Employee experience research — Why organizations move from projects to programs 

Business meeting   
Shift from fragmented feedback projects to cohesive, data-driven EX programs for insights and actions.

A decade ago, in a class called “Innovation Management,” our professor told us that innovation comes in shocks, not in a steady upward path. The world of employee experience research is currently in the midst of such a shock. So, what’s driving it?

Over the past five years, new capabilities from technology providers such as Qualtrics, Glint and Remesh have helped us understand the employee experience (EX). We’ve seen how these technologies have enabled a different way of gathering feedback for organizations and the advisory firms that support them. Similarly, human resource information systems have grown much richer. And they’re easier to connect to EX research software.

Many organizations have made considerable investments in these new technologies. But most only use these capabilities ad hoc — stacking new initiatives on top of old ones and creating an ever-more-complicated web of separate employee feedback projects. 

At best, these projects don’t interfere with each other. At worst, they create irritation for employees, confusion among those tasked to act on results and disappointment among senior leaders. After all, leadership expected great synergies and extra value from the expensive new EX research tool. 

To generate a better return on these investments, we must take lessons from the past five years and apply new approaches. That means no longer stacking independent projects but instead making a fundamental change and working more strategically. 

That step toward a more strategic approach is the innovation shock we’re presently experiencing as we move from EX projects to EX programs. 

The employee experience baseline and its challenge

Just about any organization with more than 500 employees will gather employee experience feedback through an annual survey. Maybe they run the survey every two years instead of annually, but the principle is the same: asking numerous questions, processing and sharing data via dashboards and PowerPoint reports at all levels of the organization, and providing a more in-depth analysis for senior leadership.

These companywide surveys won’t disappear any time soon. They provide a great understanding of what’s going well in the organization, what could go better and whether any hot spots warrant more support. But they also leave two big gaps: frequency and comprehensiveness.

Filling the gaps

Tackling the low frequency of insights has been the first step for many, with the tool of choice being the pulse survey, which generally comes in two flavors. 

First, short, frequent pulse surveys help counter the low frequency of insights from annual surveys. And second, more elaborate pulse surveys gather deeper insights into a specific topic (such as mental well-being) or within a targeted subgroup of employees (for example, everyone at a given location).

Another way to gather more frequent feedback is to apply lifecycle surveys, automatically triggered when a certain condition is met, such as “with us for one week” or “started new role.” Insights from these surveys are often highly actionable and combine well with the more strategic insights from annual and pulse surveys. Many of our clients have begun implementing some form of these.

Digging new holes

Pulse and lifecycle surveys can provide tremendous value by filling the gaps left by an annual survey. However, this is where EX professionals often begin to realize they’ve dug themselves a new hole: They haven’t built the infrastructure to ensure all these initiatives work well together. Let’s investigate that a bit more.
  1. Surveys are done as projects led by a topic specialist.

    For example, the rewards team focuses on understanding people preferences in conjunction with the common engagement survey. Or the health, safety and environment (HSE) department is interested in well-being and burnout prevention and commissions well-being surveys within the organization. At the same time, the onboarding team is conducting lifecycle surveys for feedback at weeks 1, 4 and 16 after joining. 

    None of these departments coordinate tools or methodologies with the others, nor do they align on survey dates and audience. Each group reinvents the wheel multiple times as projects progress, missing the opportunity for various synergies. 

  2. Every project searches for its own tool. 
    That means data reside in different tools, based on varying specifications. As a company gathers more EX feedback data, expectations rise for insights from combined data sources. How does the onboarding experience drive engagement? And how does that translate into ramp-up time and/or retention? Handling these types of analyses is challenging enough. Having to connect data from multiple sources and with varying specifications makes the task that much harder. And it leaves stakeholders disappointed with the lack of insights that result. 
  3. Methodologies don’t automatically make sense together.

    Even if the data are joined, the combination may not add much value. Each project was designed in a vacuum, and insufficient thought was put into how they could create valuable insights together. 

    For example, a common question about “intent to stay” is included, but the response scales don’t match, making the data incomparable. Or surveys pose similar questions that are worded slightly differently. Another common challenge is that a few questions would have obvious value in a combined database but little value within the context of a particular project. So, they don’t get asked. 

  4. Each project carries its own branding and competes for attention and participation. 
    Employees don’t understand why they’re asked the same question repeatedly. Because of the different brands and communications, they start to tune out those surveys that aren’t pushed hard by their leaders. 
  5. Survey moments and audiences aren’t coordinated.
    This results in some employees responding to multiple surveys, while other departments gather zero feedback, leaving a hole in the analysis. Aside from an unbalanced data set, this will result in unnecessary frustration and irritation among employees and therefore lower response rates, poorer data, and fewer insights. 
  6. Functions act on insights in silos,
    without clarity on who’s responsible for improvements, which leads to less-than-satisfactory action plans. The lack of coordination between projects can spread to change management. This leaves stakeholders frustrated as they now have insights on what they need to improve to help meet their business challenges but not how to accomplish these improvements.
So, while filling the gaps that we EX professionals have identified from the data flow provided by the annual survey, we’ve dug ourselves a new hole: a lack of connectivity. Every project is still designed and executed as if in a vacuum — as if there are no other initiatives, surveys, focus groups, interviews or other research taking place. This disconnect prevents organizations from generating the maximum value from their efforts and tools. 

The answer: Build a program from a solid blueprint

Avoiding the trap of unconnected projects requires a shift in philosophy. Organizations should start planning for a program, not separate projects.

What does such a plan look like? The answer depends on many factors. But organizations should consider the following core principles:

Data, needs and action

To summarize, an effective EX research program thrives when it’s:

  • Rooted in business needs
  • Supported by data that provides direction and credibility
  • Designed to drive action systematically

If you have questions on how you can transition to coordinated EX program over unconnected individual projects, please contact us.

About the author(s)

Related products for purchase

Related solutions

Related insights