1. Understanding Organizational Power Structures

Power structures within organizations influence everything from resource allocation to decision-making processes. Whether explicitly stated or implicitly understood, power dynamics shape how employees perceive their workplace and their ability to speak candidly. In hierarchical workplaces, employees often adjust their responses to fit the expectations—or perceived expectations—of those in authority, while in flatter structures, power might be dispersed more evenly, but still present in subtle forms, such as peer influence or departmental rivalries.

At its core, power in an organizational setting often flows from leadership roles, access to information, and control over resources. Leadership establishes company policies, including those on diversity and inclusion, while middle management influences day-to-day practices that can either reinforce top-down mandates or challenge them. In many cases, employees with the least formal authority are also those who tend to be underrepresented in leadership—women, racial and ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, and members of the LGBTQ+ community. This disparity can result in a feeling that the systems in place are not designed for them or that speaking up about issues may lead to repercussions such as being passed over for promotions or labeled as “difficult.”

DEI surveys are designed to gather honest employee feedback on these very issues—but honest feedback can sometimes be in direct tension with the realities of power. Employees might worry that admitting to experiences of discrimination or bias will make them vulnerable, or that negative feedback about management practices will damage their relationships or career prospects. This interplay between power and feedback can compromise the validity of survey results if not carefully accounted for.

Within many organizations, employees are also conscious of the concept of “tone from the top.” Even if senior executives publicly support DEI initiatives, if that support is perceived as merely performative or superficial, employees might not trust the process. They may see the survey as a tick-box exercise rather than a genuine attempt to foster inclusion. The resulting data could then fail to paint a true picture of the organizational climate.

2. How DEI Surveys Interact with Power

When organizations administer DEI surveys, they are implicitly inviting employees to critique or affirm the company’s culture, processes, and leadership. In hierarchical organizations, this invitation might carry risk. Employees could worry about identifying themselves as discontented or critical, especially if they believe senior leadership might punish dissent—directly or indirectly. Even in organizations with a stated open-door policy, systemic issues can persist if employees feel the power imbalance is too great to overcome.

Moreover, power is not just exercised by leadership. Peer groups, team leaders, or influential employees can hold significant sway over colleagues. For instance, if a team leader is known to reward “team players” and punish those who are “too vocal,” employees might second-guess how honestly they can answer survey questions about their experiences. If they suspect that managers will see the results—particularly in small teams—it could lead to self-censorship.

DEI surveys, therefore, must not only gather data on inclusion but must address the power dynamics that drive how that data is provided. A well-crafted survey can signal organizational awareness and empathy: “We know power dynamics exist, and we are taking steps to ensure you feel safe sharing your honest experiences.” The level of trust employees place in the confidentiality, anonymity, and intent behind the survey process is central to the quality of responses.

This interplay between DEI surveys and power dynamics highlights an important point: Gathering data does not exist in isolation. Each response, or lack thereof, is shaped by the perceived presence (or absence) of a safe environment. If employees sense the survey might be used to find “troublemakers” rather than address systemic issues, they will adapt their responses, skewing the data.

3. The Impact of Question Framing on Power Dynamics

Question framing is critical in DEI surveys. Surveys that narrowly focus on numbers—such as how many employees of certain demographic groups feel “included”—risk oversimplifying the complexities of power imbalances. While quantitative data is essential, it should be complemented with qualitative insights that illuminate lived experiences.

For example, a question asking, “Have you ever experienced bias in the workplace?” might seem straightforward but can inadvertently place the burden on employees to label themselves as a target of bias. Some individuals may hesitate to respond affirmatively due to fear of repercussions or not wanting to label themselves as vulnerable.

A better approach might be to break down the concept of bias into specific behaviors or incidents: “In the past six months, have you witnessed or personally experienced any of the following behaviors in the workplace?” The question might list scenarios like “being interrupted or spoken over in meetings,” “receiving less support for professional development,” or “being the subject of insensitive jokes or comments.” By shifting the emphasis to observed behaviors, employees can share feedback without feeling they are personally accusing someone or labeling themselves as victims.

Moreover, open-ended questions—such as “Can you describe a workplace incident that made you feel excluded?”—can invite employees to give richer, more nuanced feedback. However, such questions need to come with strong assurances of confidentiality and anonymity, because employees may feel especially vulnerable sharing detailed accounts of negative experiences.

The question wording, structure, and answer choices can inadvertently perpetuate power disparities by ignoring intersectional realities (the overlapping systems of discrimination or disadvantage). Surveys that address only one dimension of identity at a time—like race or gender—might not capture the unique challenges of employees who exist at multiple intersections (e.g., women of color, LGBTQ+ employees of a certain religious affiliation, people with disabilities who also belong to underrepresented ethnic groups). When survey design accounts for these intersecting identities, it signals to employees that the organization acknowledges the multifaceted nature of discrimination and belonging.

4. The Risk of Reinforcing Existing Power Structures

Even the noblest intentions in designing DEI surveys can inadvertently reinforce existing power structures. For instance, if leadership alone decides the survey questions based on their own perceptions of the organization, they might focus on areas that are not actual pain points for most employees. This top-down approach can silence the voices of those who experience marginalization on a daily basis, perpetuating the idea that leadership holds the final say on what “matters.”

Additionally, if surveys require certain demographic data that doesn’t reflect employees’ actual lived experiences—like using broad categories such as “Black, Asian, or Minority Ethnic (BAME)”—it can feel tokenistic and gloss over distinct communities with vastly different experiences. In the UK, for example, grouping people from African, Caribbean, South Asian, and East Asian backgrounds into a single category can erase vital differences in experiences and challenges. Failure to disaggregate data can lead leadership to craft one-size-fits-all solutions that may not effectively address the varied realities of diverse groups.

Another risk arises if survey language frames certain demographic traits as deficiencies or “problems” to be fixed. Questions that imply, “Why aren’t more women in senior leadership roles?” can subtly reinforce the notion that women lack something, rather than highlighting systemic barriers. Alternatively, a question such as, “Which barriers might prevent women or other underrepresented groups from pursuing senior leadership roles here?” focuses on the structures—such as networking practices, mentorship availability, or biases in promotion criteria—rather than placing blame on the individuals.

5. The Architecture of Truth-Telling, Minimising Social Desirability Bias

Social desirability bias - our inherent tendency to present ourselves in alignment with perceived social norms - presents a particular challenge in DEI surveys. This effect becomes especially pronounced when power dynamics enter the equation. Senior leaders might overreport their commitment to inclusion initiatives, while team members might underreport experiences of marginalization out of fear of repercussions.

To mitigate these effects, consider the power of indirect questioning techniques. Rather than asking "Do you actively promote diversity in your team?", which invites socially desirable responses, we might inquire: "What percentage of your colleagues actively promote diversity in their teams?" This psychological distancing allows respondents to project their true observations onto others, often yielding more accurate insights into organizational dynamics.

6. The Language of Power

The lexical choices in survey questions carry implicit power messages. Consider these contrasting approaches:

Traditional: "Do you feel included in decision-making processes?"

Reformed: "How are decisions made in your department, and who typically influences these processes?"

The first question presupposes a passive role for the respondent, while the second invites analysis of systemic patterns and acknowledges the multifaceted nature of power distribution.

Thinking about Power Fluidity

Traditional survey design often treats power as a static attribute. However, modern organizations require more nuanced measurements that capture the fluid nature of influence and authority:

"In what situations do you find yourself having more or less influence over outcomes?" "How does your ability to effect change vary across different types of projects or initiatives?"

These questions help organizations understand the contextual nature of power and identify opportunities for more equitable distribution of influence.

Below are key methods to mitigate social desirability bias:

Ensure Anonymity is Robust and Transparent

If employees worry that their specific responses can be traced back to them, they may alter their answers to align with perceived social norms. Platforms like Divrsity protect anonymity by aggregating data in ways that make it impossible to link responses to individual employees—even in smaller teams or units. Educating employees on these safeguards is essential to building trust.

Avoid Judgment-Laden Language

Frame questions in a way that normalizes honest responses. For example, rather than “Do you agree that racism and sexism are wrong?” (which might prompt universally positive but less-than-truthful answers), use scenario-based questions such as: “In the last six months, have you observed or heard a colleague use language that could be perceived as racially or sexually insensitive?” This approach reduces the likelihood that respondents will feel compelled to provide “politically correct” answers.

Use Indirect or Projective Questions

Sometimes, an indirect approach yields more accurate data. For instance: “How common do you think it is for employees to hear insensitive jokes about race, gender, or sexual orientation in the workplace?” might produce more truthful insights than directly asking a respondent if they themselves have ever made or laughed at such jokes.

Provide Range and Specificity

Social desirability bias can be reduced by offering a spectrum of responses. Instead of yes/no options, use a Likert scale (e.g., “Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral, Somewhat Disagree, Strongly Disagree”). Employees are more likely to respond truthfully if the survey allows for nuance, rather than forcing them into an all-or-nothing stance.

Temporal and Contextual Framing

Power structures exist not just in space but in time. Questions that anchor responses to specific timeframes and contexts can reveal how power dynamics shift across different organizational scenarios:

"In the past month, during which types of meetings did you feel your perspectives were valued?" "How does decision-making authority change between formal and informal settings?"

These temporally and contextually bounded questions help surface the fluid nature of power relations while providing actionable data points for intervention.

Emphasize Ongoing Improvement, Not Punishment

Remind respondents that the objective of the survey is to learn and improve, not to punish or shame. Reinforce the notion that honest feedback—whether positive or negative—is the only way to bring about meaningful change. When employees feel there are no dire consequences for open feedback, they are more inclined to respond authentically.

7. Examples of Question Designs That Encourage Truthful Responses

Let’s illustrate a few specific examples of question design that can help mitigate power dynamics and social desirability bias:

Observation-Focused Multiple-Choice

Question: “In the past year, have you observed or heard any of the following in the workplace? (Select all that apply)

• Comments about someone’s accent or English language skills
• Repeated interruptions of a colleague in meetings
• Jokes targeting a specific demographic or identity
• Differential treatment in performance evaluations based on race, gender, or age
• None of the above

Why It Works: This question uses neutral language and focuses on observed behaviors, making it easier for employees to report what they’ve witnessed without feeling they must accuse specific individuals or admit their own biases.

Scaled Question on Management Response

Question: “How effectively does your immediate manager/supervisor address issues related to discrimination or harassment?”

Answer Options: “Extremely Effectively,” “Somewhat Effectively,” “Neutral,” “Somewhat Ineffectively,” “Extremely Ineffectively,” and “Not Applicable”

Why It Works: By asking about effectiveness rather than moral judgments, this question makes it simpler to highlight gaps without directly labeling managers as “good” or “bad.” It also includes a “Not Applicable” option for employees who have not observed any issues, reducing the pressure to provide a socially desirable answer.

Intersectionality-Oriented Demographic Questions

Question: “Which of the following identities do you currently hold? (Check all that apply)”

Answer Options: Include a comprehensive list covering race/ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability status, religion, caregiving responsibilities, and more.

Why It Works: By allowing multiple selections and not forcing employees into singular categories, this approach acknowledges intersectional identities, giving richer, more nuanced data. It also signals an organization’s recognition of diverse experiences.

Open-Ended Prompt with Assurances

Question: “Is there anything else you’d like to share about your experiences or suggestions for improving diversity, equity, and inclusion at our organization? Please remember your response is entirely anonymous.”

Why It Works: Providing a space for open-ended feedback enables employees to share nuanced experiences that might not be captured by predefined questions. The reminder of anonymity at this juncture reinforces trust.

Scenario-Based Self-Assessment

Question: “In a meeting, you notice that a colleague consistently interrupts a junior team member who is from a different ethnic background. How likely are you to intervene or bring this issue to your manager’s attention?”

Answer Options: A 5-point scale from “Highly likely” to “Highly unlikely.”

Why It Works: This question presents a realistic scenario and asks employees to respond in a context where social desirability might be muted by the specifics of the situation. It measures not just awareness but willingness to act, providing insight into the culture of allyship within the organization.

8. The Role of Anonymity and Confidentiality

A recurring theme in this discussion is the critical role of anonymity and confidentiality. Power structures thrive when those at the bottom of the hierarchy feel they cannot safely speak out. In DEI surveys, ensuring the highest level of anonymity and confidentiality is more than just a legal or ethical responsibility—it’s a strategic imperative for collecting data that accurately reflects the lived experiences of employees.