Let me start with an apology: what I’m about to say may sound controversial. For leaders in Asia, the typical employee survey may not just be ineffective - it could be a waste of time and money.

And I say this as someone who has run countless surveys for organizations of all sizes across the region. Throughout my consulting career, I genuinely believed in them - up until I received this epiphany. Having been taught in management training, reinforced by professional literature, and encouraged by global engagement experts that surveys were the gold standard, I promoted them myself in the hope of benefitting my clients.

Don’t get me wrong - I still love surveys. They can be brilliant for diagnostics or for quickly consolidating opinions across a large group. But I’ve learned they only work in very specific interventions, with intentional design. The problem is when surveys become the default listening tool like the annual Employee Engagement surveys - these are often tied to leadership KPIs and become a part of the system to be gamed rather than a genuine attempt to listen.

The Uncomfortable Truth

Here’s what many HR and business leaders already know in their gut but rarely say out loud: employee surveys don’t tell the truth in Asia. Is it really just a lack of psychological safety, survey fatigue or something more?

I've been thinking a lot and teaching about multiculturalism lately. Culture is a very strong force, and it shapes how people respond in all situations. In many Asian contexts, harmony, hierarchy, and saving face matter more than candor. This creates predictable distortions:

• Acquiescence bias – Saying “yes” to avoid conflict.

• Politeness bias – Inflating scores to soften criticism.

• Midpoint bias – Sitting safely in the middle instead of choosing extremes.

• Hierarchy effect – Reluctance to criticize when the survey comes from “the top.”

The result? Data that looks clean on paper but tells leaders half the story at best. And this isn't something that geographical benchmarks can solve. So yes, while we can "correct" for overly critical surveys in Singapore vs Mexico, the fact remains that the distortions are not just about a phase-shift to the left or right of the scale, but that the responses aren't even reflecting actual employee opinions. They cannot be relied on.

The Cost of Believing the Numbers

When leaders act on flawed data, four problems follow:

1. Faulty data – High scores may reflect courtesy, not contentment.

2. Flawed decisions – Leaders act on shaky data, often doubling down on the wrong priorities or celebrating great results when there is actual discontent

3. Disengagement – Employees see surveys as hollow rituals, especially when nothing changes.

4. Broken trust – Surveys feel transactional in cultures where relationships matter most. Instead of building engagement, you erode relational capital.

This is also where many seasoned HR professionals find themselves conflicted. They look at survey dashboards and wonder why the numbers don’t match what they know from their daily interactions with teams. Sometimes the results surprise them; other times, they second-guess their instincts. The issue isn’t their judgment - it’s that the data often fails to capture the team’s true sentiment.

Over time, employees themselves start treating annual surveys as a box-ticking exercise. Many admit to “fudging” their responses just to stay out of trouble or to move past a process they see as routine and “not real.” Even when leaders genuinely want honest feedback, cultural norms of harmony and respect for authority prevent employees from telling the full truth.

Surveys require participants to be literal; in high-context societies, this is an unsophisticated and lazy attempt to understand.

Better Ways to Listen

Surveys aren’t useless. They just need to be used intentionally - and only after considering more effective, culturally aligned approaches:

• One-on-one check-ins framed as support, not evaluation.

• Observation of team dynamics, silences, and what’s left unsaid.

• Small-group conversations led by trusted local facilitators.

• Anonymous suggestion channels where people can speak without fear.

• After-hours or out-of-office engagements where candor is more likely to emerge.

These take more time but produce what surveys rarely deliver in Asia: authentic insight and stronger engagement. Leadership actually looks different in the Asian context.

The Bottom Line

In the West, surveys often work because candor is prized and systems dominate relationships. In Asia, context is different. Trust, harmony, and face-saving shape how people speak up. Don't take data at face value.

So before importing a “best practice,” ask if it fits. Taking time to observe, reading/listening between the lines, and talking to trusted people with their ears on the ground (yes, spies) may not give you a glossy dashboard - but it will get you closer to the truth.

What’s been your experience? Have surveys in Asia revealed reality—or just a polite version of it?