The Pulsed Employee Survey
- A multifaceted transformation of an
institutionalized practice from formal policy to
intended outcome.
Master’s Thesis 30 credits
Department of Business Studies
Uppsala University
Spring Semester of 2019
Date of Submission: 2019-05-29
Amanda Linderoth
Abstract
Based on the limited outcomes and often failed implementation processes of annual employee surveys a new phenomenon for collecting people data has risen; the pulsed employee survey. This survey and its continuous way of measuring are by many providers and consultants stated to be an important tool that increases employee engagement. The phenomenon of the pulsed employee survey has so far received limited academic attention, despite its growing importance as a potential institutionalized practice. Therefore, this study aims at broadening the understanding of the phenomenon of the pulsed employee survey. How is it transformed into organizations during an implementation process and can the process be seen as coupled or decoupled from the institutionalized practice? Further, what explains the potential coupling or decoupling? To investigate this, a model based on decoupling theories by Bromley & Powell (2012) has been used through a qualitative case study. The result shows that, even though the surveys are implemented into the organizations, means-ends decoupling can be found, which may be explained by the complexity of what is measured as well as the multifaceted expectations and perceptions at different organizational levels.
Acknowledgements
First of all, we would like to thank our case provider for helping us to get access to their knowledge and to their clients. We would also like to direct thanks the two client organizations and interviewees who helped us to better understand the phenomenon of pulsed employee surveys in practice. These organizations are not mentioned by name according to confidentiality reasons.
We also want to thank our supervisor Josef Pallas who has supported us through the both exhausting and creative process of writing a thesis. Josef has throughout the process provided his invaluable feedback and guidance. Finally, we would like to thank our family, friends and the coffee maker who have put up with us during these months.
Uppsala, 2019-05-29
_________________________ _________________________
Table of contents
1. Introduction
1.1 Environmental pressures and their effects on organizations
Throughout history, organizations have been affected by the environment they act in, trying to acclimatize themselves after the institutionalized expectations and pressures from society (Starbuck, 1976). Organizations need to fit in and respond to institutional pressures because they need legitimacy to survive, and a good way to get legitimacy is to respond to the environment. In institutional theory the pressures from society are known as rationalized institutional practices, which tend to arise as well-known and legitimate solutions to organizational problems. Since these practices are seen as solutions that will give them legitimacy the organizations will start adopting the solutions (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). One such institutional practice is the increased need for measuring and auditing that exists in the world today. Everything should be controlled and analyzed (Power, 1997). This trend has not only affected departments with numbers as their main focus, but also Human Resources (HR) and the practices surrounding the department. HR needs to show in numbers why their work is rational and valuable for the organization, which can be done by using a formal structure that is coherent to the external institutional environment (Dowling & Pfeffer 1975; Meyer & Rowan 1978). One solution to the pressure of measuring has been the employee survey, which has been a tool for the organization to understand how its personnel is doing through numbers gotten straight from the employees. This ability to turn employees’ state of mind into tangibles has given the survey a reputation as a strategic tool for organizational change (Hartley, 2001; Paul, 1994; Schou, 2007).
(Welbourne, 2016), though with a limited amount of research on what they actually are and how they should be used.
1.2 Problem statement
One reason for the rapid spread of this new type of tool could be because it stems from a much more deeply embedded institutional practice and the discontent that practice has created; the institutional practice of the annual employee survey. Throughout the years the annual employee survey has successfully transformed into an institutionalized practice through a number of providers saying that surveying is something every organization should do to be legitimate. The annual employee survey has been described as one of the most powerful management tools, resulting in an increase in employee engagement if used correctly (Hartley, 2001; Schou, 2007). Increased employee engagement is stated to result in several other benefits for the organization, such as increased customer satisfaction, happier employees and more efficient organizations (Heskett et al., 1997; Irvine, 2009; Pech, 2009). However, despite all promising statements, it has been realized during the implementation processes that the survey work often is disconnected from both the results and actions, making the tool disconnected from the operations. This disconnection has resulted in organizations using the surveys as a response to the institutional pressures instead of actually working with the results, which has created a critical perception of HR and surveys (Welbourne, 2016). The lack of results combined with the slow response of annual measurements has caused the annual survey to be viewed as a comprehensive top-down tool which is rigid and hard to adjust. Furthermore, there is a perception that it is difficult to get the intended outcomes from the annual survey since the results are irrelevant and outdated because of infrequent measurements (Hartley, 2001; Marker et al., 2010, Sugheir et al., 2011; Welbourne, 2016).
Deadrick, 2015). Will this new survey just be a smaller and more frequently used copy of the annual one, thereby aggregating its previous problems, or do the continuous measurements and instant results transform the pulsed survey into a leadership tool with greater outcomes than just the survey results? Based on this background we would like to investigate the implementation process of pulsed surveys from an institutional theory perspective to better understand the phenomenon and its possible coupling or decoupling during the implementation process.
1.3 Purpose with the study
This study aims to broaden the understanding of the phenomenon of pulsed employee surveys which is an area which has gotten little previous academic attention. This will hopefully contribute to survey practitioners by creating a deeper understanding of how this kind of survey can be used. By taking an institutional theory perspective the aim is to better understand the phenomenon and how it is implemented from an institutionalized practice to a formal policy, to see what actually happens in the daily practice and what outcomes the work results in. This will hopefully also contribute to the research field of institutional theory through applying decoupling theory to a new context and practice. The study will be conducted by firstly looking into what is said about the pulsed surveys by providers and consultants through websites and interviews. Then two client organizations of one of the providers will be investigated. In these two client organizations interviews will be conducted with the survey initiator, a middle manager working with the pulsed survey and two of their employees. Based on this study aim we will pose the following research questions:
● What does the institutional practice of a pulsed employee survey look like and how is it transformed from an institutional practice to formal policy and further into daily practices in an organization?
2. Literature review
2.1 The employee survey as a strategic management tool
Throughout the years researchers’ descriptions of what effects the annual employee survey can have are numerous and have probably played an important role in introducing the survey in organizations today. Two early advocates for the employee survey are Schneider and Bowen who already in 1985 found a correlation between high results on employee surveys and customer satisfaction, increasing the validity for implementing surveys to increase company performance. Another possible outcome is found by Hartley (2001) who proposes that if the organization uses the survey and implements it in the ideal way this can give the management a direct information-link from the employees and can produce something similar to a consultation. The survey can also be used as a diagnostic organizational assessment tool both before and during a change initiative through, for example, measurement of the progress towards metrics (Hartley, 2001). Additionally, several researchers have started to elaborate on the idea of using employee surveys as strategic tools. Paul (1994) proposes that the survey can be used as a way to create action, rather than just data gathering. Schou (2007) reaches similar conclusions and additionally writes that employee surveys can be used as tools to create change, corporate governance, connect employees with the organization’s strategic goals, and to develop leaders. For an employee survey to fill this purpose Schou writes that it has to be viewed as a part of the process in constructing values and visions for the company. According to Schou, the company needs to put time and effort into adjusting the survey to their own operations for it to be able to have any effect.
2.2 The employee survey reality - An institutional practice?
As described above, there are several researchers who claim that the employee survey, if used the right way, can be seen as one of our most powerful strategic tools. Though, many also tend to see the “ugly side” of the employee survey and write about the several failures and unintended outcomes from implementations of employee surveys (Hartley, 2001; Marker et al., 2010, Sugheir et al., 2011; Welbourne, 2016). The failures can be found in different parts of the implementation process, but according to Schou (2007) one of the most common faults is made already when deciding to work with the employee survey. It is a common belief that the reason for implementing a survey is the collection of data, and that the process stops after the results are collected. Though, despite its name as just another “survey”, the strategic employee survey is a comprehensive process much larger than just the data gathering (Schou, 2007). The actual work should start with the organizational development process based on the survey results, even though this is not always the case (Paul, 1994).
One of the most important things when working with a strategic employee survey is to have a clear aim with the survey and then integrate that aim into the overall company strategy (Schou, 2007). Though, according to Schou, most organizations neither set a clear aim for the survey work nor communicate that aim to the people within the organization. One example of this was found by Sugheir et al., (2010) when investigating HR professionals’ opinion on employee surveys in Texas. They found that the employees did not feel included in the result, especially not when it came to connecting the results to the organizational strategy. Furthermore, it is not only the employees that dislike the surveys, according to Welbourne (2007) few leaders have high expectations on the surveys despite the importance of their contribution for survey success.
process is more difficult than expected, and several fail in their efforts. If this makes the employees feel that the survey is not beneficial, then there is a risk that they lose trust in the organization. The survey is not a neutral way of getting data about the employees’ perceptions because it will affect them and make them start to think (Hartley, 2001). Hartley uses a quote in his study to demonstrate this: “An employee survey is like a hand grenade. Once you pull the pin out you have to do something with it. Otherwise, it may harm you rather than help you (Viteles, 1953, p. 394)”
When looking at these descriptions of the outcome of employee survey implementation they do not seem to be the strategic tools described above, and one can wonder why they are used in such a self-evident manner today. One reason could be that the survey has been legitimated and diffused by actors such as researchers, consultancies, and other carriers (Sugheir et al., 2011), thereby creating the image that it gives organizations legitimacy to adopt them. The surveys become, as described by Bell (1973), taken-for-granted ways to reach certain goals, making the organization look modern, legitimate and rational, and can thereby be seen as an institutionalized practice.
2.3 The response to institutional pressures - Pulsed employee surveys?
As can be seen above, research has shown that the use of employee surveys might not always have the intended impact, much because of managers’ poor work with planning, action and follow-up. According to Gondo and Amis (2013), the problem of HR departments adopting performance boosting practices to improve operations is rather common. Though, they mean that these practices often are not fully implemented, hence not giving the intended results. Welbourne (2011) also argue that one of HR’s main problems in today's business world is that they are seen as too slow. The problem of HR implementing tools without showing results combined with the department’s tardiness is discussed at the same time as the rest of the world is speeding up. Bromley and Powell (2012) argue that in this increasingly fast and fragmented world the institutional pressures on organizations are both changing and increasing and can constitute of several pressures at once. These pressures are especially noted within the HR department, which is currently experiencing multiple environmental pressures (Stone & Deadrick, 2015).
Deadrick (2015) mean that there are several different technological methods that can be used to increase the efficiency of HR and at the same time create a greater connection between employees and managers. Though, they write that before being certain about the effects of these technological practices research needs to be done. The traditional “best practice” solution to the problem of talent management and technology has partly been to perform employee surveys (Schou, 2007). These surveys have informed companies about the employees´ needs and given them people data, though often without getting the intended results (Welbourne, 2016). Therefore, when combining the implementation failures of traditional surveys with the increasing pressure on HR to become faster it is no surprise that many organizations have given up the hope on traditional surveys (ibid.).
3. Theoretical framework
3.1 Explanation of theoretical model
3.1.1 The institutional process - A three-step implementation model Much has been written about how and why companies adopt
certain policies and the process that a policy should go through to become implemented. In the early theories that were based on bureaucracy (Weber, 1930 [1992]), it was assumed that companies adopted practices because their everyday activities required them to do so. When implementing a policy the organization included it in its formal structure, the organizational chart and the governing documents, which then gave the same results as the policy stated (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). When further looking at why certain practices were adopted by companies it was found that the reason was not always for internal needs. Instead, companies tend to adopt ideas that are formed by society and that will give them legitimacy, ideas that are known as institutional practices. These practices are by many perceived
as something that should be done in a taken-for-granted way (Berger & Luckman, 1967; Starbuck, 1976). The ideas will then be adopted and interpreted by organizations, thereby becoming somewhat adjusted to the organization’s formal structure. However, sometimes the practices might be espoused even though they are not really needed to improve the operations within the organization, but rather to give external legitimacy (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). These views on adoption of policies have set the foundation for the authors view of the first step of the framework by Bromley and Powell (2012), formal policy. Practices tend to be adopted either because an actual need is felt within the organization, or because of an institutional practice that will give the organization legitimacy. The organization’s own interpretation of this practice will then be included in formal policies as the purpose with the implementation.
mind the authors have chosen to view daily practices as what actually happens in the organization, what work is done, and then compare that to the purpose of the implementation of the practice and what was communicated from the beginning. Finally, the last step in the implementation model is intended outcome. Bromley and Powell (2012) describe this step as the result of the implementation process and whether the practice resulted in the same outcome as was initially intended. They mean that it is common in the implementation process that there is a greater focus on the action created by the practice, thereby setting a daily practice as an outcome, rather than what the actual outcome from the process is (Bromley & Powell, 2012). Based on this the authors have interpreted the intended outcome as the result of the implementation for the organization and how well that result corresponds with the initial aim of the implementation.
As described above, many researchers have looked into implementation processes with varying results. These results have served as the foundation to the three-step implementation model (Bromley & Powell, 2012) and the possible organizational outcomes that the model so far has resulted in. With the extensive review of Bromley and Powell as a starting point we have tried to describe below found types of (de)coupling that the model has resulted in and the organizational results of those. These types of (de)coupling will then be used to explain the implementation process of the pulsed employee survey in our two case organizations.
3.2 Found outcomes from the three-step implementation model
3.2.1 The ideal implementation of an institutionalized practice - Tight coupling
In the three-step implementation model Bromley and Powell (2012) propose that when responding to institutional pressures and implementing a new formal structure rational explanations are usually built on some kind of ideal solution. This ideal process starts with a formal policy that is supposed to be implemented in the daily practices, and finally results in the outcome that was intended. In an ideal world these steps will be aligned, thoroughly communicated and spread to the departments involved (ibid).
3.2.2 When expectation and reality do not correspond - Loose coupling and decoupling As described above, the original tightly coupled implementation process is often used in today’s research as a rational practice, though, this is rarely what researchers find. Instead the earlier mentioned implementation inconsistencies regarding employee surveys are examples of what reality tend to look like, what is said and what is actually done rarely match. This phenomenon is something that has interested researchers for decades. Organizations often tend to make grand plans where they in detail map what to do and try to measure the outcome of that action. Though, the action taken rarely corresponds with the intention (Weick, 1976). According to Weick the reason for these differences is that organizations are loosely coupled systems. A system that is loosely coupled can be described in several ways. For example, it can be as a slow coordination, planned unresponsiveness, unplanned independence, or a lack of consistency between formal structure or action (Weick, 1976). Some might think that being loosely coupled is something negative, but that is not necessarily true. Instead it can be a way for an organization to respond to changes in the environment without hurting or affecting core operations, hence becoming better at working in an environment of constant change. Also, organizations that are loosely coupled are more likely to have autonomous individuals with more self-determination, thereby being more efficient than a tightly coupled organization where everything has to move simultaneously, something that is both slow and expensive (Weick, 1976).
by the institutional field they are acting in and how being affected by several institutional pressures at once makes organizations decouple (Ibid).
Since the concepts of loose coupling and decoupling were introduced a lot of research has been conducted on these subjects and different views have risen, both those that separates the concepts (e.g. Boxenbaum & Jonsson, 2008) and those that treat them as descriptions of the same phenomenon (e.g. Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Misangy, 2016). In this essay, the authors have chosen an approach where both concepts can be used to give a more nuanced picture of the coupling/decoupling phenomenon, where loose coupling is a state in between the two (de)coupling concepts. Along with Misangy (2016) the authors have also chosen to view the adoption of the practice as a response to several institutional logics, thereby opening up for the possibility that some parts of the implementation process might be coupled, while other parts are decoupled. Finally, as researchers have developed the earlier used concept of decoupling, they have found the term to be insufficient, not taking into consideration how decoupling is affected by the complexity in the environment (Bromley & Powell, 2012). The authors have considered this complexity to be an important factor and have therefore, just as Bromley and Powell (2012) and Wijen (2014), decided to divide decoupling into two concepts; policy-practice and means-ends decoupling. These two concepts will be further described on the subsequent pages.
3.2.3 Separating the why from the how - Policy-practice decoupling
The type of decoupling that the first research described and that by some might be known as the original phenomenon, is called policy-practice decoupling (Bromley & Powell, 2012). When this type of decoupling emerges, the adopted policies are brought up symbolically or not used at all, either way not affecting the daily activities in the organization. Not adapting the daily work to new strategies requires less effort from organizations, making it possible for them to implement several conflicting solutions simultaneously, which is an efficient way to meet several pressures at once. Also, researchers found that companies tended to symbolically adopt solutions or adapt to laws requiring certain functions, while not planning on implementing them, just to get legitimacy (Weber et al., 2009; Zajac & Westphal, 2001).
positive consequences, despite it not being the intended ones (Bromley & Powell, 2012). Even though research has been positive about the outcome of policy-practice decoupling there have also been studies of its negative effects. For example, companies have invested in environmentally friendly resources to cover for their emissions (Lyon & Maxwell, 2011) or just adopted policies because they are under surveillance, though without implementing anything (Short & Toffel, 2010).
The reason for adopting policy-practice decoupling is also something that has been studied. Westphal and Zajac (1994; 2001) have several times found that the risk for policy-practice decoupling increases if it is adopted in the interest of powerful leaders. Further, Espeland (1998) discovered that sometimes practices that were supposed to be policy-practice decoupled became "recoupled" in the organization, this because the power dynamics changed. However, recoupling within an organization does not have to happen because of top-down pressures, it can also happen because people within the organization start noticing the external pressures and thereby starts to implement the practice into the organization on their own (Meyer & Rowan, 1978). After having reviewed research Bromley and Powell (2012) found four conditions when policy-practice decoupling is more likely to appear; legitimate demands rather than technical ones, at the start of the adoption process, when not enough effort can be put into implementation and when the people within the organization do not reinforce the institutional pressures.
3.2.4 When the how is separated from the outcome - Means-ends decoupling
Most research on decoupling has had a focus on the differences between the formal policy and implemented practice. Though, more recent studies have found the decoupling to be either not as common as perceived (Bromley et al., 2009), or has seen it as something temporary (Boxenbaum & Jonsson, 2008). Bromley & Powell (2012) mean that this is because decoupling has been defined as too narrow and that it should also be applied in the case of differences between means and ends where the policies are implemented but still do not have the outcome that was intended. Two questions that are a central part of means-ends decoupling are: “Why and when do organizations pursue activities that are weakly linked to their intended goals?” and “How and to what extent do these new activities reshape existing policies and practices?” (Bromley & Powell, 2012: 26).
rather is a symbolic implementation. Means-ends decoupling can often be discovered in cases where institutional practices pressure companies to implement policies that are difficult to measure and relate to organizational goals, for example CSR practices (Bromley & Powell, 2012). Further, Bromley and Powell mean that it was not possible to separate means-ends from policy-practice decoupling to the same extent earlier because companies were not as scrutinized. Today companies are audited to a greater length and need to be able to produce rational decision materials on their success to several types of stakeholders (Power, 1997). This make it easier to spot policy-practice decoupling which would divest the companies from earlier mentioned advantages, such as legitimacy (Bromley & Powell, 2012), hence making means-ends decoupling more common.
Orton and Weick (1990) found that the prevalence of decoupling in the form of differences between means and ends was much greater when trying to implement a policy that was complex or difficult to measure, this because it is difficult to actually see the goal or efficacy. Similar conclusions were reached by Briscoe and Murphy (2012) and Jiang and Bansal (2003) who wrote that it is more difficult to find a connection between policy and outcome if the practices are vague and hard to define. Hence, in a means-ends decoupled practice the focus is rather on the procedure and information than the ultimate goal, creating a risk that the focus within the organization will be on measuring rather than the actual implementation or work with the practice itself (Bromley & Powell, 2012). This phenomenon is discussed by Pache and Santos (2010) who emphasize the importance of using the data collected as a strategic tool and not let it become an end itself, even though the process of measuring tends to have value, both for stakeholders and those measured (Feldman & March, 1982). Bromley and Powell (2012) and Wijen (2014) describe how measuring is a good way of finding the direct consequences of an action, while in complex cases it is more difficult to measure the effects in the longer term and to see what effects are really tied to the action in the long haul.
3.3 Summary of theoretical framework
3.3.1 Connecting surveys to the three-step implementation model
4. Methodology
4.1 Research approach
The aim with this thesis is to investigate the phenomenon of the pulsed employee survey and how it is implemented in practice. Since the phenomenon has not received enough attention within previous research, we will in this thesis firstly try to describe it as an institutional practice and then look at how it is implemented into two organizations, thereby treating the pulsed employee survey as one single phenomenon throughout the study. Because we aim at answering “what” (the institutionalized practice is) and then answer whether, and if so, “why” (it is coupled or decoupled to this institutionalized practice), a case study design where we explore the phenomenon can be seen as a fitting method (Yin, 2009). Additional factors making a case study a suitable choice is our aim to investigate a phenomenon with limited theoretical explanations by using multiple sources of information (Creswell, 1998; Almutairi et al., 2014). Our early observations of the phenomenon of pulsed surveys showed that the tool somehow has developed as a countermovement against the annual surveys and their lack of outcome in the organizations due to insufficient implementation processes. Based on this and the promises of providers and consultants of more action and outcomes from the pulsed surveys, we found that the implementation process was where problems tended to arise, hence making it an interesting area to study.
1989), we started by defining two propositions; 1. The pulsed employee survey is an institutionalized practice and what is described in the practice will be accomplished when implementing the tool in an organization. 2. Bromley and Powell’s (2012) framework can be used to compare the institutionalized practice and the actual implementation of the pulsed employee survey. Finally, one could argue that the approach of this thesis might be too practical, though, we propose that our chosen approach could be linked to what Corley and Gioia (2011) describes as theoretical prescience. They write that research should try to theorize around actual organizational or managerial problems, thereby helping those concerned to deal with organizational issues which, combined with a theoretical contribution, is what we hope this thesis will provide.
4.2 Sample & Data Collection
To study the phenomenon of the pulsed employee survey and its implementation process we have chosen to view the case from two angles; actors providing or advocating the surveys and client organizations implementing them. One of the providers was chosen as a representative for the institutionalized practice of pulsed employee surveys after observation through participation at their sales webinar and seminars. We chose them because they have a clear offer focused specifically on pulsed surveys which made them a good representative. However, nine other providers and consulting firms were also investigated to confirm the view of the institutionalized practice. To get a comprehensive picture from different contexts as well as a perception of the implementation process respondents from two of the case provider’s clients were interviewed. The provider and our contact representative helped us to gain access to organizations which use their tool. The two chosen clients are Swedish; one of them is an energy provider and the other is an insurance company. These two were chosen by the provider based on their successful organizational development according to the provider’s measurements, which possibly could result in a slightly biased view.
to two organizations she had chosen, success stories based on their measurements. The rest of our respondents were then selected by the initiators at the companies, though based on a request to interview people at several organizational levels, this since previous survey research has shown that the perception of the implementation process might differ between organizational levels (Sugheir et al., 2011). Therefore, we interviewed the initiator, the middle manager responsible for a team, and two of the employees in that team. Interviewing respondents at different levels also deepened the understanding of how the purpose, ideas and actions of pulsed surveys change during the implementation and provided a picture of the alignment of the process (Saunders, et al., 2006 p.140).
The interviews were of semi-structured nature with four different interview guides containing predetermined questions, one for each of the respondent categories (employee, middle manager, initiator and manager at the provider) (See appendix 3-6) (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 467). This because each respondent category had knowledge about different levels of the process. The questions were created in three themes based on the theoretical model from Bromley and Powell (2012); formal policy, daily practice and intended outcome. The interviews were held in Swedish and upon the approval of the respondents they were recorded, all interviews lasted between 30-60 minutes. Since the aim was to investigate this specific case and not to gain generalizability or statistical significance there was no need for a representative sample for a particular population. Instead a non-probability sampling which was based on subjective judgement was conducted. Furthermore, the sampling can also be described as purposive since our judgement and the judgement of our case provider and the initiators determined which respondents would be most suitable and interested. This is a useful approach for case studies where the aim is to choose particularly informative study objects (Saunders, et al., 2006). A purposive sampling is the most suitable for a qualitative case study like this since the goal was to get as much rich information and perspectives about the phenomenon of the pulsed survey as possible and a representative sample might not have given us the case with the most interesting information (Saunders, et al., 2006 p.226).
explanation of the pulsed survey and how it could be used. This was important for the relevance of our case. The sample size of the documents was decided when a saturation of data had been reached, giving a comprehensive picture of the pulsed survey. We ended up with 1-2 written pages from each of the nine other providers. By collecting data from different sources, a less subjective perspective of pulsed employee surveys was provided.
4.3 Coding and data analysis
The data analysis in this study was inspired by the pattern matching methodology described and used by Yin, (2009; 2003), Almutairi et al. (2013), Bitektine (2008) and Trochim (1989), starting with the investigation of our above-mentioned propositions through the following steps: 1. Structure the data of the case provider and other survey actors according to the three steps; formal policy, daily practice and intended outcome (Bromley & Powell, 2012) to see whether they correspond. Then build a mutual picture of the institutionalized practice. 2. Look at the implementation process within two of our case provider’s client organizations and divide that data into Bromley and Powell’s (2012) three steps. 3. Compare the data describing the institutionalized practice with that of the client organizations and analyze if and where (de)coupling might occur.
During the first step of the work with our empirical material we firstly divided all data from our case provider into the three steps. Afterwards we clustered paragraphs or quotes saying similar things and created themes under each step in the process. The same process was then conducted with the data from the nine other pulsed survey actors. These themes were then compared and used to create the mutual picture of the institutionalized practice. In the second step we coded the data from the client organizations into the three steps and created themes for each organization (See appendix 7). The last and final step is where the analysis took place. In this step our goal was to analyze the transition from the institutionalized practice to the intended outcome in the client organizations. This transition was divided into three steps; 1. institutionalized practice to formal policy. 2. formal policy to daily practice. 3. daily practice to intended outcome. At each of these steps we then compared the institutionalized practice to the client organizations to see whether they were coupled or decoupled. By using this coding and analysis process we compared the predictive pattern of the institutionalized practice with the patterns found in the client organizations supported by our theoretical framework.
different potential theoretical explanations could be found. Firstly, if the processes were fully aligned, both in between and throughout the processes, they could be seen as coupled. Secondly, if they were partly connected but not fully responsive a potential explanation could be that they are loosely coupled. Finally, if there was a disconnection somewhere in the process decoupling can be a potential explanation. If the disconnection was found in the transition between the formal policy and the daily practice it is defined as policy-practice decoupling and if it was found in the transition between the daily practice and intended outcome it is defined as means-ends decoupling (See table 1 for definitions). This way of connecting data is in line with how Yin (2003) describes that pattern matching can be used. We use our set patterns to seek explanations to whether, and in that case, when and where the patterns match rather than to confirm the propositions. This can help us build an understanding of the phenomenon of pulsed employee surveys and maybe develop or support usage of institutional theory in this context, which is in line with our deductive approach.
Theoretical
Source Theoretical framework:
Three-step implementat ion process Potential theoretical explanation Theoretical definition of explanations: Coupling to decoupling Example interview questions (Meyer & Rowan, 1977) (Bromley & Powell, 2012) (Orton & Weick, 1990: 205) (Weick, 1976) Formal policy Reason for aim with the implementat ion and how that aim is transformed into the formal structure. If coupled: Tight coupling If weakly coupled: Loose coupling If decoupled: Policy-practice Tight coupling: “Responsiveness without
distinctiveness”. The formal policy is implemented into the daily practices and the intended outcome is reached.
Loose coupling:
Slow coordination, planned unresponsiveness, unplanned independence, or a lack of
consistency between formal structure or action.
Policy-practice decoupling:
The adopted policies are brought up symbolically or not used at all, either way not affecting the daily activities in the organization. “Explains why organizations routinely adopt practices but do not implement them”
To case provider:
What is the aim with a pulsed employee survey?
To case organizations:
“What was your initial purpose with the pulsed employee survey?” “What work process did you plan from the beginning?”
(Meyer & Rowan, 1977) (Bromley & Powell, 2012) Daily practice What is done within an organization on day-to-day basis. If coupled: Tight coupling If weakly coupled: Loose coupling If decoupled: Policy-practice Tight coupling: See above. Loose coupling: See above. Policy-practice decoupling: See above. To case provider:
What does an ideal working process look like using your tool?
To case organizations:
“How do you work with the pulsed employee survey and its results in the daily practice?”
“How has pulsed employee survey been implemented?”
(Bromley &
Powell, 2012) Intended outcome The result of the implementat ion process. Whether the results are the same as was initially intended. If coupled: Tight coupling If weakly coupled: Loose coupling If decoupled: Means-ends decoupling Tight coupling: See above. Loose coupling: See above. Means-ends decoupling:
“Rules and policies implemented but with uncertain relationship to outcomes. Explains why
organizations dedicate resources to practices that have little known relationship to intended goals”
To case provider:
What can a pulsed employee survey give your customers?
To case organizations:
“Which results can you see that pulsed employee survey has given your
organization?”
“Are the results of pulsed employee survey in line with your initial expectations?”
4.4 Limitations of the study
Since the study is a qualitative case study it is not possible to generalize the results. This study is based on subjective opinions in order to get a broader understanding of the phenomenon of pulsed employee survey and not aiming at giving a representative picture. Our wish to have an interesting and informative case, and the fact that the case provider chose the client companies who gave us access to their success-clients resulted in a non-probability sampling. The fact that the cases were successful also rises suspicion of a wish from the provider to promote pulsed employee surveys and their own solution, thereby making the view subjective and biased. The anonymity of the participants could because of the small sample from each organization not be secured, hence there is a risk that this caused socially desirable biased answers during the interviews. The other sources of information, like websites and other providers of pulsed employee survey were arbitrary chosen, based on degree of informativeness.
5. Empirics
5.1 The pulsed employee survey according to survey actors
In the following paragraphs we will explain the institutionalized practice of pulsed employee surveys through our chosen provider´s explanation of their tool. The material is mainly collected from an interview with one of the first managers at the case provider who has helped build the brand they have today. Our case provider was one of the early proponents of pulsed surveys at the Swedish market and they describe how the interest in and usage of this kind of survey has grown the last years. “When we started working with this four years ago you almost had to go out and inform and educate people about what a pulsed tool was. It was new…. But now it is the other way around. Now they say we need a pulsed tool can you come and show yours? The business world has really matured when it comes to pulsed tools.” – Manager from the case provider. To show that the pulsed survey now can be seen as an institutional practice and not only as our case provider’s tool the thoughts from the interview will be strengthened throughout the text below with material from other pulse survey actors.
5.1.1 Formal policy - let continuity and simplicity drive discussion and engagement As previously described in this essay the outcome of employee surveys has not always reached the intended results, something that in many cases has resulted in discontent with the tool. Our case provider’s solution is based on this discontent and they describe how they first decided to create their company as a counter movement against annual surveys. Instead of the slow responses and non-user-friendly results from the yearly surveys they say that it is important that the pulsed survey results are instant and easy to both work with and understand. Another company says: “By the time you disseminate the (annual) survey, gather and interpret the results and plan interventions, the problems may have passed and the damage from the issues identified is done, or new issues have surfaced that have not been captured. Instead, measure frequently and tie results to action.” – Deloitte. Though, our case provider states that to make the outcome of the pulsed surveys superior to the annual ones it is important that the measuring itself does not become the end goal. Instead they hope that their customers will aim at getting more out of the tool. According to them, the first step should be to set a clear purpose.
you can improve something. We believe this needs to be done when it comes to engagement as well. You need to work with engagement and get it on the daily agenda to get measurements that can be compared with the organization’s KPI’s (Key performance indicator)”. The possible additional purposes with measuring opinions are also described by our case provider. They give examples such as getting an overview, nudging (driving behavior), and driving discussion in the whole organization. The other actors describe engagement as the main focus but talk about other possible results as well. “Pulsed surveys bring a correct description of the employee engagement, attitude, and other valuable insights and details to the company”- Netigate
5.1.2 Daily practice - A flexible tool for the entire organization
One of the things that our case provider emphasizes is the importance of spreading the survey work to the entire organization, as opposed to annual surveys that often get stuck at the top. The first step of doing this is to have the set purpose communicated to the entire organization. It is important that this communication starts with leaders that show consideration for the survey work. After having communicated the aim to the organization the top managers should let the teams and middle managers be responsible for their own results. This means that the middle managers and their groups need to find their own way of working with the tool and reach the communicated purpose. Our case provider says: “We want the managers to feel that this is their own tool instead of something that comes from above as yet another thing to do. You can work with KPI’s, but it should be the decision of the managers and the group to choose what they need to work on. You should include the action and not just let the employees sit passive on the side”. Our case provider calls this approach “train-the-trainer” and describe that they only train the initiator, who then will be responsible for diffusing the tool, the purpose and its work process into the organization. The other providers and consultancies share the opinion that to get the intended outcome everyone should work with the results and describe how the managers should lead the way and be role models for the rest of the organization. However, when looking at our material we found our case provider to be more focused on a bottom-up approach with employee participation and self-leadership as a key factor in comparison to other providers in the market, who seem to have a greater focus on the middle manager.
the employees, which makes it easier to get real change in the daily practice. The providers say that the discussions from the tool should be something natural in team meetings and should not take too much time and effort from other work-related activities. To be successful with this the organization’s transparency with the aim, results and work process is crucial. Transparency will help involving the employees and middle managers and make them understand, reflect on and increase the perception that they also own the results. However, is it important to show the organization that the results really are anonymous to get honest answers. The other providers and consultancies also describe the importance of the continuous work process in the daily practice to get the intended results. One consultancy firm says:” Organizations with high employee engagement and retention do send out more surveys, but they also share the results of those surveys with employees and take action on them.” - Gallup
Another important part of the implementation process and work with the survey described by our case provider is the importance of adapting the tool to the organization, something they say preferably should be done through a stepwise implementation: “You should be more relaxed about this. We usually talk about baby steps. It may sound a bit unambitious, but these steps will make you learn to walk in the end. Instead of trying to do everything directly, it is easier to take a few steps at a time... Starting off small is better than not doing it at all! Don't make the process too big and complex.” – Manager from the case provider. The case provider also say that the tool and work process is easily adjusted to different aims and should be adapted to the client organization and its maturity. This will determine the implementation process, which can vary a lot between clients. The other providers and consultancies share the view that the work process should be adjusted to the client organization’s different aims. “Employee pulse surveys should not be administered any more frequently than you have the ability to implement action plans”- Wise
5.1.3 Intended Outcome - Action and discussion lead to self-leadership and engagement
creating an opportunity to act or follow up on the results much earlier than with previous annual employee surveys. This, they say, gives managers numbers to work with, which makes it easier to be a good leader. “With a comprehensive picture of the wellbeing of the organization you can act proactively to catch opportunities and adjust potential problems. “- Catalystone. That these results support the managers within the organization and makes it easier to take decisions is something that out case provider agrees on. However, they are clear on that the pulsed survey should not be seen as a magic wand, instead it should be viewed as a tool that you can work with to get results.
Another outcome stated by several of the providers is the effect that the work will have on the employees. They say that if you are transparent with the results this will lead to an increased interest in the company and self-reflection among the employees. Our case provider says: “If my answers only become KPI’s that top management will try to make analysis from but that I will not take part of, then my interest will grow weaker, why should I participate? But if you get the results down to group-level and manage to increase the employee’s understanding of why you should use these surveys that makes it possible for them to follow their own results and put those in relation to the group’s and the group’s result in relation to the entire company. Then you will be able to reflect about your group and about yourself as an individual”. If you work in the way described above, our case provider says that the most important outcome from the survey work is engaged employees, but that there might also be additional outcomes:
“With more engaged employees you will get many other effects. From hard measurements such as less sick leave to increased productivity and more energy.” – Manager from the case provider. Many other providers give similar descriptions of outcomes and state that, except for
Three-step implementation process
Summary of the institutionalized practice according to the case provider and other survey actors
Formal policy ● More simple and easy to use compared to annual employee surveys
● Work with employee engagement and self-leadership ● Trigger discussion and drive change
Daily practice ● Continuous measurements and follow-up with discussion ● Communicate the purpose to the organization and let the
employees know they are responsible for the results
● Adapt the tool and its purpose to the organization incrementally
Intended outcome ● Change through discussion
● Increased engagement leading to less sick-leave, increased productivity, more energy
● Self-leadership on all organizational levels
Table 2. Summary of the institutionalized practice
5.2 The usage of pulsed surveys at the energy provider and insurance
company
5.2.1 Formal policy - Using frequent measuring to express and discuss opinion
you answered… You can give an example right after you have answered, but as time passes you start to forget. We wanted to find out why the employees answered the way they did.” - The initiator at the energy provider. Both initiators communicated this purpose to a test group that were the ones who first got to work with the tool. Though, no certain working process was decided, instead the working process would get to grow incrementally in the organization.
When asking the middle managers at the case organizations about the purpose they provide resembling answers. The middle manager at the insurance company says that he likes the pulsed surveys since they make it possible to take the temperature of the current atmosphere in the organization and get the employees’ opinion right away. “The aim is to make everyone participate in the discussion and quickly answer how they feel about and perceive something.”- The middle manager at the insurance company. At the energy provider the middle manager describes how she directly realized that the pulsed survey could be used as a tool for discussion to anonymously dig deeper into the problems that her team was having. She says that the problems in her group created a need which made it easier to work with the tool. Finally, both middle managers describe the pulsed survey as a tool to drive change, catch problems and measure how different projects are going,
When talking to the employees at the energy provider about the aim with the survey both have trouble remembering since they started using the tool so long ago. Though, both believe that the main purpose is to measure how the team is doing and their team spirit. They also mention that the pulsed survey gives the middle manager an opportunity to catch problems early as well as giving the employees an opportunity to anonymously express an opinion. At the insurance company the employees describe the purpose as measuring and following up on the employees continuously. “In order to quickly and easily understand how the group is doing in terms of both health and stress, but also in terms of issues that are important in our industry and to see that everyone are aligned”- Employee 2 at the insurance company
5.2.2 Daily practice - An adaptable tool with an autonomous work process
collectively… We are rather transparent on how we are doing and how we want to work.” - The initiator at the energy provider. The initiators say that it is important that the initiative comes from the employees, since they are the ones experiencing most of the things asked and therefore will be the ones that know best how to fix it. The initiator at the energy provider describes the pulsed employee survey as both a top-down and bottom-up tool since it gives the top management the opportunity to ask questions, but it also helps the employees to raise their voices. This is something also said by the initiator at the insurance company: “It has improved the cooperation between top and bottom. The employees have been involved in the planning and preparation of new routines and work roles”
At both companies the implementation process was incremental. At the energy provider the tool was firstly used by one trial team but has now spread to several groups within the organization. However, the initiator emphasizes that the tool is optional for the middle managers and should only be used by those who are ready to work with it. At the insurance company the initiator implemented the pulsed survey while he was a middle manager. He liked to try new things with the group and after finding the tool he implemented it stepwise at his local office. When his team found the tool helpful, they decided that it should be implemented into the entire company in a more structured way “We started working with the tool three years ago… Then we implemented it within the business area bank and life. Now we will implement it into the entire company at all business areas. It has spread in a nice way.” - The initiator at the insurance company. At the same time as the tool has been diffused throughout the insurance company its usage areas have spread in a way that fits the particular needs of the company. The initiator describes how it is used to ask if the employees understand new laws and directives to see if there are any areas where the employees needs more support.
of her team and that the pulsed employee survey is a tool for her as a leader, but also for the team, and that they work together to set goals: “We had a discussion, you got to say what your goal was and make a mark (on the diagram) where you wanted to be. This made it clear what the group thought.”- The middle manager at the energy provider. She also believes that the employees take responsibility for working with the results today, even though this was not the case in the beginning. Both middle managers also express how they tend to work more frequently with the tool if there is a problem with the group or as way to follow up on specific projects than if nothing special is happening in their teams.
The fluctuating survey intensity at the case organizations is something that is noticed by the employees. They describe that they used to fill out the surveys more frequently but that it has cooled down at the moment. Though, despite the decrease, both teams describe that they still have continuous surveys that are discussed during weekly or monthly meetings and worked with if needed. The employees say that the survey is a faster way to get feedback and action on the results. They believe, as the middle managers, that it is especially beneficial when it is some specific project or problem that the team has to work with, but otherwise they do not think you have to work as much with the result. Instead, the surveys have become something they do not give much thought: “Since the pulsed survey is something that has been used in everyday life, it has become a natural part of the work.” - Employee 1 at the insurance company. When the employees are being asked about the responsibility of the survey work, they describe that it is up to the individual to talk to the middle manager if something is wrong, even though they think that it is the middle manager who is responsible to take action if the result is bad. The employees also describe that it feels like the middle manager cares more about the results than what they do, even though it is important for them to answer the questions. “it is not that we do not have to care, but we answer the question. You do not reflect about the result during the coffee break… but you answer what you feel that week.” - Employee 1 at the energy provider 5.2.3 Intended outcome - Accomplished purposes, unintended consequences and unclear outcomes
has gotten results that were not initially expected. One example is that they have used the pulsed survey to analyze greater patterns, and not only ask questions about well-being “This use of the tool was not obvious from the beginning. At first I looked at it as a means for measuring stress and leadership.” - The initiator at the insurance company. The initiator at the insurance company describes another unintended outcome, that the pulsed survey could be used to identify problems about unclear rules, roles or instructions in the organization. The initiator at the energy provider says that the employees are those that know best and that getting this kind of responsibility will encourage them and make them stronger. The surveys are now a part of everyday life which has made it easier for the employees to show self-leadership: “I believe that if you make the survey a routine in the weekly meetings it will become a natural part of everyday life and then the employees will come with feedback. So, if they, for example, saw a high stress level then they had prepared before the meetings why they believed it was that way. How can we change the way we work? Then I felt that they had taken responsibility and thought about these questions before the meeting.” - The initiator at the insurance company.
The middle manager at the energy provider describes how her group got very good discussions through their work with the tool, which she believes also has made it possible for the group to feel a self-leadership. The employees have ideas on how to react in different situations and “are very involved” - The middle manager at the energy provider. She believes the discussions really have had an effect on the team and that the results from the survey have made it possible to see what progress they have made as a group over time. Even though this outcome does not only come from the work with the pulsed survey, the middle manager at the energy provider believes that the tool has been part of the process. At the insurance company both the middle manager and the initiator describe that they can see how the results correlate with other KPI’s and how the measurements affect each other. As an example, they say that if the stress level is high and the roles are unclear then that can also be seen in other numbers such as profit, growth and customer satisfaction. Additionally, both middle managers seem to think the tool is especially good for measuring progress and direction in specific change projects. As a middle manager it is possible to send out surveys by themselves instead of involving HR. This is also described by the middle manager at the energy provider: “It helps that we take the survey each week so that we have the opportunity to catch problems in time. It helps me in my leadership to know whether it is something I should keep track on” - The middle manager at the energy provider.
6. Analysis
6.1 The pulsed survey as an institutional practice
From the picture of pulsed employee surveys created from our case provider and other survey actors we have seen a rather unified view of the phenomenon. What can be seen is a discontent with the annual surveys that has resulted in an increased focus on a pragmatic and autonomous work process to create flexibility and employee engagement through discussions (see table 2 above). The tool has grown into something that is demanded and expected by internal stakeholders in organizations, which can be rooted in the environmental pressure that the employees is one of the most important assets today and should be listened to (Dries, 2013). This pressure is something the survey actors build their sales pitch on, arguing that the pulsed employee survey will solve both the pressure of understanding your employees and getting continuous people data. Since all involved survey actors seem to react similarly against the problems with the annual surveys, presenting resembling tools as solutions, this could be viewed as a well-known and legitimate solution to this organizational survey problem. Hence, the pulsed employee survey can be viewed as what Berger and Luckman (1967) would call an institutional practice.
6.2 From institutional practice to formal policy
When the institutionalized practice of the pulsed employee survey is transformed into the case organizations this starts with the formal policy; the organization’s interpretation of the institutionalized practice that will be their purpose with the implementation (Bromley & Powell, 2012). In the case of our two organizations much of the provider’s purpose of pulsed surveys is brought into the process. The initiators at the two client case organizations both describe how they dislike the old annual surveys and say that it is difficult to get the intended results when you are only measuring once a year. Hence, a corresponding factor between the initiators’ and the providers’ views is the belief that letting the tool loose into the organization, thereby believing in a loosely coupled process (Weick, 1976), seems to be a better work process than that of annual surveys. In line with this belief, the initiators want the middle managers and the teams to work autonomously with the pulsed survey, and the initiators therefore delegate much of the ownership of the purpose, work process, and the outcome to the middle managers and the teams, this because they seem to believe it will increase the employee engagement. This rather close connection between the initiators’ descriptions of the pulsed survey and the picture given by the providers makes us view this part of the process as coupled to the institutional practice (Orton & Weick, 1990). In line with the initiators the middle managers seem to share the view of a tool for a continuous and autonomous work process and are therefore aware that they are supposed to both set and communicate their own purpose to the employees. Because of this, their purpose changes slightly towards a more rational hands-on approach where they mainly work with the tool if there is a problem or a project. Therefore, it seems like the middle managers focus on their own purposes rather than the greater vision.
when you try to implement something that is complex or difficult to measure, just like the case of engagement and pulsed employee surveys. Since it might be difficult to get the employees to care about vague things like engagement or overall strategic processes it might be easier to explain actions such as discussions and dialogues as the purpose. This simplification of the purpose to the employees makes their version of the institutionalized practices slightly different, which could result in consequences later during the implementation process. Despite the few disparities mentioned in this paragraph, the formal policy at the two case organizations can overall be seen as similar to that of the providers, and can therefore be viewed as coupled to the institutionalized practice (Orton & Weick, 1990)
6.3 From formal policy to daily practice
When looking at how the formal policy has been implemented into daily practices, what is done in an organization on day-to-day basis (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Bromley & Powell, 2012) we found that many of the activities in the organizations corresponded with the institutional practice. Just as stated by the providers the initiators try not to be too involved in the individual teams’ work, even though both initiators describe how they help or coach managers if they need it. Though, the initiators emphasize the importance of the managers setting their own way of working with the tool. Both initiators also have bigger processes where they aggregate the groups or ask questions to the entire organization or department in order to see bigger trends. Based on this, the initiators’ behavior in the daily practices are in line with what is described by the providers, thereby making their work coupled to the institutional practice (Orton & Weick, 1990).
larger continuous work process to enhance employee engagement and self-leadership within the group. This is not something that seems to affect the managers to a greater extent since they were “trained” by the initiator and hence understand the greater purpose. From this point of view the middle managers’ work with the daily activities can be seen as coupled to the institutional practice since they work accordingly (Orton & Weick, 1990).
The employees’ description of the work process with the pulsed surveys is similar to that of the middle managers in that they experience a frequent measuring and view the process as a natural part of their daily work. Even though the employees view the process as something very natural that just happens without any effort they still describe how they try to partake in the discussion around the results in meetings and sometimes discuss actions that could be taken to improve the survey results. Though, they say that, despite caring about the results they still believe that their main role in the survey work is to answer questions and discuss the results, not be responsible for the action taken in between meetings. Instead, when being asked about who is mainly responsible for acting on the results, they all answered the middle manager or that the higher levels of the organization are probably doing something with the results, this because the managers probably have some greater aim that the employees do not think of. Because of their limited interpretation of the purpose with the implementation the employees seem to view the discussion and action from the survey results as the outcome (and thereby end) of the work, rather than as a means for reaching additional outcomes as is reckoned by the initiator and the middle manager. This lack of realizing how to involve the results from the survey into the greater picture could be one reason why the employees are not taking as much responsibility for the daily activities as is assumed in the institutionalized practice. Even though the employees might not have the same reasoning behind their actions as the middle manager and initiator they partake in the survey activities that are described in the institutionalized practice of pulsed surveys, and their process can therefore be seen as coupled to the providers’ view (Orton & Weick, 1990). The picture given by these two organizations implies that the pulsed survey work is included into daily practices and not just brought up symbolically, thereby excluding the possibility of policy-practice decoupling (Bromley & Powell, 2012).
