Inclusion and belonging survey questions

What this survey is for

This set asks whether people are treated fairly, whether they can speak, and whether progression works the same way for everyone. It produces evidence for the decisions that follow: how promotion criteria are written, how work is allocated, how behaviour is handled.

Two cautions before you run it. First, the results are only usable if you can cut them by group, and that means collecting demographic data properly, with a clear purpose and real anonymity. Second, asking is a commitment. An inclusion survey that produces a report and no change does more harm than not asking, because it demonstrates to the people most affected that reporting is pointless.

The core question set

Sixteen questions in four themes.

Fairness

• Decisions about who gets opportunities here are made fairly.
• Promotion criteria are applied consistently.
• Pay decisions are explained clearly enough for me to understand them.
• Work is allocated fairly within my team.

Voice

• My views are listened to in team discussions.
• I can disagree with a decision without it counting against me.
• My suggestions are considered on their merit.
• I am comfortable being myself at work.

Respect

• I am treated with respect by colleagues.
• Inappropriate comments or behaviour are challenged here.
• I know how to report discrimination or harassment.
• I believe a report would be taken seriously.

Progression and development

• I have the same access to development as others in my role.
• My manager has discussed my career with me in the past year.
• I can see people like me in senior roles here.
• I expect to be able to progress here.

Open question

• What would make this a fairer place to work? Optional, free text.

Response scale and scoring

Use the five-point agreement scale. Report the agree and strongly agree percentage for the whole population first, then the gap between groups, because the gap is the finding. A fairness score of 70 per cent means little; a 25-point gap between two groups means a great deal.

Only publish a group breakdown where the group has enough respondents to protect identity, commonly ten or more, and report "insufficient responses to report" rather than quietly omitting a group. Where a group is too small to report but its free text raises consistent themes, act on the themes without publishing numbers. Keep the same wording year to year, since inclusion work moves slowly and the trend matters more than any single round.

Adjust it for your sector

The questions are stable; the useful cuts and the risks differ.

Professional services

Add "Client-facing opportunities are allocated fairly" and "Flexible working has not limited my progression", which is where fairness problems concentrate in professional services firms. Cut by grade, since gaps usually widen above a certain level.

Construction and property

Add "Facilities on site meet the needs of everyone working here" and "Site language and behaviour are acceptable to me". Report site and office separately, and expect small group sizes, so plan the thresholds in advance.

Technology

Add "Technical credibility is judged on work, not on confidence" and "Interview and promotion panels are balanced". Cut by function as well as by group, since engineering and non-engineering experiences diverge.

Banking

Add "Progression criteria for my grade are published and applied" and "Client entertainment and networking expectations do not exclude me". Keep the formal grievance route separate and signposted.

Healthcare

Add "I am treated with respect by patients and the public, and supported when I am not" and "Rota requests are handled consistently". Cut by profession and band, since experience varies sharply between clinical and non-clinical roles.

Energy

Add "Facilities and equipment, including protective equipment, fit everyone on my team" and "Rotation patterns are applied consistently". Expect very small groups offshore, so aggregate across sites before reporting.

Media and agencies

Add "Creative opportunities and credit are shared fairly" and "Who gets put in front of clients is decided on merit". Cut by account team and by level, and look closely at who is given pitch work.

Public sector

Add "Recruitment and promotion processes are applied consistently across grades" and "Reasonable adjustments I have requested were put in place". Use grade bands, and align the questions with existing equality duty reporting.

Education

Add "Opportunities to lead a subject or a phase are offered fairly" and "Part-time colleagues have the same access to development". Cut by phase and by contract type, and run it mid-term.

Universities

Add "Workload allocation is applied consistently across my department" and "Promotion criteria recognise teaching and citizenship, not only research". Separate academic, research and professional services staff, and treat fixed-term contract staff as a distinct group.

Hospitality

Add "Shift allocation and tips are handled fairly" and "Guests' behaviour towards me is dealt with by my manager". Keep it short, mobile and available in the main languages of your workforce.

Retail

Add "Hours are offered fairly between staff" and "I am supported when a customer is abusive". Report by store with thresholds enforced, and aggregate regionally where stores are small.

Manufacturing

Add "Protective equipment is available in sizes and fits that work for me" and "Shift and overtime allocation is fair". Provide translations, run it at handover and aggregate across shifts to protect small groups.

Anonymity, consent and small groups

Demographic questions must be optional, with a "prefer not to say" option on every one, and they need a stated purpose: to find and close gaps. Ask only what you will use. Collecting data on a characteristic you have no plan to analyse is an unnecessary intrusion, and some of it is special category data under UK GDPR, which needs an appropriate lawful basis and condition. The ICO's employment guidance is the reference point.

Set the reporting threshold before you launch, publish it, and never cross-tabulate two small characteristics to a group of three people, however interesting the result looks. Where the workforce is small, use an independent third party to aggregate. Make clear that the survey is not the route for an individual complaint, and signpost the grievance and harassment procedures in the introduction.

From results to action

Start with the largest gap on a question you control directly: allocation of work, who is offered development, how promotion criteria are written and applied. Those are process changes with owners and dates, and they are the ones people can see.

Give managers the respect and voice results for their own teams, with coaching rather than a scorecard, and connect the progression findings to actual decisions: criteria, panels, calibration and who is on the list for the next opportunity. Report back on what changed and what did not, including the things you decided against, with reasons. Then hold the questions still so next year's round can tell you whether it worked.

Frequently asked questions

Should demographic questions be compulsory?

No. Make every one optional with a "prefer not to say" option, explain why you are asking and what you will do with the answers, and expect lower completion on characteristics people have had used against them. Compulsory demographics reduce participation and trust, and both make the data less useful.

What do we do when a group is too small to report?

Say so explicitly, and do not publish a number. Aggregate across a region, a function or two survey rounds, or commission an independent analysis that reports themes without numbers. The free text and direct conversations will often tell you what the suppressed numbers would have.

Is belonging the same as inclusion?

They are related but distinct. Belonging is how someone feels; inclusion is whether the organisation's processes treat people fairly. This set asks mostly about the second, because that is what you can change by decision, and a belonging score with no process evidence beneath it leaves you nothing to act on.

About New Dynamics

New Dynamics is a Bristol-based performance management business. Fair progression depends on consistent criteria and visible evidence at review time, which is what our performance reviews and calibration are for. Book a demo to talk it through.