Survey Key Driver Analysis: Our GPS to Navigating Employee Attitudes

Abstract

Cucina, Walmsley, Gast, Martin, and Curtin (2017) started an important dialogue about survey key driver analysis (SKDA). We believe that promoting more useful and valid ways to understand survey data is critical not only for the organizations we serve, but also for advancing the relevancy of our field. We use the terms useful and valid quite intentionally. “Useful” is driven by our practitioner side, but “valid” is driven by our science side. It is the science that often sets industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology apart from other fields. But in some ways, it also holds us back from being timely and relevant. Overall, we believe that the focal article erred too much on the science side.

Following Up on Employee Surveys: A Conceptual Framework and Systematic Review

“…More specifically, the identified key drivers are most highly associated with the outcome (oftentimes employee engagement). Cucina et al (2017) called for the moratorium of this practice, which evoked a series of commentaries (see Hyland et al, 2017 ; Johnson, 2017 ; Klein et al, 2017 ; Macey and Daum, 2017 ; Rotolo et al, 2017 ; Scherbaum et al, 2017 ). Similarly, some authors have suggested that managers do not need statistical training to recognize significant differences, but instead can deal best with their data by examining percentages of favorable and unfavorable results and comparing them to other departments or past survey results ( Dodd and Pesci, 1977 ).…”