ID Case File #5 - The Discreet Discovery
August 18, 2025
The Dilemma
Paulo Ramos, the Regional HR Manager for The Alistair Group, came to us with a problem. His company, which runs a chain of upscale hotels, received several anonymous complaints from his region about a "toxic work environment and bullying." Corporate has now mandated that he take immediate, visible action.
“Look, I need to show corporate that we're addressing this. They're already scrutinizing our region's performance numbers, and I can't afford another black mark. The fastest and quietest way to do that is to add a new 'Respectful Workplace' module to our annual mandatory eLearning for all hotel staff. It's a concrete deliverable, and it shows we're taking the complaints seriously. Can you build that for us?”
You know that a generic eLearning module is a "check the box" solution that won't solve a real cultural problem. You make the case that you need to conduct a brief, two-week research sprint to understand the real problem first. Paulo reluctantly agrees, but with a critical new constraint:
"Okay, you can do some research, but I absolutely cannot approve a new, chain-wide survey asking about a 'toxic culture.' I can't have a formal report with that data getting back to corporate and making my entire region look bad before we've had a chance to fix the problem. Whatever you do, you need to be discreet."
You need to find the root cause of a sensitive cultural issue to determine if training is even the right solution. However, your best tool for gathering broad, anonymous data, a new survey, has just been taken off the table due to your client's political concerns.
The Decision
You need to propose a research plan that is both discreet enough to get the client's approval and robust enough to uncover the real problem. What do you do?
Select an option above or scroll down to view the debrief.
The Debrief
As you saw from the two outcomes, your choice of research methods has a massive impact on the kind of problems you can uncover. In this case, both paths led to a real, evidence-based finding, and both are valuable. The key takeaway here is that the questions you ask and the people you talk to will fundamentally shape your understanding of the problem.
By choosing to conduct Individual Interviews, you created a high-trust, confidential environment. This allowed you to get past the surface-level process issues and get to the deep, human story. You uncovered two critical but related issues: a systemic flaw in the company's promotion process and a resulting leadership skill gap in the new managers.
On the other hand, by choosing to conduct Focus Groups & Observation, you focused on the observable, systemic issues. With the manager in the room, it was less likely you'd hear the personal stories, but you were perfectly positioned to diagnose the flawed business process causing the daily friction between the front desk and housekeeping.
Triangulation
In a real-world, unconstrained project, we would have done both analyses. These problems are likely interconnected: the new, unprepared managers are probably the ones who are failing to manage the broken room-readiness process effectively.
An instructional designer's job isn't just to find a problem; it's to get the full picture. This is where we move beyond a simple needs analysis and into a more sophisticated way of thinking. The most important principle in a complex discovery like this is Triangulation. The goal of research is to use multiple data sources to validate and build a complete picture of a problem.
So, how did we arrive at those two different paths? By choosing from a toolkit of End-User Research Methods. Each method is a different lens that can show you a different part of the problem. Let's break down the methods that were on the table in this scenario.
Document Analysis
This is often the most discreet and data-rich starting point for any discovery. Document Analysis is the systematic review of existing organizational documents to find clues about a performance problem. This can be both quantitative and qualitative.
In this case, this is the method used in the preliminary investigation. By conducting a quantitative analysis of HR records (turnover metrics) and guest complaint logs, we were able to identify the "hotspot" hotels. We then conducted a qualitative analysis by reviewing the text of the anonymous complaints and exit interview comments to form the initial hypothesis. This is a powerful, evidence-based way to frame a problem before engaging in deeper, more time-consuming research methods like interviews or focus groups.
Surveys
Next, let’s review the tool we couldn’t use. A survey is a powerful tool for gathering a mix of quantitative (e.g., multiple choice, rating scales) and qualitative (e.g., open-ended questions) data from a large pool of end-users. Its primary strengths are its reach and its ability to provide statistical significance.
An anonymous survey would have been the fastest way to determine the scale of the 'toxic culture' problem across the entire region. However, the client's political constraints made this impossible. This is a critical real-world lesson: the theoretically "best" research method is useless if your client won't approve it. Our ability to be flexible and creative in our approach is a key part of our value as consultants.
Interviews
Individual interviews are in-depth, one-on-one conversations designed to gather rich, detailed insights. They are the best method for building trust and exploring complex or sensitive topics, as the confidential, one-on-one setting encourages honesty and vulnerability.
Conducting individual interviews was a strategic bet that the root cause was a human problem that could only be uncovered through deep, personal stories. Interviewing both the new managers and the front-line staff allowed you to build empathy and uncover the complex, intertwined issues of a flawed promotion process and a resulting leadership skill gap.
Focus Groups
Focus groups are facilitated discussions with a small group of users to explore shared experiences and observe group dynamics. They are less effective for deeply personal or sensitive topics, as people are often hesitant to be vulnerable in front of their peers, especially if a manager is present.
This path was a strategic bet that the root cause was a systemic process problem that would be revealed in how the employees talked about their shared work. As we saw, with the manager in the room, the employees naturally focused on the less personal, systemic issues, which led you to uncover the flawed communication process between the front desk and housekeeping.
Direct Observation
Direct observation involves watching users in their natural environment to understand their workflow and uncover hidden pain points that they might not be able to articulate. It's a powerful tool for seeing the difference between what people say they do and what they actually do.
The observation of the lobby during a busy check-in was not just a supplementary activity; it was the key that unlocked the value of the focus group. By witnessing the friction firsthand, you were able to ask a much more targeted and effective question ("I noticed there's a lot of back-and-forth... can you walk me through that process?"), which allowed you to guide the group to the root of the process problem.
The Bottom Line
The two problems uncovered are not separate; they are a cause-and-effect loop. A flawed promotion process is creating unprepared managers, and those managers are, in turn, creating a 'toxic culture' through their poor management of the broken room-readiness process.
If you use only one approach, you risk only solving half the problem. Your responsibility as a consultant is to be transparent about these limitations and advocate for a truly comprehensive solution. It's a bigger, more complex, and more costly approach, but a blended solution that addresses both the systemic flaw and the skill gap is the only one that will actually solve the client's problem for good.
Community Insights
This section summarizes real-world feedback from instructional design practitioners polled on LinkedIn, Reddit, and other professional forums such as ONILP and Useful Stuff. We've highlighted their poll results, insightful comments, and alternative strategies to showcase diverse approaches to the dilemma.
Summary of Results
A strong 70% majority voted to solve the performance problem first, with comments highlighting the high-stakes medical context where errors can have critical consequences.
The prevailing logic was that while culture is the root cause, it's a systemic issue outside a contract ID's immediate scope; the pragmatic solution is to apply a "bandaid" performance fix now while advocating for a larger cultural initiative later.
Featured Comments
The most senior manager has an issue with toxic work environments and bullying. 1 on 1 interviews should be conducted but not with the premise of creating a new learning module. The learning should be "Which of my managers is causing or allowing this to happen?" and should be conducted by the regional HR manager. Or the Regional/General manager.
In the process they should be collecting details about what makes it toxic. Just bullying? Sexual situations? "My manager gets mad if I ask if we can buy..." Always out of supplies but told to do the job anyway? Is it a particular manager/employee causing issues? Always short staffed raising stress? Perhaps, in the process they could learn what has caused the poor performance numbers.
- Richard Bigue
Technical Training Specialist
LinkedIn Profile
Another trove of useful data that we had at a previous client site I worked for was information gathered during exit interviews. My federal government client was very intentional about their exit interviews and we strengthened subsequent professional development topics based on what they learned.
- Amy Chase Martin, Ed.D.
L&D Contractor
I think I'd lean towards individual interviews, although I think I'd get better data in a focus group. In many cases, once you open the floodgates and get one person to talk, the rest will chime in, so you can get good data. However, in a focus group you'd run the risk of some manager saying to another manager level on the same level "your employee was ratting you out" - so you'd have to be really careful not having supervisory and line level staff in the same group. But, some low level employee eager to score brownie points might do the same thing.
If bullying is a problem, you might not get anyone to talk. With a one on one interview you won't have to worry as much about people holding back, however they still might be suspicious that you're some corporate plant sent to spy on them. I think that if you're not in the management chain, then employees might open up more, since you'll be a third party who legitimately is trying to solve a problem, rather than tattletale. It would really depend on your personality and demeanor as an interviewer.
To be a good ID I think you really need strong interpersonal skills. I think this is something good, former teachers have. You have to manage so many personalities and diffuse so much conflict as a teacher, it transfers well to other domains. The chance of someone tattling in a focus group makes it not worth the damage it could cause to employees even if the data might be better. Single interviews can protect anonymity, but will depend on your skill at putting your subject at ease, and asking the right questions.
- David Hendricks
My first thought was focus group due to the time concern (“we need to fix this NOW and make it go away”) but I do think that the focus group does have some inherent risk of interpersonal friction derailing the meeting and potentially intensifying existing conflicts.
I wonder if it would be possible to mix some of the described methods: do the observation, then set up individual interviews based on the observation to learn about different sides of any issues noticed during the observation. The individual setting might make employees feel safer about sharing and give a broader range of anecdotal data, and having the interview subjects be more targeted vs a random sampling sounds like it might get to the heart of the issue(s) more easily.
- Erica Kauffman
Instructional Designer
I also think you could take a generic course/module/micro-learning and present it in your one-on-one conversations. Tell the individual you need help building it out. You need to customize it so it will be perceived as more valuable / relevant. You can even ask them to help with customizing verbiage.
Each conversation might yield a different suggestion OR if there’s one overall problem affecting the company, more than one person will bring up the same issue. If people feel like they are helping you, they might open up more. And keeping their confidences you could build a program that addresses whatever it is that’s going on.
- LMM
Instructional Designer
A truly toxic environment just cranks up the level of difficulty in obtaining open and honest commentary. I see this as a massive culture change issue and agree that it is not a training problem. I think the approach could be driven with two concurrent efforts: one, from the top-down, with establishing behavioural standards and an awareness campaign around it, and absolutely ruthless enforcement and actions taken on those who are not living up to the standards. That awareness campaign is also accompanied by an exec-level communication to all staff, saying, “we hear you, and we are taking action”.
Then, two; establish an anonymous mechanism for safe incident reporting for those who feel that they may have been the recipient of toxic behaviours (to be investigated, of course). There’s a deeper dive to be had, but this could be a starting point, and you could leverage the data gathered from part 2 to hold it against the standards in part 1 (KPIs) so that you have a baseline against which to measure over time to see if things are changing.
- Mark Sheppard
Seasoned L&D Innovator
LinkedIn Profile
Do neither at the moment. Perhaps, deliver the political face-saving required. You are raising expectations with not much control or influence at your end (you're an outsider). Under-delivering would cause you a massive hit. Remember, the manager is valuing face-saving here, not an actual RCA or change program.
Your diagnosis of the problem won't solve it (for the manager's pressing need of showing his region, and himself, in "good-light"). You can however, convert your research to subsequent project that helps them dig deeper to identify the scope of work needed to bring some cultural cure and shifts. I've never seen a cultural problem get remotely resolved by a short-term contractual provider. It's always long-term and mostly internally driven.
- Super_Aside5999
