Not all employee surveys are the same!
Employee surveys gained prominence in recent years because they provide valuable information and feedback from collaborators, helping organisations make informed decisions and create a healthier and better working environment.
Conducting organisational surveys helps leadership to obtain understanding of the workforce engagement, satisfaction, mental health risks, and organisational culture, enabling data-inspired decisions, promoting a healthy work environment, improving retention, and enhancing overall organisational performance.
But not all surveys are the same, and their results highlight distinct predictors and outcomes.
Organisational climate surveys collect the answers about the aspects of the environment that are consciously perceived by organisational members. It influences workers motivation and, in consequence, affects organisational performance meaning it is imperative to have a good climate in the organisation to achieve results.
Engagement surveys evaluate the amount of commitment and passion of workers about their job. Engaged workers can be described as those who “give their best to achieve company goals.” and the ones who “genuinely commit to the organisation’s success and are contagiously passionate about what they are doing”. Engagement helps to recognise the influence of emotions alongside with rationality in working life making it a desirable goal to achieve and organisations should be clear in their engagement strategies. Not to forget that managers’ engagement is a crucial aspect of increased engagement in workers leading to a “electricity around engagement”.
Employee experience surveys are a set of questions designed to collect and measure feedback on the experience of people in the organisation. This questionnaire assesses the critical contact points in an employee’s life cycle and aims to identify the strengths, weaknesses and possible threats, and opportunities for improving that experience. More specifically, the employee experience survey makes it possible to build up a picture of what attracts people to the organisation and what keeps them there.
Stress and anxiety complications leading to other psychological health problems started to be more relevant in a work context in the last decades of the 20th century. Giving more importance and relevance to psychological risks assessment. A risk assessment combines three elements: hazard, harm and risk. Hazard is when something has the potential to cause harm, harm is when something causes harm and risk is simply the chance that someone will be harmed by hazard. In a health and safety context, risk assessment is a method that allows organisations to identify the likelihood and consequences of harm (e.g., physical or psychological harm).
Engagement or climate surveys and psychosocial risk assessments are often assumed to be the same by managers because they involve collecting information from workers but these instruments focus on clear different aspects — climate and engagement surveys measure satisfaction and motivation, while risk assessments evaluate potential hazards to mental health, enabling the identification and prediction of burnout, psychological distress, stress absence leave, and psychological injury compensation claims.
Overall, a psychosocial risk assessment is considered a more comprehensive evaluation of the health status of an organisation because it delves deeper into the specific factors that can impact workers mental health and wellbeing, both positively and negatively. This risk assessment provides a broader understanding because:
- Focus on Mental Health: A psychosocial risk assessment puts a particular emphasis on mental health factors in the workplace. It identifies and evaluates potential hazards that can negatively affect workers’ health and psychological wellbeing,
- Holistic View: A psychosocial risk assessment considers a wide range of factors such as workload, job demands, control over work, work-life balance, social support, communication, and organizational culture. This holistic approach provides a comprehensive understanding of the work design and work environment and enables organisations to address multiple dimensions of organisational health and wellbeing.
- Long-Term Organisational Impact: Addressing psychosocial risks and promoting wellbeing can have long-term benefits for the organisation. By creating a supportive and healthy work environment, organisations can improve retention, productivity, and overall organisational performance. Moreover, it can enhance the organisation’s reputation as an employer of choice, attracting top talent and fostering a positive company culture.
- Legal and Regulatory Compliance: In many countries, like Portugal, there are legal requirements and regulations related to occupational health and safety, including the assessment and management of psychosocial risks. Conducting a psychosocial risk assessment helps organisations ensure compliance with local but also European level regulations, namely the recently approved Corporate Sustainability Report Directive (CSRD — ESRS S1 Own Workforce), aligned with a clear ESG agenda by reducing the potential legal and financial risks.
Organisational assessments are valuable tools, particularly when they are scientific validated instruments, for organisations to gain insights and understand different predictors for people’s perceptions and behaviours concerning their work environment, their health and wellbeing and improve organisational robustness. While an engagement or climate survey focuses on measuring overall workforce satisfaction and engagement levels and take remedial actions, a psychosocial risk assessment zooms in on specific psychosocial hazards and their potential harm, empowering leaders to make informed decisions and implement targeted interventions to achieve long term organisational impact.
References
Curtis, P., Carey, M., & Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. (2012). Risk assessment in practice.
Gable, S. A., Chyung, S. Y., Marker, A., & Winiecki, D. (2010). How should organizational leaders use employee engagement survey data?. Performance Improvement, 49(4), 17–25.
McBain, R. (2007). The practice of engagement: Research into current employee engagement practice. Strategic HR review, 6(6), 16–19.
Noordin, F., Omar, S., Sehan, S., & Idrus, S. (2010). Organizational climate and its influence on organizational commitment. International Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER), 9(2).
Rick, J., & Briner, R. B. (2000). Psychosocial risk assessment: problems and prospects. Occupational Medicine, 50(5), 310–314.
Van der Molen, H. F., Nieuwenhuijsen, K., Frings-Dresen, M. H., & de Groene, G. (2020). Work-related psychosocial risk factors for stress-related mental disorders: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ open, 10(7).
This post was first published in Boundmakers Blog by the Bound Team.
