Wellbeing impact reporting: Quantitative vs qualitative

published on 17 April 2023

When deciding what we are trying to capture, it is worth considering who we are trying to appeal to. Often, when using outcome metrics to make a case for increased wellbeing provision, the people we need to speak to (CFOs and senior leaders) will respond better to quantitative data reporting rather than qualitative feedback.

Screenshot 2023-02-27 at 10.07.31-1kdt7

It was stated however that formal data collection such as on absenteeism, surveying, exit interviews or EAP usage etc needs to be supported by informal feedback, providing the opportunity for hearing employee voices on an issue and need basis. Organisations need to recognise that for this to happen effectively they need to ensure they are striving to create psychologically safe spaces in which employees feel they can give feedback in a supported and, if necessary, anonymous manner.

Different organisations will generally have a core set of job functions and roles, requiring a nuanced understanding of those particular roles and for the data to reflect change in relation to that core part of the business. Ultimately however, there is a need to demonstrate change in terms of how pre identified measures have been impacted, to understand why it happened, and what should be actioned as a result. 

Different industries or sectors also have varying requirements; as one respondent put it, public sector is more inclined to drill into data such as demographics and age, whereas the private sector will always lean towards productivity and job function.

Screenshot 2023-02-27 at 10.06.06-vsu9j

Read more