Frequently Asked Questions
This is a range of questions that clients often ask when considering, or conducting, a climate measurement exercise. There is further information on a number of these topics in the Survey Project Manager and The Guide to Interpretation and you should refer to both documents in the interests of thoroughness.

If you have any additional questions you can email us and we will respond as soon as possible.

FAQs printable version (PDF 448kb)

Frequently Asked Questions

‘Is there an ideal time to measure climate?’

‘Do external factors have a large impact on organisation climate?’

‘Will change programs adversely affect the organisation’s climate?’

‘Do climate studies raise staff expectations to an unreasonable extent?’

‘What level of detail in results is available in doing a survey?’

‘Can the questionnaire be modified to reflect the terminology of the organisation?’

‘Is it possible to add questions of our own?’

‘How do you deal with the issue of detailed code sheets and guarantees of confidentiality?’

‘How is the survey distributed?’

‘Under what circumstances are focus groups conducted?’

‘How do focus groups work and how many people can attend?’

‘Are There Communication Protocols?’

‘How are staff generally informed of the results?’

‘How Often Should You Survey?’

‘What Does The Database Really Represent?’

‘Are Climate Benchmarks Useful?’

‘Is there an ideal time to measure climate?’

There is no established view on a ‘best’ time. It is more appropriate for the decision to be driven by internal considerations. One of the common objections to measuring climate is the belief that the current climate is unusually depressed and not representative of the ‘normal’ climate. Climate is never normal. It moves constantly as the result of interacting influences and often more useful to measure in times of stress to establish for a fact the real state of the profiles.

It is sensible to avoid those trading, financial or production cycles that may limit the rate of response or make it unnecessarily difficult for managers to distribute and encourage response. You need the support of managers so it is wise to consult over the timing issue for political support reasons.

Back to Index

‘Do external factors have a large impact on organisation climate?’

There can be no doubt that external factors have an impact on climate. However, the difficulty lies in accurately determining the extent of the impact on climate profiles. Prevailing economic conditions have an impact on all organisations. It is evident that prolonged trends will result in the development of organisation strategies that affect the working conditions of staff, both in a positive and negative sense.

What is relevant for organisations is the capacity of managers to adequately deal with the impact of organisation response to external issues no matter what the causal factors may be. These management practices are more relevant to organisation climate than the causal factors.

‘Will change programs adversely affect the organisation’s climate?’

It is almost certain that change programs that alter structures, change job roles and create shifts in the makeup of the workforce will have an adverse impact on staff. Some organisations have been known to take a measure of the climate prior to these processes being implemented, precisely to establish a base benchmark to gauge the impact of the change.

Again, as with external factors, the capacity of managers to help staff adjust to changes is central to limiting the damage from change processes. Our experience suggests that there is a strong argument for strategic implementation of change programs with clearly defined processes for information campaigns and management support activities.

The duration of a change process is a major factor in determining the likely extent of impact on staff. There are limits on the tolerance staff have for constant change and anything over 12 months will be stretching their levels of forgiveness.

‘Do climate studies raise staff expectations to an unreasonable extent?’

Intervention exercises of any nature in organisations will result in staff expectations of change. In order to properly manage this phenomenon, it is important that the limitations of the exercise be explained to staff from the outset. Limiting staff’s expectations to realistic levels can be significantly improved through the conduct of focus groups and staff involvement in the construction of climate improvement actions. Experience demonstrates that staff often enjoy involvement both in qualifying climate issues and building climate enhancing exercises.

One of the more consistent issues relating to this topic is the perception of the organisation as inactive in responding to issues identified in the survey. Staff may believe that the climate survey is an indication that the organisation is prepared to undertake changes to address climate issues.

In those cases where staff are invited to suggest on desirable changes and/or improvements, some staff will develop the view that their specific concerns should be directly addressed on the strength of them being raised.

‘What level of detail in results is available in doing a survey?’

Before implementing a survey, organisations nominate a range of information classifications for inclusion in their code sheet to generate the climate profiles. Depending upon the clients’ needs it is possible to test and identify climate profiles by fields such as geographic location, function, operating division, section and level and any combination of these. The number of fields into which survey data might be allocated has no theoretical limits but there are practical considerations such as time and cost.

‘Can the questionnaire be modified to reflect the terminology of the organisation?’

Alteration of terminology is common to improve the response rates from and allow people to readily recognise and be comfortable with the questionnaire. The conversion of the word ‘department’ to ‘work team’ or ‘work group’ is an example. ‘Organisations tend also to vary in the use of the words “customers” and “clients”.’

One of the more common modifications is ‘organisation’ changed to the name of the business or the name of a division. Any word change that improves the level of comfort in an organisation about the survey should be used providing it does not alter the essential nature of the query. The principle extends to the front page which can be branded with an appropriate logo.

‘Is it possible to add questions of our own?’

Organisations often like to add specific questions for their own purposes. This does not threaten the integrity of the total exercise, provided the additional questions do not greatly increase the time required to complete the questionnaire.

In addition to adding items that are similar to the standard survey, organisations often include open-ended questions that invite written comment. These can be questions about specific issues in the organisation or they might investigate the views staff hold about general desirable improvements.

‘How do you deal with the issue of detailed code sheets and guarantees of confidentiality?’

The use of detailed code sheets does at times create a confidentiality issue for some staff. Corporate populations are commonly more sensitive to the issue than operational staff. It is important to guarantee the protection of information in the collection of data, assuring staff that individual profiles cannot be accessed by the organisation. The use of an external processing body is a partial guarantee, while the commitment to a firm policy that no manager will be able to view data for groups less than 10, is useful for improving comfort levels.

In presentations to staff it is important to reinforce the presence of the policy and to point out that the view of one individual is not useful for understanding organisational themes. The guarantee that the external consultant will not release data for groups less than 10 is the best response to concerns about confidentiality.

‘How is the survey distributed?’

The normal method of distribution is to present each staff member with a personal envelope or plastic wrap which contains a covering letter from the Chief Executive, a coded copy of the questionnaire, and a business reply paid envelope to the consultants. The covering letter provides organisational background to the study, an explanation of the process for staff involvement and a guarantee of anonymity.

Technology changes now make it possible to individually address surveys to staff during a plastic wrap process and deliver them via the internal or external mails. Some organisations prefer line managers to directly distribute to staff. In these cases, managers can receive survey packs for distribution.

Our experiences with the response rate to home delivered surveys are not positive and we do not recommend this as an alternative.

‘Under what circumstances are focus groups conducted?’

Focus groups are expensive, time consuming exercises and the rationale for conducting them should be thoroughly debated before proceeding.

Focus groups should be conducted when the quantitative results indicate that qualitative research into causal factors underlying the survey responses is necessary. This is generally done when the climate profile causes significant concern about the impact on the functionality of the target population.

The conduct of focus groups as a standard exercise in climate surveys is not a methodology we would support. The data collected in this way is highly coloured and some experience is required in reaching sensible and balanced conclusions about the key messages and the real meaning for the organisation.

‘How do focus groups work and how many people can attend?’

Focus groups can contain anywhere up to 25 or 30 people. Staff are provided with a brief background and the general features of climate studies. The bulk of time is spent investigating climate conditions represented by the profiles with considerable emphasis placed on the qualification and specification of statements and perceptions.

Data collected from staff in these settings will vary depending upon the reasons for convening them. If the results suggest widespread concern about the condition of the working climate, the facilitator will be seeking information of a general nature to help identify primary causal factors. Questioning may become much more targeted when there are specific climate dimensions of concern rather than broader climate issues.

Staff may be required to develop presentation sheets which can be transcribed for reporting purposes, or in smaller groups the facilitator may take detailed notes while the group is engaged in discussions about the issues. Larger groups often mean having to use both devices for ensuring accurate data is recorded.

In exercises where data is collected to assist in identifying broadly based climate issues, the facilitator may present material divided into major themes reflecting the climate dimensions which makes the information more easily understood.

‘Are There Communication Protocols?’

It is usual to follow the traditional top down approach in the communication of results. The CEO is briefed following a review of results with the relevant Human Resources roles. It is preferable to hold this briefing without the presence of other senior managers to allow the CEO and the consultant/facilitator to have a frank exchange of information and views.

The senior management team may be addressed as a group or in their divisional roles. Again some General Management positions may wish to undertake individual briefings before revealing results to their management teams.

Further briefing of management teams may take place before entering into a general communication exercise with staff. There is strong value in managers having the opportunity to attend briefings and ask questions that will help clarify results for them. Well briefed managers who see the results as having credibility are a valuable long-term asset in climate measurement and management.

‘How are staff generally informed of the results?’

Outside of the focus group and action teams, staff can be informed through the issue of a special newsletter or an insert in the standard staff newsletter. Additionally, implementation strategies should require managers and supervisors to conduct team discussions to formulate local climate strategies.

Direct feedback to staff through managers is the most preferred form of communication in climate studies. For these purposes a management communication kit can be created to assist managers in the task and improve the consistency of information conveyed to staff.

‘How Often Should You Survey?’

There are no established protocols that dictate how often organisations should survey staff. Our clients have varied between six-monthly to every two years.

We think that six-monthly is too often and does not leave sufficient time for managers to put improvement strategies in place or for organisation-wide initiatives to have impact. Annual measurement is quite common among organisations which have a commitment to a staff survey process. If the organisation has very large populations of tens of thousands, then it may find that once every two years is a proposition that can be managed.

Annual measures can be useful because the survey becomes a part of the body of information that managers use in strategic planning and performance management. Annual measures over time also provide longitudinal data that allow the organisation to understand the impact of changes on staff and the response of staff to organisational initiatives.

‘What Does The Database Really Represent?’

The database is a repository of all results collected over time and across all organisations that use the Organisation Climate Survey. It contains hundreds of thousands of results and is a cross-section of industry groups that includes government, transport, retail, insurance, financial services, manufacturing, health, logistics and regulatory bodies. As we normally engage in census sampling, the database also contains data from all the job groups you are likely to find in any organisation.

The results for organisations are placed against this wide marketplace and the percentiles reflect the position of climate dimensions within the market.

‘Are Climate Benchmarks Useful?’

Some managers and management groups feel more comfortable when they view results in the context of a benchmark framework. In some respects it can be compared with setting numeric performance targets which are easily understood and have appeal for their simplicity of interpretation i.e. if you reach the target your performance is acceptable.

Unfortunately benchmarks in climate measurement have a higher content of qualitative judgement to establish the benchmark and cannot be as easily interpreted. For example, while a division of an organisation may attain a Communication score that puts the division at the benchmark, there may be sub-populations that are performing poorly or aspects of a dimension on which the division scores well but other aspects that are relatively poor. One benchmark performance can hide a multitude of sins – precisely the problem with their use.

If you wish to talk to our trained consultants refer to our Contact Details section or email now.

FAQs Download printable version (PDF 448kb)

Back to Top