Are you telling the truth? Poor well-being is kept secret in surveys

Strategic answers

It is well-known that well-being surveys fail to reveal the whole truth, says Thomas Clausen. He has been engaged in well-being surveys for twenty years and is a senior researcher, PhD, MSc in Political Science, at the National Research Centre for the Working Environment:

“If the price of being honest is too high, employees may decide to respond strategically.”

Delegates at various workplaces in the sector confirm to the newsletter ‘Finans’ that they see well-being surveys painting an overly positive picture compared to what they hear from colleagues on a daily basis.

Suddenly in the red

One of those who have noticed this tendency holds a prominent position of trust in one of Finansforbundet’s local branches.

“I do recognise that not everyone is being completely honest. This becomes clear at times when groups of employees in a department get together and start talking and decide that this time they're going to answer truthfully – there's no point in hiding the truth anymore. That’s when all at once, departments are sending well-being in the red.”

Another contributing factor could be the fatigue of having to respond again, assesses the delegate who wishes to remain anonymous.

“If well-being at work is good, you’ll fly through the questionnaire, but if there are problems, completing the form may be quite laborious.
Perhaps you can’t be bothered spilling it out once more. What’s the point if your previous honest answers didn’t change anything?”

Identity revealed

A union representative at one of the major banks agrees that the risk of being identified is why numerous colleagues are very selective when telling the truth. He also wishes to remain anonymous in this context:

“Especially the comment boxes give you the feeling that you might be recognised. You see, the management can see groups as small as five people in the surveys. If the managers know their employees well enough, the things you address and the language you use might reveal who you are.”

Pressure from the manager

He adds that prior to the recurring surveys, people in some departments are primed by middle managers who may worry about how well their department will fare in the survey:

“They’ll accentuate the importance of a good well-being score. They’ll also say that seven is a middle value, and to select this if you are reasonably satisfied – despite the fact that the surveys use a scale from 1-10, 10 being the best,” he adds and points out:

“It doesn’t make any sense, if the bank wants honest answers.”

Used externally

In his opinion, a good well-being score is especially important for the bank because it may be used in external marketing and for comparison with the well-being of other banks – where you want to make a good appearance.

When a department achieves poor scores, action is sometimes taken to improve well-being, he says. But the colleagues he is familiar with would rather avoid it:

“In their experience, it means having to spend unproductive time in a bad atmosphere at roundtable meetings with HR to talk about the problems and what each of them can do better – only to see everything continuing as before. Then it’s better to give well-being a higher score than experienced in exchange for peace to work.”

The least bad thing

Despite their shortcomings, senior researcher Thomas Clausen believes well-being surveys are important:

“Put in simple terms, if you’re going to measure the working environment, this is the least bad way to do it. But it requires creating a sense of security around the process, that no one is attacked with the results, and that you don’t send in an army of psychologists to comb through the department.”

Instead, the management should follow up on the results and genuinely do something to improve the addressed points:

“The necessary resources should be used for this work, instead of using energy to identify who the moaner in the department is.

Otherwise, employees may experience it as a sham, serving only to produce good-looking well-being scores, at which point the employees may quickly lose their motivation to engage in well-being initiatives.”

Answer honestly!

The anonymous person with a prominent position of trust also supports the well-being surveys.

“Despite their shortcomings, I would strongly defend keeping the surveys if anyone proposed to abolish them.”

"You see, it's not that we derive nothing at all from the surveys; actions are taken on the answers.”

When they are not always honest, this naturally limits the impact of those actions. The delegate admits that it is a challenge to get more honest answers to work with:

"It's not always easy to be open-minded and honest when well-being is suffering. This requires security, which is not always present in all departments. Either way, in our local branch, we encourage people to answer honestly. Only then can we do something to improve well-being where it's needed.”