Effects of Action Planning After Employee Surveys

Abstract

Abstract. Employee surveys are commonly used tools in organizations for the purpose of organizational development. We investigated the post-survey action planning process in 3,091 organizational units (OUs) of one large company in Germany. We expected action planning to lead to improvements on subsequent employee survey scores, with OUs that continuously and repeatedly planned actions showing the greatest improvements. Results suggest that the development of action plans can lead to improvements on subsequent survey scores, but effect sizes were generally small. Furthermore, managers who initiated action planning in the previous year were more likely to do so again the following year. Overall, these findings contribute to the literature on employee surveys by investigating effects of post-survey action planning.

Following Up on Employee Surveys: A Conceptual Framework and Systematic Review

“…Some studies described no or low involvement of other change agents, which meant that there was, if any, little involvement either during the preparation stage or during the feedback meetings. For example, some studies did not mention any consultant or other change agent supporting the survey feedback process ( Björklund et al, 2007 ; Huebner and Zacher, 2021 ). Other studies described low involvement of other change agents.…”

“…Also, study durations and the (number of) measurement time points varied greatly from a few weeks or months (e.g., Eklöf et al, 2004 ; Eklöf and Hagberg, 2006 ) to several years (e.g., Church et al, 2012 ). Some results suggested though that the more time participants had to conduct action planning (e.g., 2 years vs. 1 year), the more scores tended to improve ( Church and Oliver, 2006 ; Huebner and Zacher, 2021 ).…”

“…For example, as one of few studies, Gavin and Krois (1983) examined specifically the topics discussed in feedback meetings and the duration of those discussions. Other studies, on the other hand, reported that feedback meetings were conducted, but the authors admitted that they did not examine how these meetings were conducted (e.g., Björklund et al, 2007 ; Huebner and Zacher, 2021 ). Furthermore, very few studies reported or discussed the effect sizes of their interventions, (for exceptions see e.g., La Grange and Geldenhuys, 2008 ; Huebner and Zacher, 2021 ).…”

“…Other studies, on the other hand, reported that feedback meetings were conducted, but the authors admitted that they did not examine how these meetings were conducted (e.g., Björklund et al, 2007 ; Huebner and Zacher, 2021 ). Furthermore, very few studies reported or discussed the effect sizes of their interventions, (for exceptions see e.g., La Grange and Geldenhuys, 2008 ; Huebner and Zacher, 2021 ). Even though the reporting of standardized effect sizes is widely recommended ( Appelbaum et al, 2018 ), it is oftentimes neglected in research, which hinders the ability to draw interferential conclusions from the study results ( Kelley and Preacher, 2012 ).…”

Connecting the Dots: Exploring Psychological Network Analysis as a Tool for Analyzing Organizational Survey Data

“…Organizational surveys are widely used for this purpose, systematically collecting employees’ perceptions about a broad range of psychological constructs including (but not limited to) employee engagement, job satisfaction and turnover intentions. This assessment can then be used to observe trends in the perceptions of employees ( Lang et al, 2018 ), serve as input for future decisions ( Nieva, 2003 ), or design attitude change interventions ( Huebner and Zacher, 2021 ).…”