Internal groups can bring internal fears
Editor’s note: This article is adapted from a chapter in Peter Goudge’s book Employee Research: How to Increase Employee Involvement Through Consultation (Kogan Page, 2006). Goudge is a founder member and former chairman of the employee research group within the U.K.-based Market Research Society.
There are many considerations that have to be borne in mind when conducting qualitative research among employees, over and above those that might be observed in the conduct of consumer research. For example, you need to consider the composition of respondents in a group discussion so as to avoid, say, any inhibitions arising from the presence of people from different levels in the organization’s hierarchy. Further, concerns about the confidentiality of any opinions expressed have to be recognized and dealt with.
Employees, even if they are not shareholders in an organization, can have substantial personal investment in it. Indeed, setting aside other monetary benefits linked to the organization (such as pensions, bonuses, loans for property or vehicles) the cumulative value of a career, including the potential for further advancement, could be perceived as being in jeopardy if they are deemed to express views which are not acceptable to others.
Someone who is attending a focus group as a customer of an organization is risking little in expressing a critical opinion of that organization. Indeed, one of the virtues of market research is that it helps organizations identify where they need to make corrections and improve what they offer to existing and potential customers. By contrast, consider the actions organizations can easily take against one of their own who has the courage to point out shortcomings in their practices. A National Whistleblower Center survey (as reported on its Web site) of 200 random whistleblower reports made to the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group during 2002 found 49.5 percent reported that they were fired for blowing the whistle. And these were not trivial cases since over half of these respondents said they had reported fraud or criminal practices.
It is therefore critical that employees are reassured of the confidentiality of anything they may say in a focus group or depth interview. This of course is particularly relevant when, as is common, a moderator or interviewer wishes to record groups (on tape or disk) for the purposes of analysis later. Few researchers are blessed with perfect recall, so the use of recordings permits an exhaustive analysis, ensuring that all views are accorded due weight.
That said, it is imperative that permission to record is requested in advance of the interview or discussion taking place, and if an employee declines then it will be necessary for the moderator to make notes of the discussion or have a note-taker present. While this is less satisfactory from the researcher’s point of view, it should not compromise the integrity and confidentiality of the research process.
Concerns about confidentiality also make it highly unlikely that employee groups will be recorded on visual rather than audio media, as is often done in consumer research. The use of video in consumer research is a powerful means of demonstrating to decision makers how customers feel about an issue, and it is extremely unlikely that any one respondent would be known to those executives being shown the video. In contrast, any employee recorded on video during a research project would be readily identifiable and any guarantees of anonymity that they may have received would quickly be rendered worthless. For the same reason the practice of allowing observers to attend consumer groups cannot be replicated within an employee study.
Have implications
The composition of a group discussion may also have implications for the way in which certain topics are covered in the research. When individuals from, say, different backgrounds, with varying political (both internal and party-political) allegiances, are brought together it is possible that some discussions (for example, relating to equal opportunities) could get heated, again with the dangers of greater fallout than is ever likely from a similar-sized gathering of respondents drawn from the general public. The key here lies not in the avoidance of such issues but in the anticipation of those that might excite. The necessary preparations can then be made, not least with the use of a skilled moderator.
Sensitivity over the topics to be discussed may also be pertinent in organizations where large numbers of the workforce are represented by trade unions. It represents good practice where unions are involved to inform them of plans for any research and to gain their commitment to the process. Apart from anything else, this makes it possible to allay any misconceptions that could otherwise arise over whether the discussions might cut across more formal negotiations. In some respects the flexibility and free-flowing nature of any group discussions (as opposed to the certainty of a structured questionnaire) make it as important to engage unions in the qualitative research process as it is with a quantitative study.
Since group discussions can easily last for an hour-and-a-half, and interviews take up to an hour, it is important to consider whether they are scheduled to take place during or outside the working day. While it is standard practice for consumer groups to take place during the evening, this reflects the fact that few people would be able or prepared to take time off work to participate in such research. With employees, the situation is virtually reversed in that they are less likely to want to spend time of their own discussing work-related topics.
The point here is further complicated by the difficulties of thanking people for their participation in the same way as is traditional with consumer research: by means of a cash gift, vouchers or goods. A practical dimension to this issue is that tax authorities could regard these payments as taxable (as either pay or a benefit in kind). In addition, there is always a philosophical preference for having participants who are there by virtue of an interest in the subject matter rather than those who are attending as a means of increasing their income.
A solution that meets this need while avoiding the complications of involving payroll departments and tax authorities is to hold the research sessions over extended lunch breaks (and possibly outside work hours, provided the occasion is presented as an attractive event in its own right). It will be attractive if the subject matter under discussion is of interest, and potential respondents are made to feel they will be able to make a genuine contribution through their participation. It should also be enjoyable; the location is crucial to this and the provision of food and refreshments will also help.
If the research is conducted after the working day there are generally more possibilities for holding the sessions off-site. It has to be recognized that those with families or burdened with long working hours may be reluctant to become involved at this time. Where off-site sessions can be arranged, participants are more likely to arrive free of some of the baggage attached to their job and be more open-minded on some of the issues to be discussed.
The optimal timing will vary according to the place of work. In large cities, employees will arrive at work from all points of the compass, having commuted significant distances. To facilitate their return home, the timing of any reÂsearch activity should follow closely on the end of the normal working day. Elsewhere in the country, it may be appropriate to schedule the event for later to allow employees, should they wish, to go home prior to reconvening at a central point for the research.
The benefits of the above approach apply particularly to group discussions, involving as they do a number of participants. The reasons for conducting interviews off-site are less compelling. Indeed, it is often the case that more senior people are interviewed alone, and the demands on their time are such that it makes practical sense to talk to them in their offices.
There will occasionally be compelling logistical reasons for holding group discussions in the workplace. Even so attention needs to be given to the location of the discussions. For instance, there may be nervousness on the part of some employees if the group is held in a meeting room that is located in an area where their participation would be noted by other, possibly more senior, colleagues.
Report back
The need to eventually report back the results of the research, plus any accompanying actions, to the participating employees is a message that bears repetition. Nowhere is this more important than in qualitative research. By definition a small proportion of the workforce will have participated at length in an exercise where they have been invited to contribute to the debate on issues of significance to the organization. The participation alone can be a very powerful form of motivation, as the individuals concerned will derive a strong sense of involvement in the decision-making process. However, this can easily backfire if the participants are left without any indication as to what will happen following the research. The perceived return on their investment of time and effort will quickly become a loss if they are not informed how matters will be taken forward. Even a decision to take a contrary course of action to that recommended in the research can be accepted if it is accompanied by a rationale. Complete silence on any decision-making is likely to result in reluctance on the part of those respondents to participate in future activities.
In certain instances the nature of the subject matter and the implications of the decisions will be such that all employees (and possibly external audiences) should be advised simultaneously. Even so, it should be possible to explain this to those who took part, and their contribution should certainly be recognized when the announcement is finally made. Apart from demonstrating an appreciation of these contributions, this can also create a positive impression among the workforce.
The fact that employees will have taken part in the research on the basis that their identities are not revealed to the employer inevitably requires that their contributions are recognized in a general way, such as through a communication to all employees. A more direct and targeted thank-you message can only be delivered by the external moderator, who can arrange for a personalized communication without the recipients ever being identified by those working for the organization.