Hi Bland

All good points -  I would tend to judge by results, can action that 
follows staff surveys at least in part have an impact on opinion over time 
- the answer is yes they can and as such should be part of a 'suite' of OD 
tools.

Best wishes
Christian

--On 27 April 2011 15:23 +0100 BLAND TOMKINSON 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>
> Good, an interesting debate!
>
> I am not averse to running surveys (I still do set the occasional one,
> for student feedback) but it is important to realise what the limitations
> are.  And that applies when looking at proposals from potential
> consultants/suppliers - the old acronym GIGO still applies even if it is
> gold-plated garbage in and gold-plated garbage out.  Malcolm's suggestion
> of a time series approach is a sensible one, not only in giving some
> information on how things may be changing but in also reducing the effect
> of non-representative samples.  Some long while ago I did a training
> needs survey of research assistants (yes, we were a bit ahead of our
> time!) which only produced a response of about one-fifth.  We made our
> provision on the basis of scaling up those responses by five only to find
> that we had grossly over-estimated (essentially, only those with an
> interest in training and a need to do something had bothered to reply).
> This is not an isolated instance; I have learned the hard way that
> non-respondents are often very different in nature to respondents -
> sometimes this doesn't matter, but sometimes it does.  That needs careful
> thought at the design stage - by the analysis stage it is too late to
> recover.
>
> Attitude surveys, in particular, are notoriously fickle and sample
> structured interviews might produce more representative results if they
> are well formulated and the interviewers perceived  as possessing
> neutrality, integrity and skill.  If you are doing your own, pilot it
> first with a small sample to iron out any creases in the questions
> (interviewees/respondents may come up with answers that you haven't
> thought of and which don't fit neatly into your little boxes.
>
> But I still question why such surveys are done - is it to 'prove' that
> interventions/changes made have been effective?  Establishing a
> statistical correlation is one thing, establishing cause and effect is
> quite another!
>
> Probably enough table-thumping for one afternoon.....
>
>  --- On Wed, 27/4/11, Christian Carter <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>
> From: Christian Carter <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [SDF] Staff Surveys
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Wednesday, 27 April, 2011, 14:14
>
>
> Dear All
>
> Seems to be a great debate going on here so I thought I would throw in a
> few comments.  I do not necessarily disagree with anything that has been
> said before the important thing to take into account I think is the
> context
> in which the survey is taking place - i.e the institution and it's
> mission.
> A one size fits all approach is rarely the correct one in terms of people
> and organisational development and this is certainly true for surveys.
>
> My main advice when choosing a provider, or indeed running it in-house,
> is
> to be clear about what you are trying to achieve up front.  This is
> sometimes more complex that it may first appear.  What Manchester may
> want
> out of a survey will be very different to Bristol and this should be the
> driving force in terms of tool/provider selection.
>
> Like many things in life the more clear we are about our plans and
> objectives the more likely we are to succeed :-)
>
> Regards
> Christian
>
>
>
> --On 27 April 2011 10:48 +0000 Malcolm Harper
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Good morning colleagues
>>
>>
>>
>> I think that staff surveys are potentially useful though they do need to
>> be well structured and the results considered carefully.  I once
>> conducted a whole organisation survey (some time back whilst working as a
>> consultant) and it became apparent that the particular areas that refused
>> to take an active part in the survey had a dysfunctional leadership team
>> that had created a culture of suspicion and animosity amongst their own
>> staff.  Most of the rest of the organisation willingly participated even
>> though responses were coded so as to be able to follow up issues in
>> particular sections/departments (which did lead in the already
>> dysfunctional section to the kind of allegations that Bland refers to).
>>
>>
>>
>> Rather than necessarily measuring particular constructs I tend to regard
>> the results as indicators of problems and general trends, particularly
>> when results are collected over a number of years and trends over time
>> identified.  In Manchester, for example, a number of questions were
>> included that relate to the coverage of the Performance development and
>> review (PDR) process (Manchester's version of a staff appraisal scheme).
>> Over a number of years it was possible to see that the scheme was
>> gradually being more widely adopted, in line with organisational
>> intentions and policy.  The results also provided an independent data
>> source in relation to management compiled organisational reports on
>> progress with PDR.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are particular weaknesses relating to staff surveys.  Firstly, if
>> they overly long even willing respondents may get bored and opt out of
>> the process. Secondly, the distribution channels need to include people
>> who may not have regular access to computers (e.g. craft and manual work
>> staff) and need to be timed (along with reminders from managers, not just
>> via email) to allow for completion, for example seeking completion at
>> peak work times is not a good idea, but during the holiday season
>> completing staff surveys may not be at the fore-front of peoples' minds
>> either.  Thirdly, accepting that there may be suspicion amongst people
>> who feel particularly aggrieved with the organisation or their local
>> managers, a bigger problem might be survey/email/work overload and ennui
>> in respect of completing the survey.  Finally, and perhaps most
>> critically, if after completing the survey (once or twice) there is no
>> noticeable action that arises then people will probably conclude that it
>> is a profitless exercise and a waste of their time.  There may indeed be
>> no action but even worse there may have been action but this may not have
>> been clearly communicated to people within the organisation.  In such
>> circumstances mounting the survey runs the danger of generating cynicism
>> rather than potentially useful information.
>>
>>
>>
>> Given the factors noted above I think it is important to be realistic
>> about the likely response rate.  I've heard people bemoaning the fact
>> that only several thousand people have responded to the survey rather
>> than the whole organisation! Those more statistically minded can no doubt
>> put forward an argument about the minimum sample size amongst an
>> heterogenous population that is valid statistically but response rates of
>> between 25% and 50% of the staff would seem to be feasible.  How these
>> are interpreted partly depends upon whether you have the capacity to
>> trace from where the responses have originated and compare these with the
>> organisation employee composition.  Surveys usually include bio-data that
>> allows you to consider the sample in terms of gender, grade, general work
>> area e.g. academic, researchers, administrative staff, technician and
>> faculty, school, or employing department.  Whatever the final sample, it
>> is often necessary to convene focus groups to tease out what the
>> indicative result might mean in reality in particular areas and then to
>> consider suitable actions for improvement which, if implemented, can
>> validate the investment in the whole process.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best wishes, Malcolm
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Staff Development Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>> BLAND TOMKINSON
>> Sent: 27 April 2011 11:07
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [SDF] Staff Surveys
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Are staff surveys actually a valid measure of staff opinion?
>>
>>
>>
>> The survey companies will come up with all sorts of mumbo-jumbo to
>> suggest that they are, but I am less than convinced.  Manchester has run
>> them for some years but I know of staff there who do not complete them
>> becasue they do not believe that the surveys are anonymous and that their
>> trenchant views will be traced back to them.  This may be a small
>> minority, but scaling up of any survey result is very dangerous.  This
>> preoccupation strikes me as one of people looking for pieces of paper to
>> cover their backsides rather than any real interest in how dysfunctional
>> the university might have become!
>>
>>
>> --- On Wed, 27/4/11, Christian Carter <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Christian Carter <[log in to unmask]>
>>  Subject: Re: [SDF] Staff Surveys
>>  To: [log in to unmask]
>>  Date: Wednesday, 27 April, 2011, 10:18
>>
>> Dear Colleagues
>>
>> Would it be 'cheeky' to recommend Positive People @ The University of
>> Bristol....:-)
>>
>> <http://www.bris.ac.uk/pwe/positivepeople/>
>>
>> Regards
>>  Christian
>>
>> --On 19 April 2011 15:02 +0100 Adrian Egglestone
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>  >
>>  > We use a staff climate survey, primarily to measure engagement .  We
>> use
>>  > the Real World Group who are a company formed by Beverley Alimo
>>  > Metcalfe's ( Leeds and Bradford Unis) who built her reputation on UK
>>  > based research on leadership culminating in the Engaging
>> Transformational
>>  > leadership model.  We are using them for a second time and they are
>>  > 80% of the costs of the big boys in the industry.  We hit 42%
>>  > participation in 2008 and this year looks like we will exceed 50%.
>>  > Worth talking to. Adrian
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Adrian Egglestone
>>  >
>>  > Staff Training and Development
>>  >
>>  > Human Resources
>>  >
>>  > University of the West of Scotland
>>  >
>>  > Paisley Campus   PA1 2BE
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Telephone 0141 848 3960
>>  >
>>  > Mobile 07770 588941
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > From: Staff Development Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>>  > Kay Daines
>>  > Sent: 19 April 2011 11:27
>>  > To: [log in to unmask]
>>  > Subject: [SDF] Staff Surveys
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >  [Image: ""]
>>  >
>>  > Hello Everyone
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > I am looking to roll out a staff survey at UCS within the next few
>> months
>>  > and I would be very grateful for any information regarding providers
>> that
>>  > you use for this, any feedback on success of implementation and
>>  > associated costs.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Thanking you in anticipation.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Kind regards
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Kay
>>  >
>>  >  [Image: ""]
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Kay Daines
>>  >
>>  > HR Manager (Corporate Development)
>>  >
>>  > 01473 235455
>>  >  [log in to unmask]
>>  >
>>  > www.ucs.ac.uk
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Human Resources Department, University Campus Suffolk, St Edmund House
>>  > Rope Walk, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP4 1LZ
>>  >
>>  > P
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Before printing - think of the environment
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Please consider the environment and think before you print
>>  >
>> *************************************************************************
>>  > **************************************
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > University of the West of Scotland aims to have a transformational
>>  > influence on the economic, social and cultural development of the West
>> of
>>  > Scotland and beyond by providing relevant, high quality, inclusive
>> higher
>>  > education and innovative and useful research.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Visit www.uws.ac.uk for more details
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > University of the West of Scotland is a registered Scottish charity.
>>  > Charity number SC002520.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>> *************************************************************************
>>  > **************************************
>>  >
>>  > Legal disclaimer
>>  >
>>  > --------------------------
>>  >
>>  > The information transmitted is the property of the University of the
>> West
>>  > of Scotland and is intended only for the person or entity
>>  > to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
>>  > privileged material. Statements and opinions expressed in this e-mail
>>  > may not represent those of the company. Any review, retransmission,
>> dissemination
>>  > and other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
>>  > information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient
>>  > is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the
>>  > sender immediately and delete the material from any computer.
>>  >
>>  > --------------------------
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -------------------------
>>  Christian Carter, Organisational Development Manager (Staff Development)
>>  University of Bristol UK
>>  E: [log in to unmask]
>>  T: +00 44 (0)117 9287776
>>  W: Staff Development: bristol.ac.uk/staffdevelopment
>>  Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/bristolstaffdev
>>  Positive Working Environment: bristol.ac.uk/pwe
>>  Positive People: positive-people.co.uk
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------
> Christian Carter, Organisational Development Manager (Staff Development)
> University of Bristol UK
> E: [log in to unmask]
> T: +00 44 (0)117 9287776
> W: Staff Development: bristol.ac.uk/staffdevelopment
> Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/bristolstaffdev
> Positive Working Environment: bristol.ac.uk/pwe
> Positive People: positive-people.co.uk
>



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Carter, Organisational Development Manager (Staff Development)
University of Bristol UK
E: [log in to unmask]
T: +00 44 (0)117 9287776
W: Staff Development: bristol.ac.uk/staffdevelopment
Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/bristolstaffdev
Positive Working Environment: bristol.ac.uk/pwe
Positive People: positive-people.co.uk