Building trust with cross-functional partners: A 100 percent survey response rate success story

Picture this: you craft the perfect survey for your product managers (PMs) to determine their needs and their view of your team’s research, hit send, and then…crickets. Or maybe you get a few responses, but never enough to make your data actionable. If this sounds familiar, you're not alone. Stakeholder survey participation remains one of the most persistent challenges for research operations professionals.

But what if I told you that achieving a 100 percent response rate from cross-functional research partners isn't just possible, it's repeatable?

I tackled this challenge during my tenure as the User Experience Research Operations Manager at a global storytelling consumer tech platform with 94 million users. As the first operations hire in the experience design team, my mandate was clear: solidify partnerships with product managers to reinforce the value of design and research.

The insight that transformed my approach was deceptively simple: high response rates don't start with a well-crafted survey; they begin by systematically building trust — long before any survey is sent.

The stakes are high

When I joined as the first research operations hire, our experience design team (comprised of designers and researchers) was already producing valuable insights, but we faced a common challenge: product managers — our main stakeholders — didn't always see the full value of investing time in research initiatives.

The relationship between research and product teams can be complex. Product managers face relentless pressure to deliver features or fixes, often with tight deadlines that make participation in research activities feel like a luxury they can't afford. Yet without their input and engagement, research teams struggle to align their efforts with product priorities, creating a cycle where research becomes increasingly disconnected from business needs.

This disconnect carries real costs: missed opportunities for user-centered design improvements, duplicated efforts across teams, and decisions made without crucial user insights. Add competitor products to the mix, that could draw customers away and increase churn, and these inefficiencies can directly impact user satisfaction and consequently business outcomes.

As someone with a background in academic research, who moved to business development and partnerships, then into research operations, I leverage my history in stakeholder management to bridge the gaps between insights and cross-functional teams.

The key challenge in illustrating the value of research lies not just in the act of fostering engagement between product managers and our insights and recommendations, but in how consistently that engagement happens. Identifying consistency as the main obstacle led me to develop a five-step framework that turned our product managers from occasional survey participants into enthusiastic research partners.

These are the five key steps:

1. Structure a listening tour
2. Respect their time
3. Deliver concise insights
4. Provide contextual, transparent communication
5. Meet your commitments

Let's explore each step that made this transformation possible.

The five-step framework

The five-step framework isn't about tricks or shortcuts; it's about creating a foundation of mutual respect and professional value that makes participation easy. Each step focuses on building and maintaining that foundation from thoughtful introductions to meeting commitments. Let’s take a closer look.

Step 1: Structure a listening tour

Any lasting relationship begins with a thoughtful introduction. In my case, this means conducting a structured listening tour with every product manager.

What sets these introductions apart isn’t simply that they happen, it’s how they happen. I approach each meeting with genuine curiosity about the product manager's world. Instead of showing up with a presentation about research capabilities (the classic "let me tell you about me" approach), I build these conversations from the heart of any solid user-centered design approach — empathy — by asking questions like:

• What brought you to this organization?
• What keeps you here?
• What keeps you up at night?
• Who are your closest allies?
• Which departments or people do you wish you were closer to?
• What bottlenecks (people, departments, other) do you experience in your role?

These questions serve multiple purposes. They show that you value the stakeholder's perspective, they provide crucial context for tailoring future research offerings, and they begin establishing the rapport that will later translate into survey participation.

The foundation being built here isn't just in having these meetings. It's structuring them to demonstrate value to the stakeholder, yes, but the biggest impact comes later by requiring minimal additional effort from them. Over time, they come to realize that engaging with you is doing the work. By capturing and synthesizing their responses, you begin building a reputation as someone who transforms input into value.

Step 2: Respect their time

Nothing signals respect like honoring someone's most precious resource: time. In an environment where calendar invites stack up like flights on a busy runway, how you manage meeting time becomes a powerful indicator of how you'll treat stakeholders in all interactions.

My approach centers on three principles:

• Brevity: Meetings are scheduled for 30 minutes but designed to finish in 15–20 minutes, when possible. This creates the rare and delightful experience of getting an unexpected few minutes to do something else; it’s a tiny gift that builds goodwill.
• Clarity: Agendas are sent beforehand, even if only containing a single item, allowing stakeholders to prepare and ensuring our limited time together is used effectively. These agendas are concise and outcome or measurement-focused, signaling that I value preparation and clarity.
• Flexibility: I offer multiple participation options. If a product manager can’t attend a meeting, they can share thoughts with a quick Slack huddle, voice note, or watch a 1-to-3-minute Loom video tour of current work. This flexibility demonstrates that I value their input more than simply their physical presence, dictated solely by my own terms.

One senior PM told me, "You're one of the few people who consistently ends meetings early when objectives are met. It makes me prioritize your meetings because I know you won't waste my time."

The principle here extends beyond running efficient meetings. It's about creating a pattern of interactions that consistently signals respect for constraints — a pattern that makes participating in the surveys you’ll later send feel like a natural extension of an already efficient relationship.

Step 3: Deliver concise insights

Insights delivery is the main currency between research and cross-functional teams. At the outset, it’s the delivery of insights to come from investigations, and then later, at the meta-level, it’s the insights generated by measuring overall effectiveness, labeled as Research Ops. How you deliver internal satisfaction surveys — the kind that are sent out regularly to get feedback — directly impacts how stakeholders perceive the value of engaging with research processes, and with what the research reveals.

The traditional approach often involves comprehensive reports — the kind that come after generative or evaluative studies, separate from internal Research Ops tracking — that stakeholders rarely read. I replace this with a different model: no reports (a shocker, right?).

Instead, I offer three options for consuming insights:

• One-page summaries with clear, actionable findings — something I refer to as a TL;DR map (“too long; didn’t read”).
• 3-minute (max) video tours of key results and insights.
• Slack messages with bullet points and one visualization, posted in directed channels but also sent as DMs to those who need to absorb the results for de-risking decisions.

Each insight delivery is also tailored to address specific stakeholder problems. Rather than generic research findings, I explicitly connect each insight to the pain points they shared during our listening tour, removing what I call "the muck," or irrelevant details, that often obscure valuable findings.

For example, when a PM mentioned difficulty understanding user behaviors around a particular feature, I delivered findings specifically framed around that challenge, starting with: "You mentioned struggling with understanding why users abandon the feature after initial use. Here's what we found."

Sure, it’s extra work for me, but isn’t the failure of research partners’ utilization of recommendations a larger producer of work? Yes. And across multiple people and departments: research, design, product, engineering, product marketing…I could go on. Because over time, failure for Research Ops to directly connect insights to product recommendations leads to additional and perhaps unnecessary studies. I prefer to limit all extra efforts where possible, cross-functionally. A happy coincidence here is that your team’s metrics measurement is solid at illustrating results quickly and efficiently.

This approach transforms research from an academic exercise into a practical problem-solving tool. The overarching effect also creates a clear value proposition for your stakeholders’ participation in future research activities — setting the stage for surveys — because they see direct benefits from each interaction.

With solid groundwork laid, the follow-up process matters just as much as the initial delivery. So I implement a consistent check-in one week after delivering insights, to capture feedback and answer questions, further reinforcing that engaging with Research Ops’ internal satisfaction tracking is a two-way street.

Step 4: Provide contextual, transparent communication

Trust flourishes in environments of transparency, particularly regarding processes and timelines. In research operations, being explicit about how work gets done is just as important as the work itself.

For instance, when onboarding new product managers to our Voice of Customer program, I provide not only the schedule of upcoming sessions, but detailed information on:

• How sessions are booked and with what criteria.
• How sessions will run (with an attached how-to manual).
• Background details on the participants and why they were selected.

This level of transparency accomplishes several things in gaining additional buy-in. It demystifies research processes that might otherwise feel opaque to stakeholders. It also provides predictability that helps PMs integrate research touchpoints into their planning. And most importantly, it demonstrates professional rigor that builds confidence in research outputs.

When mapping out research activities or survey plans, I create visual timelines that show exactly when stakeholders will be asked for input, and when they can expect to see outcomes. Then, critically, I stick to these timelines and update people as necessary, should they need shifting.

One PM commented during a retrospective: "The timeline you provided let me know exactly when I needed to engage and when I could expect results, making it easier to fit participation into my workflow." This planning and predictability reduces the friction that often prevents or limits survey participation.

The principle here isn't just about being organized, it's about making your organization visible in ways that build confidence and make participation easier to plan for. When stakeholders understand exactly what will happen with their input, and when certain things are to occur, they're far more likely to take part.

Step 5: Meet your commitments

The foundation of trust isn't built on promises — it's built on promises kept. In the world of research operations, your ability to consistently meet commitments becomes your most valuable asset in securing future participation.

I approach commitment management with strict precision by:

• Documenting every promise made;
• holding deadlines sacred;
• communicating immediately should a risk arise in meeting a commitment.

To use a metaphor, failing to do what you say is like building a sandcastle at the water’s edge. Relationships built without follow-through melt away like sandcastles in the tide. Consistent follow-through creates relationships that stand firm. Watch where you build your sandcastles. Don't be a sandcastle washed away in the tide!

This discipline extends to how I communicate about commitments. Rather than vague promises like "I'll get back to you soon," I used specific language: "I'll send those findings on Thursday by the end of the day." This specificity creates clear accountability and makes it obvious when a commitment hasn’t been met.

When unavoidable circumstances threaten a deadline, I communicate proactively rather than reactively, offering a revised timeline and rationale before the stakeholder has to ask.

The compounding effect of this reliability becomes evident over time. As one Director of Product noted: "When you say something will happen, I know it will happen. That makes it much easier to justify the time investment in our research." Boom! The word “our” was in there, illustrating even more so the value this person placed in our research partnership.

By the time I’m ready to survey the PMs about their experiences working with our researchers, our mutual trust evaporates any obstacles.

The survey approach

With a foundation of trust established, the Research Ops internal tracking became remarkably straightforward. Rather than focusing on complex survey design, I emphasize three principles:

• Focus on measurement: As an operations professional, I'm drawn to metrics that demonstrate impact. Each survey is designed to produce actionable data points rather than general feedback.
• Keep it minimal: Every survey follows the "three questions maximum" rule — if anyone knows about the impact of survey fatigue on completion rates, it’s Research Ops people.
• Structure for action: Questions follow a consistent format that combines quantitative elements (select all that apply) with qualitative components (one, and only one, open-text box) to provide both measurable trends and contextual understanding.

For example, the most successful survey I sent recently asked product managers just these three questions:

1. What's working well in your partnerships with UX researchers? (Select all that apply)
2. What could be improved in your partnerships with UX researchers? (Open text)
3. What would you like to know more about? (Select all that apply)

The results were illuminating. We discovered that 78 percent of PMs valued "getting insights I need" and "making more informed product decisions," while only 33 percent felt that "time to insights has improved." This clear measurement of value perception helped us prioritize operational improvements in our research delivery timelines.

The open-text responses revealed specific areas where PMs wanted more support: "knowing what questions to ask" and "appraising risk" emerged as common themes that directly informed my subsequent coaching sessions.

Crucially, when I send this type of survey I always report findings back to participants, showing how their input translates into action. This closed feedback loop further reinforces the value of participating and builds anticipation for future surveys.

The principle here extends beyond survey design. It's about creating a perception that taking part in your surveys is low-effort, high-impact, and directly benefits the respondent's work. When surveys are positioned as an extension of an already valuable relationship, participation becomes the default rather than the exception.

Results today, impact tomorrow

The culmination of this approach is what I proudly call an "achievement unlocked" moment: 100 percent participation in surveys from our product managers, over and over and over again. The story behind this statistic is telling; I initially thought we had achieved only 92 percent participation, until a PM who had been on vacation reached out asking, "Can I still respond to the survey? I don't want to miss out."

This FOMO (fear of missing out) effect isn’t accidental. It’s the result of creating a survey process that stakeholders perceive as an integral piece to their own work, rather than simply a favor to the research team.

The impact extends well beyond survey statistics. This careful approach establishes mutual respect between research and product teams, establishing a virtuous cycle where increased participation leads to more relevant insights, which further reinforces the value of participation, but also the research process itself. Trusting relationships unlocked!

Increased engagement translates into four tangible business outcomes:

1. Improved product decision quality: With consistent PM input into research processes, insights become more aligned with product priorities, directly informing iteration and feature decisions.
2. Faster time-to-insight: As trust increases, the feedback cycles between research and product teams accelerates, reducing the overall time required to validate concepts.
3. More effective resource allocation: With better visibility into PM priorities, our research team can focus efforts on high-impact areas, rather than interesting but ultimately less consequential questions.
4. Professional development for PMs: Many product managers report that the relationship with research has improved their own user-centered thinking, making them more effective beyond individual research projects.

Perhaps the most valuable impact is in the cultural shift, from research being perceived as a service function that Product "uses," to a true partnership with shared ownership in understanding the user experience. This shift has an even bigger potential benefit of fostering cross-functional resilience that survives even through re-orgs and staffing transitions, because solid foundations of trust are intentionally established early on. An organizational behavior victory for the ages and a true “achievement unlocked!”

‍

Edited by Kate Towsey and Katel LeDu. 

👉 The ResearchOps Review is the publication arm of the Cha Cha Club – a members' club for ResearchOps professionals. Subscribe for smart thinking and sharp writing, all laser-focused on ResearchOps.