been used widely in business organizations, schools, hospitals, federal and state governments, and the military. The navy has used survey feedback in more than 500 navy commands. More than 150,000 individual surveys were com- pleted, and a large bank of computerized research data was generated. Promising results were noted among survey indices on nonjudicial punishment rates, incidence of drug abuse reports, and performance of ships undergoing refresher training (a posto- verhaul training and evaluation period).11 Positive results have been reported in such diverse areas as an industrial organization in Sweden and the Israeli Army.12
One of the most important studies of survey feedback was done by Bowers, who conducted a five-year longitudinal study (the Intercompany Longitudinal Study) of 23 organizations in 15 companies involving more than 14,000 people in both white- collar and blue-collar positions.13 In each of the 23 organizations studied, repeat measurements were taken. The study compared survey feedback with three other OD interventions: interpersonal process consultation, task process consultation, and laboratory training. The study reported that survey feedback was the most effective of the four treatments and the only one “associated with large across-the-board positive changes in organization climate.”14 Although these findings have been questioned on a number of methodological grounds,15 the original conclusion that survey feedback is effective in achieving organizational change was supported. The study suggested that any conclusions to be drawn from action research and survey-feedback studies should be based, at least in part, on objective operating data.
Comprehensive reviews of the literature reveal differing perspectives on the effects of survey feedback. In one review, survey feedback’s biggest impact was on attitudes and perceptions of the work situation. The study suggested that survey feedback might best be viewed as a bridge between the diagnosis of organizational problems and the implementation of problem-solving methods because little evi- dence suggests that survey feedback alone will result in changes in individual behavior or organizational output.16 This view is supported by research suggesting that the more the data were used to solve problems between initial surveys and later surveys, the more the data improved.17 Another study suggested that survey feed- back has positive effects on both outcome variables (for example, productivity, costs, and absenteeism) and process variables (for example, employee openness, decision making, and motivation) in 53% and 48%, respectively, of the studies measuring those variables. When compared with other OD approaches, survey feedback was only bettered by interventions using several approaches together—for example, change programs involving a combination of survey feedback, process consultation, and team building.18 On the other hand, another review found that, in contrast to laboratory training and team building, survey feedback was least effective, with only 33% of the studies that measured hard outcomes reporting success. The success rate increased to 45%, however, when survey feedback was combined with team build- ing.19 Finally, a meta-analysis of OD process interventions and individual attitudes suggested that survey feedback was not significantly associated with overall satis- faction or attitudes about co-workers, the job, or the organization. Survey feedback was able to account for only about 11% of the variance in satisfaction and other attitudes.20
Studies of specific survey-feedback interventions identify conditions that improve the success of this technique. One study in an urban school district reported difficul- ties with survey feedback and suggested that its effectiveness depends partly on the quality of those leading the change effort, members’ understanding of the process, the extent to which the survey focuses on issues important to participants, and the degree to which the values expressed by the survey are congruent with those of the