The engagement survey we stopped sending, and the three questions we kept
Response rates were not falling because people were busy. They were falling because nothing visibly happened.
Nothing visibly happened.
Illustrative example. This story and its author were written by the hr.cafe editors to demonstrate the Field Note format. It does not describe a real person or event. Real, contributor-approved stories will replace it.
Key takeaways
- We replaced a 38-question annual survey with three questions asked quarterly in stores.
- Each store manager shares one change made in response before the next round.
- We lost benchmark comparability; we decided visible action mattered more for this audience.
- Role
- Employee Experience Analyst
- Organization
- Retail, ~3,000 people
- Region
- Poland
- Timeframe
- Two quarters
Situation. Our annual survey had 38 questions and a falling response rate in stores and warehouses. When I visited sites and asked why, the most common answer was not “no time.” It was some version of: “We filled it in last year. What happened?”
Action. For store teams, we stopped sending the long survey. Instead, every quarter, we ask three questions: What made your work harder this month? What is one thing your manager could change? Do you feel you can raise a problem without it being held against you? The first two are open text; the third is a simple scale. Store managers see their own results within a week and agree one visible change, which they post in the break room before the next round.
Observation. Over two quarters, participation in stores rose and the open-text answers became more specific, often about scheduling, equipment and handovers. Some changes were tiny, like moving the rota release day. Staff mentioned those changes in the next round, which never happened with the annual survey.
Three questions people answer honestly were worth more to us than thirty they skimmed.
Lesson. The visible change, not the survey, carried the message. The trade-off is real: we can no longer compare our results with external benchmarks, and head office misses the trend lines. We kept the long survey for office teams for now, which creates its own inconsistency.
Question for peers. If you have shortened a survey, how did you explain the loss of comparability to leadership?
Questions for peers
Tomasz Nowak would like to hear how this plays out in your context.
- What did you give up when you shortened a survey, and was it worth it?
- How do you make “we heard you” visible without over-promising?
Respond to Tomasz
Responses are read by a moderator before anything is shown publicly, and only with your permission. There are no public responses on this story yet.