Select Page


Diagnosing Critical Issues through Surveys does not work!

Traditional surveys, often limited by closed-ended questions and inherent biases, can miss the diagnose of critical issues.

Traditional Surveys with Closed-ended Questions

  • Quantitative Data: Traditional surveys primarily yield quantitative data that is easy to analyze statistically. The responses are often limited to predefined options like ‘Yes/No’ or a Likert scale (e.g., Strongly Agree to Disagree Strongly).

  • Limited Scope: The data collected is restricted to the questions asked. There needs to be more room for respondents to provide additional context or nuance to their answers.

  • Surface-Level Insights: These surveys are generally good for gathering surface-level information but may not capture the complexities of human emotion or thought processes.

  • Lack of Emotional Context: Traditional surveys do not capture emotional data or sentiments behind the responses, making it difficult to gauge the emotional state or group dynamics.

  • Generalized Findings: The results usually offer a generalized view that may not account for individual or group-specific nuances.

Bias in survey results can significantly distort the data and lead to inaccurate conclusions. The primary reasons why bias affects survey results include:

  • Response Bias: Respondents might give socially or politically acceptable answers or need help understanding the questions.

  • Non-response Bias: Those who choose not to respond might have different opinions than those who do, affecting the survey’s representativeness.

  • Order Effect: The sequence of questions can influence how respondents answer subsequent questions.

  • Question Wording: Leading or ambiguous questions can influence respondents’ answers.

  • Sampling Bias: If the survey sample doesn’t represent the larger population, the results can be skewed.

In essence, biases can compromise the validity of survey results, making it crucial to minimize them during survey design and execution.


Emotional Data through Open-Ended Questions:

The ETC Solutions Approach In the realm of data analytics, the significance of emotional data is often overlooked.

While quantitative data provides a structured and measurable insight into patterns and trends, emotional data deepens the human psyche, revealing the underlying sentiments, motivations, and feelings. ETC Solutions has pioneered a method that harnesses the power of emotional data through open-ended questions, categorizing responses into four distinct categories: Awareness, Witness, Victim, and Perpetrator.

This approach not only provides a comprehensive understanding of the respondent’s emotional state but also drives the identification of critical issues.

Open-Ended Questions: The Gateway to Emotional Insights

Traditional data collection methods often rely on closed-ended questions, which limit the respondent’s ability to express their feelings and thoughts. In contrast, open-ended questions provide an unrestricted platform for individuals to share their experiences, feelings, and perceptions. These responses, rich in emotional content, offer a goldmine of information that can be analyzed to derive meaningful insights.

ETC Solutions recognizes the potential of open-ended questions as a source of emotional data. By allowing respondents the freedom to express themselves without constraints, ETC Solutions can tap into the genuine emotions and sentiments of the individual, leading to more accurate and insightful analyses.

Four Categories of Emotional Responses

ETC Solutions has identified four primary categories into which emotional responses can be classified:

  • Awareness: Responses in this category indicate a general understanding or acknowledgment of a situation or issue. It signifies that the respondent is cognizant of the circumstances but may not have a direct or personal experience.

  • Witness: This category encompasses responses from individuals who have observed or been privy to a particular situation or event. They might not have been directly affected but have a close understanding of the issue through observation.

  • Victim: Responses that fall under this category come from individuals directly affected or harmed by a situation. Their emotions and sentiments are often intense, stemming from personal experiences.

  • Perpetrator: This category includes responses from those who admit or are identified as causing or contributing to a particular situation or problem. Their emotions can range from guilt and remorse to justification of their actions.

Driving the Identification of Critical Issues

By categorizing emotional responses into these four groups, ETC Solutions can effectively pinpoint critical issues. For instance, a high number of responses in the ‘Victim’ category for a particular issue indicates a pressing problem that has directly affected many. Similarly, responses in the ‘Perpetrator’ category can shed light on the root causes of an issue.

Furthermore, by analyzing the emotional intensity and content of the responses, ETC Solutions can gauge the severity of the problem and prioritize interventions accordingly.

ETC Solutions’ innovative approach to sourcing emotional data through open-ended questions offers a fresh perspective on understanding human emotions and sentiments.

By categorizing responses into Awareness, Witness, Victim, and Perpetrator, they can effectively identify and address critical issues. In a world that’s rapidly becoming data-driven, the importance of emotional data, especially when sourced innovatively, cannot be understated.

Employee bias while responding to traditional Surveys.


> Scenario 1: New Employee (Recency Bias)

Context: Jamie, a new employee who joined the company two months ago, is responding to a company-wide engagement survey.

Response Bias:

  • Positive Overemphasis: Jamie may exhibit recency bias, focusing on recent experiences and first impressions. They might rate aspects like the ‘Onboarding Process and ‘Initial Training highly due to their recent positive experiences in these areas.

  • Limited Perspective: Having yet to experience a full cycle of operations or various team dynamics, Jamie might overrate the ‘Team Collaboration’ or ‘Leadership Effectiveness’ based on limited interactions that have been largely positive and welcoming.

  • Avoiding Negativity: As a new member, Jamie might avoid providing negative feedback or critical opinions about ‘Workplace Environment’ or ‘Organizational Values,’ fearing it could impact their standing or relationships within the company.

> Scenario 2: Medium-Tenured Employee (Status Quo Bias)

Context: Alex, an employee with three years at ETC Corp, participates in the same survey.


Response Bias:

  • Complacency Effect: Alex may demonstrate status quo bias. They give moderate to high ratings across the board, reflecting a comfort with current affairs, even if areas need improvement.

  • Resistance to Change: In sections like ‘Change Management’ or ‘Innovation Support,’ Alex might resist recent changes or new initiatives, preferring the familiarity of established methods.

  • Overlooking Long-Standing Issues: Alex might underrate or overlook issues in ‘Conflict Resolution’ or ‘Employee Recognition,’ having become accustomed to these as unchangeable parts of the workplace culture.

> Scenario 3: Veteran Employee (Confirmation Bias)

Context: Sam, a veteran employee with over 15 years at ETC Corp, fills out the survey.



Response Bias:

  • Confirmation of Beliefs: Sam may exhibit confirmation bias, interpreting questions and responding in ways that confirm their long-held beliefs about the company. For example, if Sam believes that the company has always been weak in ‘Employee Engagement’ or ‘Leadership Communication,’ they might rate these lower regardless of recent improvements.

  • Underestimating Recent Improvements: In areas like ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ or ‘Remote Work Experience,’ Sam might underrate the company‚Äôs recent progress, focusing on historical shortcomings.

  • Overvaluing Longevity: Sam might rate ‘Career Growth Opportunities’ highly, equating their long tenure with effective career progression, not necessarily considering the varied experiences of newer employees.

In each scenario, the tenure and experiences of the employees shape their perceptions and potentially introduce biases into their survey responses. Recognizing and understanding these biases can help organizations interpret survey results more effectively and address diverse employee needs.