The Autopsy of an Employee Survey
Organisational Crime Unit Case File 003
Episode 1: New Case
EMAIL
From: Detective Inspector Sarah Whitmore Organisational Crime Unit – United Kingdom
To: Special Agent Jack Donovan Federal Bureau of Investigation
Subject: Forensic Report: The Autopsy of an Employee Survey
Jack,
Sorry for the delay.
No overtime.
Apparently organisational crime has become a part-time occupation.
I've been handed a new case.
Officially it's an employee survey.
Unofficially I think it's something else.
The covering note says staff engagement has only fallen slightly. The Chief Executive describes the results as "encouraging". There is already talk of a press release.
Interesting.
They're all looking at the scores.
I'm looking at the people who didn't answer.
The response rate has dropped again.
No one seems particularly interested.
That worries me more than the figures.
Someone has attached eighty pages of charts.
No one has asked why hundreds of employees decided not to speak.
Wrong question.
I've attached my preliminary forensic report.
It's thin.
Not because there isn't much evidence.
Because most of it is missing.
Regards,
Sarah Whitmore
TEXT MESSAGE
02:23 EST
Jack Donovan:
Couldn't sleep.
Read your email.
Initial thought.
Don't assume you've got a survey problem.
You may have an intelligence failure.
Low participation isn't necessarily absent data.
Sometimes it's behavioural evidence.
I'd avoid forming conclusions until you've interviewed a few witnesses.
Data tells us what happened.
People usually tell us why.
Stay safe.
Keep the intelligence coming.
EXHIBIT A
Preliminary Forensic Report
Reporting Officer: Detective Inspector Sarah Whitmore
Victim: Employee Survey
Condition: Investigation ongoing.
Crime Scene
The survey appears undisturbed.
Executive summary.
Traffic-light charts.
Benchmark comparisons.
Action plan.
Everything where it should be.
Closer inspection reveals something missing.
Large numbers of employees never entered the scene.
Evidence Collected
Repeated recommendations from previous years.
Repeated commitments to improve communication.
Repeated promises to listen.
Falling response rates.
Very few written comments.
No evidence that previous concerns were systematically followed through.
Working Theory
Cause of death not established.
No evidence of sudden trauma.
Evidence consistent with prolonged neglect.
Further witness interviews required before reaching a conclusion.
From: Jack Donovan
Sarah,
Your report reminds me of something we see over here.
Every investigation has two files.
The official one.
And the one everyone carries around in their heads.
The first is neat.
The second is usually where the truth lives.
I'd be interested to know who first noticed the falling response rate.
Somebody will have.
Someone mentioned it in a meeting.
Someone put it on a dashboard.
Someone decided it wasn't significant enough to investigate.
That decision may turn out to be more important than the survey itself.
Let's not operationalise any conclusions until we have witness testimony.
Sometimes the smallest anomaly opens the biggest investigation.
JD
Operationalise?
We call it asking people.
I've arranged the interviews.
One thing before I go.
The Chief Executive's covering note thanks everyone for "having their voice heard."
Hundreds chose not to use it.
Either they had nothing to say.
Or they'd stopped believing anyone was listening.
We'll add it to the evidence.
Sarah
CASE STATUS
Investigation continuing.
Next file released tomorrow:
Exhibit B – Witness Interview Summaries
One witness insists this investigation should never have started.
