Tenant satisfaction surveys – All they are cracked up to be?

[Apologies – I forgot to press the publish button again]

I have been thinking about the Tenant Satisfaction Survey data published by the WG on 10th September, and reported by Inside Housing on 25th September.  The WG have said that “most tenants remain satisfied with their homes and neighbourhoods, which is encouraging and reflects the positive work being undertaken by social landlords across Wales”.  One organisation (I thank my internet search engine for this) commented on the survey that “Tenant satisfaction has become one of the most important indicators of organisational performance within social housing”.  These surveys also affect how the regulator might view a social landlord.

The results are undoubtedly interesting, but perhaps it is worth reflecting also on the idea of satisfaction surveys and why I am not going to report the outcomes here, just reflect on the idea of satisfaction.  These surveys pervade the so-called consumer experience – you can’t do anything these days, or talk to anyone these days (even a bot), without being asked about your satisfaction.  I don’t know about you but the only time when I might complete these surveys is when they really matter to an individual or service or something bad has happened which needs to be put right.  I don’t think I have ever said something bad about an individual.

We need to recognise that tenant satisfaction surveys have a social construction to them as well – nobody likes to be part of a failing organisation, for example; and, structural factors affect responses, so that more marginalised populations might be more satisfied with poorer quality housing (David Clapham and Keith Kintrea’s paper about housing allocation systems makes a similar point – the more desperate you are for housing, the more happy you are to accept poor quality accommodation so that ability to wait is a bargaining chip); tenants may be unwilling to express dissatisfaction when they are considering the resource constraints of their providers; “truth” of the numbers needs to be carefully considered (as the WG accept) – consider, also, for example, that the data combine “very” and “fairly” satisfied or dissatisfied, and, indeed, what “fairly” might mean.

There is a quite brilliant paper written by my mate Linda Mulcahy with a colleague, Jonathan Tritter, about the relationship between satisfaction and complaints, which these kinds of surveys always make me remember.  So, I have revisited it today.  Their context was healthcare.  If you will forgive a luvvy moment, it is a beautifully written piece of work (and free to access :)) and highly suggestive.  One of their key findings is

“[D]issatisfaction and satisfaction are not necessarily opposite ends of the same continuum but distinct phenomena. Thus, the non-expression of dissatisfaction cannot be equated with the expression of satisfaction.”

Further, as they put it, and we instinctively know in our daily lives, “Expressions of dissatisfaction are dynamic, fluid and responsive and are not always easy to record, classify or interpret”.  As researchers, we know that the way you ask questions, and whether you use open or closed questions, affects responses (do you remember that brilliant sketch from Yes, Minister about the construction of surveys about support for National Service).

I don’t want to burst anyone’s bubble.  As I always say, nobody goes into housing management to do a bad job.  There are indications in the survey answers of things possibly going well and less well.  On the latter side of the equation, there may be issues with ASB, listening to tenants, and tenant participation.  But I am also reminded of the kinds of surveys are students are asked to complete.  Rightly, these can lead to change of practice and better engagement; but the interesting thing is that, even after serious and significant changes have been effected, the same feedback is given.  I am not suggesting that HE or housing management are paragons of change and progression, but sometimes the numbers need to be deconstructed; and, just perhaps, we should go beyond the numbers and make a more qualitative assessment moving beyond simplistic binaries like satisfaction/dissatisfaction.