What action does this employee survey support?
Check response patterns, then choose a follow-up employees can see.
The question
You lead Harbor’s employee listening review. Both sites received the same workload question in the same quarter. An AI summary says “75% of Site B employees are overloaded.” The figures and Harbor reporting rule are invented.
| Site A | Site B | |
|---|---|---|
| Employees invited | 60 | 40 |
| Responses received | 48 | 12 |
| Respondents reporting workload pressure | 24 | 9 |
Nonrespondents have not answered the question. The survey does not establish the cause of pressure.
Display a subgroup result only when it has at least five responses. Do not publish identifiable comments from a confidential discussion.
“What action does this employee survey support?”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Use the right denominator
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Repeat 75% as the rate for all Site B staff.
Tempting, but it misses something. Most of Site B did not respond.
Use invitations for response and responses for reported pressure.
The strong move. This keeps each rate tied to the people counted.
Treat nonresponse as no pressure.
Tempting, but it misses something. Their views are unknown.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Site A has an 80% response rate and 50% pressure among respondents. Site B has a 30% response rate and 75% pressure among respondents. The AI summary overstates what is known about all B employees.”
Why it works: Response and concern rates answer different questions.
Step 2: Plan a check rather than rank managers
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Rank managers from the two percentages alone.
Tempting, but it misses something. Response differences and causes remain unresolved.
Ignore B because it has fewer responses.
Tempting, but it misses something. The signal still deserves a follow-up.
Check missing groups and specific workload conditions.
The strong move. This turns a limited signal into a useful next question.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Across both sites, 60 of 100 people replied and 33 of those 60 reported pressure: 55%. Check who is missing and the work behind the reports before ranking managers or choosing one fix.”
Why it works: A combined number can hide different response patterns.
Step 3: Use the missing group’s account carefully
None of Site B’s twelve night-shift employees answered the survey. Four then describe an overtime problem in a small confidential discussion.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Publish a night-shift percentage from the four accounts.
Tempting, but it misses something. It would breach the supplied rule and overstate the sample.
Check the overtime pattern while protecting the discussion.
The strong move. This acts on the concern without inventing a group rate.
Dismiss the account because it was not in the survey.
Tempting, but it misses something. Different evidence can help investigate a gap.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Night-shift staff were absent from the survey. Use the four-person discussion to plan a workload check, but do not publish it as a subgroup result or identify the speakers.”
Why it works: The new account informs follow-up without becoming a prevalence estimate.
Step 4: Close the loop with a specific action
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Promise the percentages will improve next month.
Tempting, but it misses something. The evidence does not support that forecast.
Send the same survey again without acting.
Tempting, but it misses something. That does not respond to the reported problem.
Explain the check and return with what was learned.
The strong move. This gives the follow-up an owner and an outcome.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Name the workload check, owner and feedback date. Tell employees what will be reviewed and report back on action, while keeping the confidential comments private.”
Why it works: Listening is useful when it changes a decision and the next step is visible.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Check the workload pattern and report the resulting action.
- Because
- The survey identifies concerns and missing voices, not a complete diagnosis.
- What would change it
- A wider response and corroborated workload records could change the priority or intervention.
Common traps
- Treating respondents as the whole workforce.
- Publishing a small confidential group as a survey result.
Check your answer
- Did I distinguish response from concern rates?
- Did I check nonresponse?
- Did I respect the supplied reporting rule?
- Did I name an action and feedback date?
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026