Interpreting Low Participation Rates in Organisational Surveys: What It Means and What to Do Next

Organisations regularly conduct diagnostics such as culture reviews, engagement surveys, and psychosocial risk assessments to gain insights into their workforce’s experiences and concerns. However, when participation rates are low, we tend to find that leaders may question the validity of the results or struggle to determine next steps. While a low response rate can be challenging, it still offers valuable insights that should not be ignored.

What Does a Low Participation Rate Mean?

A low participation rate in organisational diagnostics can give you an indication of organisational dynamics, including:

• Employee Disengagement or ‘Lack-of-action’ Fatigue: Low engagement levels may result in employees feeling that their feedback will not lead to meaningful change. If employees have been asked to complete multiple surveys without seeing tangible action, they may stop participating. Participants are highly likely to complete multiples surveys where they can experience the benefits of doing so.

Suggestion: In your diagnostic, look for responses relating to the belief that action will be taken as a part of the process, or reflect on previous organisational diagnostics and ask whether these were effectively linked to the feedback from employees or whether the correct actions were selected. 

• Lack of Trust: Employees may hesitate to provide honest feedback due to fears of repercussions or scepticism about the confidentiality of their responses.

Suggestion: Review how the confidentiality of the survey was communicated amongst staff.

• Time Constraints and Competing Priorities: High workloads, operational demands, and low supervisor support may prevent employees from allocating time to complete diagnostics.

Suggestion: This is where it’s important to look at other organisational data such as EAP reports, incident reporting, other organisational diagnostics such as engagement surveys.

• Communication Gaps: Employees may be unaware of the importance of the diagnostic process, leading to lower engagement in feedback initiatives.

Suggestion: Review whether the survey process was endorsed and encouraged by senior leadership, all the way to frontline leaders, as well as the method and frequency of communication about the diagnostic beforehand.

• Method of Survey delivery: The way the survey is administered can impact participation. For example, outdoor or frontline staff who have limited access to computers may struggle to complete online surveys. Paper-pencil options or mobile-friendly formats could be a more effective approach.

Suggestion: Review your current workforce and consider whether the survey results are particularly high in certain areas and not others.

How Should Low Participation Be Interpreted?

Whilst low participation rates should always be viewed tentatively and with caution, it’s still important to think about what could the low participation rate be telling us?

Even with a small sample size, the responses gathered still represent the views of a portion of the workforce. It is crucial to acknowledge that those who took the time to participate likely have strong opinions or concerns, making their feedback particularly valuable.

Key considerations when interpreting low participation:

• Acknowledge the voices that did participate: The insights provided by respondents still matter and may be indicative of broader trends within the organisation.
• Look for common themes: Even with fewer responses, recurring issues should not be dismissed. If there are common themes amongst your organisational data sources, this indicates a systematic concern.
• Consider qualitative data: Open-ended responses, even if from a small number of employees, can provide deep and actionable insights.
• Validate findings with additional methods: Conducting focus groups or one-on-one interviews which can help to validate and expand on the survey data.

Next Steps: How to Act on the Findings

Despite a low participation rate, organisations should still take action on the feedback received. Here’s how to proceed:

1. Communicate Back to Employees: Thank those who participated and acknowledge their contributions. Share key themes from the responses, emphasising the importance of ongoing dialogue. Outline initial steps the organisation plans to take in response to the findings. Be honest about the low participation rate and communicate your hypotheses as to why this might be, and how it will be alleviated in the next survey iteration.
2. Engage Employees Through Follow-up Discussions: Conduct focus groups to explore themes in more detail. Ensure concerns are addressed such as confidentiality, delivery method and time-restraints and communicate that action will be taken off the back of these sessions. Offer opportunities for employees who did not participate in the survey to provide input in a different format.
3. Address Psychosocial Risks in Compliance with Legislation: If conducting a psychosocial risk assessment, under the model WHS laws, requires a person conducting a business undertaking (PCBU) to manage the risks of psychosocial hazards in the workplace. Therefore, organisations must take action on identified risks, regardless of participation rates. Even with low response rates, reported risks must be investigated and mitigated. Communicate how the organisation plans to address workplace risks and ensure employee safety.
4. Enhance Future Participation: Build trust by demonstrating that feedback leads to tangible improvements. Simplify survey processes and method of delivery to ensure ease of participation. Use multiple communication channels, with leadership endorsement, to emphasise the importance of feedback. Be mindful, however, of using a reward system for survey completion as this may impact the integrity of the data. For example, if a team member feels that they are coerced to complete a survey, or where there is an external motivator, the data you receive could be less accurate as participants will likely rush through the assessment (never aim for a 100% participation rate!).

Conclusion

Low participation in organisational diagnostics should not be dismissed as irrelevant. The responses collected, even from a small group, provide a meaningful snapshot of workplace sentiment and potential areas of concern. By validating findings through focus groups and ensuring action is taken (especially in the case of psychosocial risks) organisations can foster a culture of trust, continuous improvement, and engagement. Most importantly, organisations must always close the feedback loop with employees, showing them that their voices lead to real and meaningful change.