Engagement Survey Action Plan

Engagement survey action plan

Produces what the survey was supposed to produce: a short list of owned, dated, visible actions, a manager cascade that survives contact with a manager whose scores are bad, and an employee communication that says what will change, what will not, and why.

The survey is not the intervention. Most organisations run one, build a results deck, present it to the exec team, and then do nothing employees can see. Employees notice, and the following year both the response rate and the honesty of the answers fall — the instrument degrades at the moment it is most needed. The failure is almost never analytical; results decks are usually fine. It is that results are never converted into a small number of owned, resourced, visible actions. This skill is about that conversion; the analysis exists to make it honest.

What you need to start

Ask what they have, in one message, offering the realistic options rather than a specification: a platform export (CSV or XLSX from Culture Amp, Peakon, Glint, Qualtrics, Workday, Officevibe, Lattice or anything else — the best case); a PDF results pack; a spreadsheet someone built by hand; headline scores pasted into the chat; or nothing yet because the survey closes next week.

Any of these is enough to start. Where the environment supports structured multiple-choice questions, use them here and for the minimum-group-size policy — they are picks, not essays.

Three things worth asking alongside the data, because they change the analysis rather than decorate it:

1. The response rate this cycle and last, and the headcount it is a percentage of. A

falling response rate outranks every score in the file.

1. What was promised to respondents about confidentiality, and the organisation's minimum

group size for reporting. This is a constraint on the output, not a preference.

1. Which outcome the organisation actually cares about — usually intent to stay,

discretionary effort, or eNPS. Drivers are only meaningful against a named outcome.

If they have only headline scores, go to The degraded case below and produce the full plan anyway. A plan built on headline scores that the user sharpens next week beats a perfect analysis they never got to.

Process

1. Read the response rate before reading a single score

The response rate determines what every other number in the file means, and it is the one finding meaningful entirely on its own.

• A falling response rate is the most important finding in the survey, ahead of any score

movement. It usually means people concluded that last cycle changed nothing, or that they no longer believe the confidentiality commitment — both more serious than a two-point drop on wellbeing, and neither fixed by an action plan aimed at the low scores.

• A skewed response rate changes the interpretation of every segment. If engineering

responded at 40% and commercial at 85%, the company score is mostly commercial's opinion. Say so rather than reporting a company number as though it were one.

• Low response with high scores is the trap. The disengaged are the least likely to

answer, so low response biases scores upward: a good score on a 45% response is not a good result, it is an unknown result with a flattering sample.

references/analysis-method.md covers response rate by segment, what counts as a material change, and how to state confidence limits without overclaiming or dismissing the data.

2. Compare to the previous cycle honestly

Score movement is only interpretable if the population is comparable. Establish what changed between cycles — restructure, acquisition, a large intake of joiners, redundancies, a return-to-office mandate, a leadership change, a pay freeze — and check two mechanical effects routinely mistaken for real movement. Population change: if half the low-scoring population left, or the company doubled with new joiners who typically score higher in their first months, scores rise without anything improving; where the data allows, compare only the population present in both cycles and say you have. Instrument change: a reworded item, a changed scale, a moved benchmark or a new vendor invalidates the comparison — say it cannot be made rather than making it with a caveat nobody reads.

External comparison, if they have it: use the group the user actually has, and name it. Never generate a benchmark, an industry average or a "typical" score — a fabricated comparator repeated to a board is a career risk for the user and destroys the credibility of the pack.

3. Read the distribution, not only the mean

The step most results decks skip, and it changes the response more than any other. A mean of 6 made of 3s and 9s is a different organisation from one made entirely of 6s: the first is polarised, two populations having different experiences of the same company, and the action is to find who is in each group and why; the second is uniformly mediocre and the action is systemic. Same mean, opposite interventions. For every item that matters look at the shape — the bottom of the scale, whether it is bimodal, whether an improved mean is a shrinking tail or a growing top. references/analysis-method.md gives the specific reads.

4. Cut by segment — this is where the actionable findings are

Company-level engagement scores are almost never actionable, because the company is not where the experience happens. Cut by function and team; by level or grade, and manager versus individual contributor; by tenure band (under 6 months, 6–24 months, 2–5 years, 5+ years); by location, and office versus remote versus hybrid; and by any demographic dimension the organisation lawfully monitors, under the guardrails below. Cut the manager population as its own segment too: managers are both the biggest lever on everyone else's engagement and frequently the most strained group in the data, and their scores are a leading indicator for their teams' next cycle.

The minimum group size is non-negotiable, and here is why. No segment is reported below the organisation's stated minimum — commonly in the 5–10 range; ask what theirs is, and apply 5 as a floor if they have no policy. Below that threshold results deanonymise respondents: a team of four where "one person disagreed" is four people who each know the other three. One instance of someone being identified — or believing they were — breaks the confidentiality commitment permanently, and the next survey then measures who is willing to be honest rather than what people think. Apply it to every cut, including cross-cuts, where it is most often breached: "women in engineering at director level" can be two people even when each dimension clears the threshold alone. Suppress the cell, and suppress enough neighbouring cells that it cannot be derived by subtraction from the total.

5. Analyse the free text as themes, never as individual accounts

Read references/free-text-analysis.md in full before touching comments — theme extraction, frequency versus intensity, quote selection, and the escalation protocol. Three rules govern everything:

• **Report at theme level with frequency and intensity, illustrated by quotes that cannot

identify anyone.** Paraphrase, or select only quotes containing no role, no event, no team detail and no circumstance that would let a colleague identify the writer. A quote reading "as the only [role] in [team], I…" is not usable at any level of the organisation, however well it makes the point.

• **Comments routinely contain health information, disclosures about personal circumstances,

and complaints about named individuals.** Report these at theme level only — "several comments described workload affecting health" — never at individual level, never with the detail, never with a quote, and never naming an individual who is complained about.

• **Anything that appears to disclose harm, harassment, discrimination, bullying, retaliation,

a safeguarding concern, or a risk to someone's safety goes to the user privately and immediately, separately from the analysis, so it can be routed to the proper internal channel.** Flag it in the conversation, not in the deck, the action plan or any circulated file. Say what channel it likely belongs in — the whistleblowing or speak-up route, employee relations, legal, or safeguarding — and stop there. Summarising a disclosure of harm as a theme buries it; putting it in a circulating document exposes the person who wrote it.

6. Find the drivers, not just the low scores

The lowest-scoring item is not automatically the most important one. Prioritise on what moves the outcome the organisation cares about — usually intent to stay or discretionary effort — not on rank order of score. Two filters decide what reaches the plan:

Impact. How connected is this item to the stated outcome? If the platform supplies a driver analysis, use it and say what it is based on. If not, compare how the item scores among people answering unfavourably on the outcome against those answering favourably — crude, usually directionally right, and honest about being crude. references/analysis-method.md sets out how to do this with the data most users have.

Agency. Can this organisation actually change this in the next two quarters? A low score on office location for a company on a seven-year lease, on pay in a business that has just frozen salaries, or on a market-driven equity valuation, is real — but it is not an action-plan item. It is a communication problem, and belongs in the "what we are not changing and why" section of the employee message, where it does far more good.

Be honest about this rather than tactful. An unfixable item on the plan produces a workstream that quietly dies and confirms to employees that the survey changes nothing; naming it as something the company will not change, with the real reason, is more credible and costs less.

7. Convert to three to five organisation-level actions, and no more

A plan with fifteen actions has none. Three to five is roughly what an executive team can hold attention on for two quarters. Every action carries, without exception:

• A named owner — an individual, at a level with the authority to actually do it, not a

function and not a committee. "People team" is not an owner.

• A defined outcome — what will be different, stated so someone can tell in six months

whether it happened. "Improve communication" is not an outcome. "Every team has a written quarterly priority list their manager reviewed with them" is.

• A date, with a first visible milestone inside about six weeks. The first milestone matters

more than the end date, because it is what employees see.

• How employees will see it happening. If nobody outside the exec team can tell the action

is underway, it does not count as an action here — this is the field that most often exposes an action as an intention.

Choose the mix deliberately and include at least one of each: an action that fixes something small and visible quickly does more for trust in the survey than three structural programmes landing next year.

8. Separate organisation-level actions from team-level ones — and weight them correctly

Most of what drives engagement is local: the relationship with the immediate manager, workload and its predictability, clarity about the job and what good looks like, whether contribution is recognised. Almost none of that is fixed by a central programme — and central programmes routinely get built to address it anyway, because the centre is who reads the results.

State the split explicitly: organisation-level actions only where the fix is genuinely structural — pay architecture, career framework, tooling, a broken process, a policy — and team-level action owned by managers everywhere else. Then resource the manager side properly, because it is doing most of the work. Where an action needs headcount or budget to be real, say so rather than letting it start under-resourced; headcount-business-case builds that argument if the resourcing needs approval.

9. Build the manager cascade

The cascade is where most survey follow-through collapses, so specify it rather than assuming managers work it out. Fill assets/manager-cascade-template.md.

What each manager receives: their team's results where the group clears the minimum size, the company results, the comparison, their free-text themes if group size permits, and the organisation-level actions with owners. Below the threshold they receive the next level up, with the reason stated in a way they can repeat to their team without sounding like concealment.

What they are expected to do, and by when: share the results, hold a conversation, agree one or two team-level actions, record them where the People team can see. One or two, not five — the organisation-level constraint scaled down.

A structure for the conversation, because "discuss your results with your team" is where cascades die. Thank people for responding; share the actual scores including the uncomfortable ones; say what you notice; ask what is behind it and then stop talking; ask what one change would make the biggest difference; commit to one or two things you control; say what you will take upward. The template carries the full version.

The manager whose own scores are poor. This is the conversation that decides whether the cascade works. What to tell that manager:

• Their scores are information about the team's experience, not a verdict on them. A low score

for a manager who has just delivered a restructure or absorbed two teams is often a measure of the situation rather than the person.

• They still hold the conversation. A manager who hides the results confirms everything the

results said, and the team already knows roughly what they were.

• They do not defend, explain away, or ask who said what. Asking who said what is the single

most damaging thing a manager can do with survey results, and it should be said to every manager in those terms.

• They do not do it alone: their own manager or a People partner helps them prepare and, in the

worst cases, attends. Support is offered before results land, not after it goes badly.

• Where scores indicate something more serious than a hard year — a pattern across cycles, or

comments describing behaviour rather than circumstances — that is a performance and possibly an employee-relations conversation, held separately by the manager's own manager and never conducted through the survey process.

10. Write the employee communication

Four parts, in this order. Fill the section in assets/action-plan-template.md.

1. What we heard — including the bad parts, in recognisable language. Employees have a

good collective sense of what they said; a summary that softens it tells them the results were managed, and everything after that paragraph is discounted.

1. What we are doing — the three to five actions, with names and dates. An action with a

person's name against it is a commitment; one owned by "the People team" is an aspiration.

1. What we are not doing, and why. The part organisations cut, and the part that buys the

credibility. Naming honestly that pay bands will not be reopened this year because of the budget position, or that the office is not moving because of the lease, is more trusted than a list of warm commitments — it proves the results were read and that the answers are not all comfortable. Employees can live with a no; what they cannot live with is silence after raising something, which they correctly read as being ignored.

1. When you will hear more — a specific date on which something is actually said, even if

the update is that a workstream slipped. A missed update date does more damage than no update commitment.

Keep it short an

…

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: we-are-move
• Source: we-are-move/claude-skills-for-ta-and-people-teams
• License: MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.