Employee engagement consultancies pride themselves on asking the right questions. Yet, there’s a critical question that often goes unasked, or at least, unanswered honestly: “Did you tell the truth?” on your employee engagement survey?
The uncomfortable reality of employees misrepresenting their feelings in engagement surveys isn’t a new concern. In fact, the issue was deemed significant enough to warrant an entire edition of the academic journal Industrial and Organizational Psychology dedicated to exploring its complexities. Even when companies employ external firms to administer these surveys, the shadow of doubt remains. As noted by academic researchers in the journal, “employees may still be concerned about openly sharing their views … on sensitive topics such as manager effectiveness and intention to stay at the company.” They further pointed out that assurances of confidentiality might not fully alleviate concerns about data privacy, a sentiment echoed across various psychological studies.
Kai Ryssdal, host of the public radio show Marketplace, succinctly captured the pervasive skepticism surrounding these surveys, stating, “Here’s the thing for HR managers everywhere: we all lie on those surveys.”
Stephen J. Dubner, co-author of Freakonomics, corroborated this view, adding, “we lie on most surveys, but especially [to the question], ‘How happy are you? And I’m the person who pays you and I need you to tell me how happy you are.’” The core issue is the inherent power dynamic – employees are asked to provide honest feedback to those who control their livelihoods, creating a potential conflict of interest and a breeding ground for dishonesty.
For years, the extent of this dishonesty remained an educated guess. While it was clear that not every employee felt compelled to fabricate their responses, it was equally evident that not everyone was being entirely truthful. The critical question remained: just how prevalent was this phenomenon?
Now, thanks to research from BI Worldwide, we have a clearer picture. The data reveals a sobering truth: generally, less than two-thirds of employees both participate in their company’s surveys and provide genuinely candid answers. In many instances, this figure is even lower. This revelation serves as a stark warning to executives who invest in these surveys and to the engagement “experts” who conduct them. They are facing a significant erosion of trust from their employee base.
The erosion of honest feedback begins even before employees answer a single question. Approximately one in five employees opts out of participating in these surveys altogether. The rate of non-participation varies considerably across organizations, sometimes reaching nearly half of the workforce, while in rarer cases, it may be as low as 5% to 10%. However, a “non-response” rate between 15% and 30% is considered typical.
While reasons for non-participation can range from mundane factors like being on vacation or being overwhelmed with work, the underlying sentiment is often more profound. A 2000 study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology suggests that those who abstain from surveys tend to exhibit “greater intentions to quit, less organizational commitment, and less satisfaction toward their supervisors and their own jobs.” This study also highlighted that these “noncompliant” employees (a term that carries a judgmental tone) harbor “more negative beliefs regarding how their organizations handle employee survey data.” In essence, those most dissatisfied and disengaged are also the least likely to voice their concerns through surveys, further skewing the data.
Recognizing the limitations of employer-commissioned studies, researchers at BI Worldwide undertook a different approach. They posed a direct, and previously unasked, question to a representative sample of U.S. workers: “Did you answer your company’s survey differently than how you actually felt?” A significant 21% responded “yes.”
This 21% figure is striking, especially considering the inherent human tendency to avoid both lying and admitting to dishonesty. When directly questioned, most people default to truthfulness. Therefore, when one in five survey participants confesses to answering dishonestly, it represents a considerable issue. It’s likely that this 21% is a conservative estimate, potentially understating the true extent of the problem.
Considering both the 20% of employees who don’t participate and the 21% of participants who admit to dishonesty, the picture becomes clearer. Roughly two-thirds, or even less, of a company’s workforce both engage with the survey process and provide genuine, unfiltered feedback. This means that a significant portion of the data informing crucial organizational decisions might be skewed, incomplete, or simply untrue.
Beyond the numbers, understanding the motivations behind dishonest responses is crucial. Why do employees feel compelled to answer inauthentically?
Among the 4% of survey takers who intentionally score their jobs lower than their actual feelings, the motivation is often to “send a signal” and explicitly communicate their dissatisfaction. One respondent admitted to scoring lower “to see what my boss has to say.” Another described a situation with a “two-faced bully” boss who was out of touch with the team’s capabilities. One woman deliberately rated her job harshly because she “felt that I needed to show there were things that needed to be addressed.” For this group, the survey becomes a tool for expressing grievances and hoping to instigate change.
However, the majority of those who answered dishonestly – the 17% of survey participants who inflate their job satisfaction scores – do so out of fear and distrust. Their reasons include fear of repercussions, a general lack of trust in management, skepticism about the survey’s confidentiality, or a belief that the entire exercise is pointless. This apprehension is not unfounded, particularly given reports of consultancies that have been known to criticize employees who don’t provide sufficiently positive feedback.
Employees are becoming increasingly aware of these dynamics. One man recounted how colleagues advised him to “tell them what they want to hear, not the truth,” fearing that honest answers would be “held against you.” He worried about negative repercussions on performance reviews or incentive programs.
One woman shared a disturbing anecdote: “Two years ago, my friend was yelled at for her answers.” This breach of promised anonymity eroded trust. She explained, “Since they lied about the anonymity of the survey, I didn’t want to get disciplined or terminated for providing a truthful answer. The last time I tried to be truthful at a meeting, my boss shot me the look of death. They seem to want us to tell them what they want to hear without us saying anything negative or showing them any opportunities to improve policies or procedures.” This illustrates a toxic environment where honesty is not only discouraged but actively punished.
The pervasive sense of futility also contributes to dishonesty. As one woman stated simply, “No one will listen” to the results. Another woman expressed discomfort in sharing “the real down-and-dirty” with higher-ups who are disconnected from the daily realities of her work. While not explicitly fearing repercussions, she acknowledged a “little nagging voice” of apprehension, worried about negative misinterpretations and reactions.
One employee admitted to giving overly positive responses because “I’ve taken these surveys in the past and nothing ever gets done to address the problem areas. They just get glossed over and ignored.” For these employees, dishonesty becomes a form of cynical self-preservation, a way to navigate a system they perceive as disingenuous and ineffective.
Perhaps the most poignant reason for dishonesty was offered by a young man who simply stated, “I wanted to keep my job.” This starkly highlights the underlying power imbalance and the very real fear of job insecurity that can drive employees to prioritize self-preservation over honest feedback.
The inherent paradox is that the organizations most in need of candid feedback – those with significant issues to address – are often the very places where fear of honesty is most prevalent. In these environments, both survey non-response and dishonest answers are likely to be higher, resulting in genuine feedback from a minority of the workforce. The organization operates with a distorted view of reality, akin to a vehicle running on fumes while the dashboard indicators show everything is fine. This irony reaches an absurd level when even employees working for engagement survey vendors themselves are afraid to be truthful in their own company surveys.
While concrete data on historical trends is lacking, it’s plausible that employees were more candid in the early days of employee engagement surveys. Many of the malpractices and cynical manipulations observed today were less common. The industry hadn’t yet amplified the narrative of a “worldwide employee engagement crisis” to drive business, nor had it refined the art of demonizing employees who dared to provide negative feedback. Initially, the onus was largely on the employee to justify withholding participation or honest answers.
However, the tide has turned. Employer and consultancy abuses have created a climate of skepticism and fear, making many employees reluctant to provide genuine responses to traditional engagement surveys. The reasons for a frustrated employee to avoid brutal honesty are now glaringly obvious. Any employee can readily access the website of their employer’s survey provider and see how negative feedback – regarding lack of recognition, inattentive managers, limited career prospects, or even the absence of a “[best friend at work]” – might be interpreted and potentially weaponized. The unspoken question lingers: “Am I really going to get in trouble for this?”
If leaders genuinely seek honest feedback from their employees, a fundamental shift in perspective is required. Candid answers must be viewed as acts of loyalty and trust, born from the confidence that feedback will be acted upon constructively and without negative repercussions. Organizations need to move beyond the superficiality of annual polls and embrace more meaningful actions based on employee insights. This includes reconsidering incentive structures that reward managers for high survey scores, and, crucially, ceasing any practices that punish truth-tellers for their candor.
Until these fundamental changes are implemented, companies risk perpetuating a cycle of dishonesty. They might be better off forgoing the surveys altogether rather than investing in initiatives that, ironically, are underscored by the Fleetwood Mac anthem: “Tell me lies. Tell me sweet little lies.” Because in the realm of employee engagement, sweet little lies might feel good in the short term, but they ultimately undermine the foundation of trust and transparency that any healthy organization needs to thrive.
