Workplace Assessments: Find out what your employees are really thinking

by Daryl Landau

Better than a survey, far better than informal methods like gossip, workplace assessments (sometimes termed ‘environment assessments/audits’ or ‘conflict assessments’) provide the best analysis of what’s going on in a workplace.  Typically, an outside assessor interviews all staff, compiles a report preserving anonymity, and offers recommendations to address problems.  Then Management knows where to focus its energies, and has the legitimacy to take overdue action.  However, assessments need to be done ethically or they will violate some important ethical principles.

Having done many assessments, I can say that the circumstances can dictate variations in method and focus.  However, I will offer a specific example – a somewhat unusual and controversial, but instructive one - as a general guide. 

Not long ago, I was asked by an organization to perform an investigation into a complaint of harassment.   I asked what particulars were included in the worker’s grievance and I was told there were none.  I was led to understand that this was part of a long-standing battle against the supervisor by a small group of workers.  For these and other reasons, including my belief that investigations are not always in the best interests of individuals or organizations, I suggested beginning with a workplace assessment.  Once I had spoken to the staff and supervisor, I would be able to recommend the needed steps to restore good relations.   So I contracted with Management to conduct an assessment based on anonymity, and was introduced at the next staff meeting.

Because of the complainant’s unwillingness to divulge much, the assessment may not have shed light on the specifics of the grievance, if there were any.  However, it revealed an interesting context for a clearly adversarial workplace.  Most staff sided with the supervisor – the advantage of anonymity is that people feel freer to share their true views if they trust the assessor – and were critical of the few bullies among staff who used their seniority.  However, most people minimized the importance of external events (e.g., funding cuts) that had caused major change in the unit, especially to the ‘bullies’.     

I completed a detailed report for Management.  This report helped them assess the performance of the supervisor about whom they were uncertain, and it named a couple individuals who were seen as bullies by many staff.  The report listed about ten key issues and suggested ways to address these.  Then, as I typically do, I presented a safe summary to the staff of the issues (without naming names), including my view of the impact of external factors and my urging of all to rebuild their team.   Management spoke of its commitment as well.  This kind of airing carries risks, but in my experience has never made things worse, and instead is a welcome sign of transparency and action.  Indeed, matters were already improving and continued to improve thereafter.

So what of the original grievance?  At first it seemed that an investigation would be needed, and I could not perform it.  The assessment had been in essence a ‘without prejudice’ process, though an investigator could read my report.  However, to my knowledge the matter was either mediated or withdrawn.  

Investigations are more costly, often more time-consuming, and more adversarial than assessments.  They are not substitutes, of course; they serve different purposes generally.  An assessment is appropriate when the issues are more widespread and general, often unknown.  The anonymity offered in assessments, and the fact that the assessor is external to the work unit and usually to the organization, invites people to share their true concerns.  Assessments are aimed at healing, rather than fault-finding.

What’s wrong with anonymous surveys?  They are fine, but only a human interviewer can elicit deeper information and follow up on leads.   People often complete surveys in a hurry, and their answers are often unclear.

Given the type of information that is requested and provided in assessments – how a person feels about the manager, about coworkers, etc. – they need to be conducted ethically.  Currently, there are no standards for such processes to my knowledge and to my regret.  Therefore, I will offer my own:

·        Anonymity of the source should be maintained.  In some exceptions, it should be clear ahead of time that this will not be the case;

·        Individuals should not be compelled to participate or face consequences either way;

·        The assessor should only mention the names of specific ‘troublemakers’ if there is compelling evidence and the issue warrants it.  The assessor should have some confidence in the sincerity of Management to take appropriate action;

·        The assessor must be careful not to use leading questions with the interviewee, or to exhibit selective hearing of the responses;

·        In unionized workplaces, efforts should be made to get the buy in of the union from the start; however, union reps should not sit in on interviews unless specifically requested by the interviewee;

·        The assessor’s notes should not be seen by anyone else, and his/her report only viewed by specified people;

·        At least a summary of the results should be shared with all participants.  It should be made clear that the assessment was not fact-finding, but more a compilation of impressions, facts, and ideas;

·        The contract between the assessor and Management should spell out these terms and bind Management to them.

Once the assessment report is completed, Management is well-advised to continue the
consultation with the assessor while carrying out an action plan. Each will have information
and experience that the other does not have. They should work together to ensure the
restoration of a healthy, functioning workplace.

Daryl Landau is a workplace conflict consultant and trainer of mediators.  Visit www.common-ground.ca.