In short

An employee's decision to complete an employee survey is strongly influenced by external factors.

Seemingly small things, such as an unexpected change in the weather, an upcoming holiday or industry unrest, quietly diminish the focus required for a proper response.

By responding to these external factors and adjusting the timing accordingly, the response rate is increased significantly.

You have carefully drawn up the questionnaire, the management team is behind it and the internal communication has been flawlessly prepared. You press ‘send’ and wait full of anticipation. But then… the response rate stalls.

It is tempting to blame this on dislocal or ‘lazy’ employees, but the reality is more nuanced. Filling in a staff survey is human work and people are continuously influenced by their environment. Do you really want to give the response rate and quality a boost? Then take these five external, psychological factors into account that determine whether your questionnaire gets completed or ignored.

1. The weather: sunny mood, falling response

It may sound banal, but the weather plays a surprisingly large role in daily focus. It influences mood as well as productivity, and therefore directly affects the response to a survey.

On the one hand, the sun brings optimism: people rate their life satisfaction significantly higher on sunny days than on rainy days [1]. At the same time, that lovely weather is a major pitfall for the response rate. Fine weather causes cognitive distraction, after all; employees already have their minds on a walk or a sunny terrace.

Research by Harvard Business School shows that productivity on grey, rainy days is actually much higher [2]. Without outside distraction, there is simply a much greater chance that an employee will actually take the time to calmly fill in the questionnaire. Does the launch of the MO happen to coincide with the first truly warm spring days of the year? Then breaks in the sun beckon and laptops are shut tight at 17:00 sharp, at the expense of the response rate.

2. Competing priorities: seasonal peaks and holidays

Where the weather provides external distraction, competing priorities provide internal distraction. The right timing in the year is perhaps the single most important predictor of a high response rate [3]. Because let's be honest: however valuable the results may be for an organisation, for an employee a questionnaire often remains a ‘non-urgent’ task.

As soon as external time pressure in the workplace increases, such as when finalising projects before an approaching summer holiday or during the final sprint to achieve annual targets in December, this pressure bumps the MO off the priority list. The solution is simple: do not send out the invitation during these proven stress weeks, but choose a period when operational pressure is relatively stable.

3. The aftermath of an event: the illusion of momentum

Operational busyness is a logical barrier, but positive moments can also depress the response rate. The expectation is usually that engagement will be sky-high after a fantastic company party or an inspiring offsite session. The absolute perfect moment to send out the employee survey, right? In practice, this often does not benefit the response rate. This is by no means unwillingness, but a natural psychological mechanism called Moral Licensing [4].

Completing an engagement survey feels to many employees like doing the employer a favour and falls under Organisational Citizenship Behaviourvoluntarily going the extra mile [5]. However, attending a corporate event is also a significant investment for employees: they put a lot of energy into teambuilding, networking and strengthening the company culture. They feel they have already contributed a great deal to the organisation by that point.

Because of this effort, their internal ‘moral scales’ unconsciously tip heavily into the positive. If an engagement survey invitation appears in their inbox immediately afterwards, the brain unconsciously gives the employee ‘exemption’ to skip this questionnaire for a moment to bring the scales back into balance, without them feeling guilty about it. [4].

4. The psychology of the clock: micro-timing for maximum response

Once the perfect day has been chosen, the work is not yet done: the time of day is also crucial. The barrier from ‘opening the email’ to ‘completing the questionnaire’ varies enormously during the working day.

09:00 (Inbox triage): The email is opened, but is parked for urgent daily startup tasks. Momentum dips, leading to procrastination and a greater need for reminders.
After lunch (The afternoon slump): Responses are trickling in, but reduced mental acuity leads to satisficing [6]. Employees unconsciously choose the path of least resistance and more often fill in superficially or ‘neutral’ everywhere.
16:30 (Mental fatigue): Cognitive energy is simply depleted, a phenomenon that ego depletion is referred to [7]. Response rates are plummeting and the likelihood of employees dropping out halfway through is peaking.

The ‘sweet spot’: 10:30 or 14:30
For the highest, most qualitative response, mid-morning or afternoon is the best time to send. Both research into the natural cognitive rhythm [8] as the theory behind survey design [9] point to these moments as being absolutely ideal. The urgent fires have been put out and employees are actively sitting at their desks. At that point, the questionnaire acts as a useful ‘brain break’ between two larger tasks.

5. The world keeps turning: social unrest and major news

Finally, it is important to zoom out one last time. Even if the micro-timing has been perfected down to the minute, organisations do not operate in a vacuum. When major events take place in society, such as intense political unrest, major world news or even an all-consuming sporting event such as the World Cup, the collective focus shifts. On days when everyone is following the live blogs, an internal questionnaire soon feels subordinate.

This is known within psychology as Affective Events Theory [10]. Major events create emotional and social ‘aftershocks’ that dominate the conversation around the coffee machine. If an employee survey is sent out during such a turbulent week, employees will feel it is irrelevant and inappropriate, resulting in a low response rate. Therefore, always keep your finger on the pulse of current events and do not be afraid to postpone the launch of the employee survey for a week if the world is temporarily upside down.

Conclusion

A great deal of time and care is spent on setting up a good employee survey. To make the most of that effort, it is just as important to carefully coordinate the timing and the context surrounding the survey. After all, behind every response is an employee who makes the time and mental space for it. When the moment of sending aligns well with the rhythm of the work week, completing a questionnaire feels less like an additional burden.

The success of an employee survey is therefore an interplay of strong content and human timing. By taking into account the influence of the weather, seasonal busyness, internal events and natural energy peaks during the day, the barrier to participation is lowered. This approach gives employees the opportunity to look through the questions at their leisure. This not only leads to a higher response rate, but above all ensures reliable and useful feedback that an organisation can genuinely use to move forward.

The checklist for an optimal response:

Look at the sky: Avoid the very first warm, sunny days of spring. An ‘ordinary’, somewhat grey Tuesday or Thursday often works best.
Check the company calendar: Plan around the peak crowds. Stay away from the pre-holiday stress in July and the final sprint in December.
Allow breathing space after events: After a successful company party or intensive off-site session, wait a few days until everyone is back in their normal work routine.
Target the ‘sweet spots’: Prepare the dispatch system for 10:30 or 14:30 to reach the mailbox at the peak moment of daily focus.
Stay flexible: Keep an eye on the news. Does something major happen in society? Feel free to postpone the invitation.

Curious how we can help you not only to ask the right questions, but also to achieve the maximum response?
Go ahead and plan a demo in!

Sources

[1] Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgements of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513–523. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.513

[2] Lee, J. J., Gino, F., & Staats, B. R. (2014). Rainmakers: Why bad weather means good productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 504–513. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035559

[3] Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

[4] Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Moral self-licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 344–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00263.x

[5] Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organisational citizenship behaviours: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600307

[6] Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350050305

[7] Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252

[8] Valdez, P., Reilly, T., & Waterhouse, J. (2008). Rhythms of mental performance. Mind, Brain and Education, 2(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2008.00023.x

[9] Couper, M. P. (2008). Designing effective web surveys. Cambridge University Press.

[10] Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective Events Theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organisational Behaviour: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). Elsevier Science/JAI Press.