| Blah-blah-blah HR stuff, blah-blah-blah, leaders, goals, performance, roles. The true science approach should aware that massive surveys can measure everything but the thing you want. People don't "trust" that survey anonymous and trying to reflect what they expected to say in survey. Human can't seriously tell something to the stone, communication doesn't work this way. If there is a really stone of anonymous survey, human have to give him imaginary human trait, expectations and ability to evaluate him. "What are you want from me, dear stone?" So, confidentional procedure doesn't mean that people anser like it is confidentional. Interviewer presenation - that the sociological surveys is actually measure, and there is only the ghostly shape of personal realtion behind this. The second thing is the question interpretation:
"I don’t like to have to think about work while I am at home."
Can mean:
1. I don't like any serious thoughts at home.
2. I thinking all time about work ant don't like this.
3. I just don't like and not thinking.
4. I'm deep in self-estrangement and prefer not to thing about work at all. Event "think" can be perceived in many ways: specific persons, tasks, it domain at all. How massive survey is doesn't matter until we have raw data in hands. Some manipulation with R or whatever and there is a some groups and strict classification, some more and there is completely different classification, one question data can change everything or be just excluded to make picture "clear". The point is that any changes in methodology of survey researches usually demonstrate applied catastrophe theory when any shift can significally change the results. Don't trust any conclusions without detailed step-by-step description of methodology. In general, measure the pressure, scan brains, make tests aimed to somatic responces, use anal probes, but dont't ask the questions if you really want to understand something about people. |