A couple of years ago one of our ex cadets got the cadet one when they left and they came back and asked what it was about and we told them just say why you left.
So no flying or gliding and upcoming GCSEs and moving to A Level were their reasons.
I don’t honestly think these things are worth the effort, like the surveys they only put out only to OCs to accessed by their bader accounts, when all staff should have an input, they are not interested in anything unless it’s saying how wonderful they are. I think the only survey that has been taken anywhere was the cadet one a couple of years ago. But then that was done by cadets who would have mostly been on the verge of leaving.
If anyone on here remembers doing the DYER and there was another one or two as well, will know just how much anyone listens. Now I don’t bother with them.
We get surveys at work but they are all done via survey monkey and completely anonymous, as they can be accessed through personal emails.
Riding high. Arguably best in the wing under the new OC. The old one has been promoted to a position where they can’t do any more damage, so that’s something.
The only way a survey is worth the effort, is if wing commanders actually read them, and act on them in some way.
We have people frustrated by local failures like that described by Baldrick, which arguably should be easier to resolve.
We then have people frustrated by high level decisions and sometime failures, which despite the best efforts of local leadership cannot be resolved, mitigated or changed.
An exit survey really needs to have two sides. One fairly generic about the Corps as an entity and the wider output and direction, the other about local issues, although this really needs to be more of an exit chat by a WSO to find out if there are local problems, but in a sensible, measured and appropriate manner, as often when someone fills in a form to this affect it often turns into mud slinging which is often just offensive.
I’ve never been a fan of tick box type surveys like this though, as they are too easy for the results to be manipulated / fudged / massaged so people see what they want to see from them.
Surveys need lots 1000+ responses to be of any real validity… When you analyse tick box surveys the tendency is to be a result around the centre, unless it is a point which a large proportion of people “like” or “dislike”. Comments will be ignored as you have to reads them and understand the context of the comments, so trying to pick your way through comments to have any meaningful analysis is a painstaking process.
The problem with exit surveys is they are one now, another in a few weeks, etc and given people very rarely leave something in a good way, comments will rarely be positve and there has to be a will to address and act with respect to negatives. It might have been different if all of those who didn’t sign the contract and all got their exit surveys at the same time. But then I don’t think HQAC would have had the courage to do that.
They do need to ask the right questions though. Questions and possible answers that actually give the option and potential to raise the negative truths of the situation - not just the positive and middling.
Of course, I don’t know what the actual contents are…
You know that question you get on SMS when a cadet is discharged, as to whether there is any reason they should not be contacted? Has anybody heard of a cadet receiving any follow-up communication or should we actually be doing away with that question?
My understanding is that it is just a legal disclaimer that could be ticked if such and such cadets parents tell the org to naff off and not contact them again. Or if there was a prejudicial investigation under way.
Happy to be told it’s some other lesser reason however!
@big_g Even then you need to have a lot of respondents, to have a decent level of statistical certainty, so it isn’t just inference with a lot caveats. The questions that HQAC ask are far too ambiguous especially the “do you think …” with 4/5 options that lead you to the answer they want. Probably done this way so they can think it’s all fine and they can just carry on and not have to bother changing.
If you ask a specific question of a closed group with a yes or no and it is completely anonymous, then you can get away with needing fewer, but then you need a large percentage of that group participating. I think this is why all the union votes we have at work are done by post, to ensure everyone gets the opportunity to be involved and there is no chance of coercion.
Comments take a lot of time analyse, you can do a keyword count, but you have to have those already and be prepared to look at the comment it comes from to get the context.