Respondent Privacy Versus Accountability and Some Situational Considerations

Jako, Robert A.

doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01371.x

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We also believe that the calls by several commentators (e.g., Chau & Dwight, 2011; Morris & Ashworth, 2011; Weiner, Jolton, Dorio, Klein, & Herman, 2011) for the greater use of identified surveys need to be qualified. The commentaries come from highly experienced and regarded industrial–organizational (I–O) professionals with descriptions of how they carry out identified surveys and in what contexts (i.e., organizations with a positive history of professionally conducted employee surveys, high trust environments, full disclosure and choice for employees, and highly qualified I–O experts close by to ensure everything is done very professionally; e.g., Biga, McCance, & Massman, 2011; Black, Hyland, & Rutigliano, 2011; Church & Rotolo, 2011; Jako, 2011). In these situations, we agree that identified surveys could be very appropriate.…”

Section: Are Identified Surveys Useful?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Identified Employee Surveys: Where Do We Go From Here?

Scherbaum

Saari

2011

Ind. organ. psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of our focal article was to open up a discussion within our profession on a new trend called identified surveys. We feel that we have achieved this goal with the varied and interesting commentaries. At the same time, we do not feel discussion is enough. We as a profession need to better understand the implications and use of identified surveys. We have an obligation to inform others and to have a point of view on how they should be used, taking into account not just an organizational perspective but the point of view of employees as well.

show abstract