# Employee Surveys: Why Participation and Feedback Belong Together

> What does a survey response rate actually tell you? Wesely's dissertation links participation with clear purpose, shared interpretation and feedback to employees.

- Publisher: OQM International
- Language: en
- Published: 2026-09-30
- Canonical: https://oqm-international.com/en/journal/employee-survey-participation-feedback/
- Image: https://oqm-international.com/journal-images/mitarbeiterbefragung-beteiligung-ergebnisse.jpg

A strong response rate helps an employee survey. It does not prove that every perspective is represented, and it certainly does not mean that the organization will act on the findings. Stephan Wesely's 2011 dissertation addresses both sides: participation in the assessment and the dialogue that follows. Its examples concern historical OQM practice, not the current OQM 80 product or a universal response-rate standard. [Source: dissertation, pp. 39 and 45–46](https://administration.oqm-business.com/storage/app/public/Dissertation_Wesley_comp.pdf#page=61).

## What the 60 percent figure actually says

On page 46, Wesely reports an assessment by occupational psychologist Rüdiger Hossiep: for internal comparisons, participation above 60 percent was associated with a high degree of comparability and representation. Wesely also records a 70 percent response rate for juwi's first online survey in 2010, after two paper surveys that the dissertation says exceeded 95 percent. These are historical observations in particular settings. [Dissertation, p. 46 and chapter 3.5](https://administration.oqm-business.com/storage/app/public/Dissertation_Wesley_comp.pdf#page=62).

The 60 percent figure is not a mathematical guarantee that a modern survey is representative. Even a 70 percent overall rate can conceal uneven participation across locations, shifts or roles. A lower rate does not make every answer useless, either. The more useful question is: **Whose experience is reflected, and whose may be missing?** A comparison between departments calls for a closer look at their separate participation patterns, not just the overall number.

## Participation starts before the invitation

Wesely describes support from relevant stakeholders and a clearly communicated purpose as important conditions for a survey. People need to know which organizational unit is being assessed, why it matters and when they will hear about the results. An assessment of one team must not later be presented as the voice of the entire organization. [Dissertation, pp. 42 and 45–46](https://administration.oqm-business.com/storage/app/public/Dissertation_Wesley_comp.pdf#page=58).

An invitation can answer four straightforward questions: What are we examining? Who will see which results? How will those results be discussed? Who can decide what changes? A current survey also needs verifiable information about privacy and technical anonymity. The dissertation describes a historical process; it cannot establish how a present-day product stores or protects responses.

Clarity matters because a request for candid feedback creates an expectation. If leaders have no intention of discussing difficult findings, a polished invitation may obtain responses but damage trust later. The organization should decide what it can honestly promise before asking people to participate.

## Return the results to the people who contributed

The [OQM improvement cycle](https://oqm-international.com/en/journal/oqm-improvement-cycle-six-steps/) gives presenting results a distinct place. Strengths and weaknesses are discussed with those involved. Wesely emphasizes that participants need to understand the profile's message; misunderstandings can block implementation. Goals, action and reassessment follow. [Dissertation, pp. 39–40](https://administration.oqm-business.com/storage/app/public/Dissertation_Wesley_comp.pdf#page=55).

The historical juwi example illustrates the intended feedback loop. Before its third survey, an internal message said that major findings would be shared and that teams would discuss their own results with managers. The dissertation reports the message. It does not prove that every team received the same discussion or that every later measure was effective. [Dissertation, p. 45](https://administration.oqm-business.com/storage/app/public/Dissertation_Wesley_comp.pdf#page=61).

## Four questions after a survey closes

Instead of celebrating the number alone, a team can record four decisions:

1. **Coverage:** Which groups responded, as far as privacy-safe analysis permits?
2. **Interpretation:** Which findings are clear, and which need conversation?
3. **Priority:** What will be addressed first, and who owns the decision?
4. **Follow-up:** When will participants hear what changed and what remains open?

This checklist is not a substitute for sound survey methods. It helps prevent a formally successful survey from ending as a PDF in an inbox. Response rate measures how many voices entered the process. What the organization does with those voices is a separate test. The [research FAQ](https://oqm-international.com/en/faq/) places the historical benchmark in context, and the [research overview](https://oqm-international.com/en/research/) explains the scope of the dissertation.

## Related articles

- [Whole Teams: Five Conditions Beyond Team-Building Events](https://oqm-international.com/en/journal/whole-team-five-conditions/)
- [OQM in Practice: Organizational Quality, Values, and Improvement](https://oqm-international.com/en/journal/oqm-organizational-quality-values-and-improvement/)
- [Organizational Development: More Than a New Org Chart](https://oqm-international.com/en/journal/organizational-development-beyond-the-org-chart/)

## Languages

- [en](https://oqm-international.com/en/journal/employee-survey-participation-feedback/)
- [es](https://oqm-international.com/es/revista/encuesta-empleados-participacion-resultados/)
- [de](https://oqm-international.com/blog/mitarbeiterbefragung-beteiligung-ergebnisse/)