DRC will present at two sessions at the 2004 SIOP conference in Chicago. The Practitioner Forum is on Saturday, April 3 at 1:30 pm. The Pre-conference Workshops are on the morning and afternoon of Thursday, April 1.

Perspectives on Pulse Surveys

Abstract of Paper
Pulse Surveys: An Overview

Kristofer J. Fenlason
Data Recognition Corporation
Terry Gaylord
Payless ShoeSource, Inc.
Carrie Christianson DeMay
Data Recognition Corporation

This paper provides an overview of Pulse surveys and sets the stage for the following practitioner papers. We offer a conceptual framework for examining Pulse surveys based upon: a review of published survey literature, how Pulse surveys are currently represented by survey suppliers, and the authors’ own practice experiences.

A review of several survey texts (e.g., Kraut, 1996, Church and Waclawski, 1998; Kraut & Saari, 1999) failed to find "Pulse" surveys referred to by name, or presented as a discretely-defined survey type. Similarly, an examination of our own practice experience and how other practitioners conceptualize and use the "Pulse" term (e.g., via descriptions of offerings on websites), revealed no one specific definition.

Despite the absence of a well-defined and accepted concept and terminology, it appears safe to say that, in general "Pulse surveys" refer to a class of surveys used to supplement or replace the more "traditional" approach to organizational surveying (i.e., a comprehensive content survey administered to all employees once every 12 – 24 months). To further explore and define the concept we focused on four key characteristics that we found (sometimes alone, but often in combination), to result in labeling a survey as a "Pulse."

Purpose
Kraut (1996) outlined two broad uses for surveys (assessment and organizational change) and noted several specific purposes. Our review indicated that surveys may be labeled as a "Pulse" if they address one or more of the following purposes:

•Reduce/smooth administrative burden – Pulse surveys may be a viable tool to enable an organization to smooth out peak demands of traditional survey administration (e.g., census surveys administered for weeks at a time). Pulse surveys have the potential to reduce this large periodic disruption and still collect necessary employee input.

•Pulse surveys also appear well suited to evaluate specific programs or interventions. This type of evaluation can be built into a traditional survey, but administration may be too infrequent to provide feedback that can both gauge intervention efficacy and provide for mid-course corrections.

•Pulse surveys may also be useful for ensuring accountability for taking action. Measuring and reporting employee perceptions of progress at more frequent intervals can help to focus attention on a particular goal and provide a data-based indication of progress.

•Pulse surveys may also provide greater responsiveness to the market environment. Some organizations’ business environment may change so rapidly that surveying yearly may not be frequent enough to reflect the reality of the marketplace (e.g., monitoring the drivers of customer service representative turnover in the highly competitive telecommunications market).

Content
Pulse surveys may also differ from traditional surveys in terms of content. In contrast to a comprehensive content EOS, a few specialized questions (e.g., "Did your manager meet with you about the XYZ initiative?") might be used to track progress on a specific intervention. Also, while surveys can have a wide range of lengths (e.g., Church and Waclawski, 1998 cite instances of four up to 250 items) it often appears that the Pulse concept places a premium on fewer items. Shorter surveys certainly make responding less burdensome and may be especially important if a large number of employees are to be regularly surveyed (i.e., to keep response rates high, reduce time away from other work).

Administration Frequency
Pulse surveys also seem to be conceived of as surveys that are administered more frequently than once a year. For instance, tracking managers’ actions to increase accountability for a year-long program roll out would likely require more than one survey (e.g., quarterly or bi-monthly). Frequency also depends on the practical aspects of how quickly the information can be gathered and disseminated to those who need it. For organizations equipped for web deployment of surveys this means surveys can be administered and reported upon in a matter of days or hours versus weeks.

Administration Methods
Pulse surveys also appear to vary in terms of whether the survey uses a census or sample strategy and the actual distribution method (web vs. paper). Census strategies tend to be preferred when the purpose is large-scale organizational change (e.g., Kraut, 1996, Church & Waclawski, 1998) . Yet, if the idea is to obtain more frequent feedback from the employee population then a sample strategy may be most appropriate. Sampling can help reduce survey fatigue/over surveying and costs (e.g., fewer survey materials produced). Finally, because Pulse surveys appear to often be directed at faster creation, administration and reporting turnaround, it appears that a Web-administration method is likely to be preferred to a paper-based option.

References

Church, A. H. & Waclawski, J. (1998). Designing and Using Organizational Surveys—A Seven-Step Process. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kraut, A. I. (1996). Introduction: An Overview of Organizational Surveys. In A. I. Kraut (Ed.), Organizational surveys: Tools for assessment and change (pp. 1- 14). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kraut, A. I. & Saari, L. M. (1999). Organization surveys: Coming of age for a new era. In A.I. Kraut and A.K. Korman (Eds.) Evolving practices in human resource management. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Leveraging Technology in Organizational Surveys:
Critical Issues in the On-line Survey Process

Pre-Conference Information

Presenters:
Kristofer Fenlason, Data Recognition Corporation
Kate Suckow, Microsoft Corporation

Few forces have changed the face of organizational surveys as much as the development of on-line technology. Less than 10 years ago it was cutting-edge to conduct an on-line survey. Today it is commonplace.

By many measures, the use of Web surveys in organizations has been wildly successful. However, the pace of this development and deployment has been – and continues to be – brisk. This session invites participants to take a more reflective "walking tour" through each stage of the Web survey process – from survey administration, to data reporting, and follow-up/action planning. We will look back to take stock of how far we’ve come – highlighting key learnings from practice and research – and look ahead to examine emerging issues that have the potential to significantly affect the survey process but that may not typically receive much attention.

Some of the topics we will cover include:
• Design and usability testing of on-line surveys
• Designing surveys for disabled users
• Dual mode (Web and paper) surveying
• Survey administration success factors
• Strategies for ensuring and communicating about anonymity and confidentiality
• Security issues
• Issues and options in Web reporting
• Tracking responses: Legal, practical and ethical considerations

This session provides an introduction and overview of key Web-survey issues. It also includes a review of the current state of research and best practices, considers critical emerging issues in Web surveys.