One of our values at CultureIQ is “be open to change and maintain flexibility.” We often hear from our clients that they love our software because it is so flexible and highly customizable. Along the same lines, one of my absolute favorite things about working at CultureIQ is the never ending curiosity of our organization. We have a continual thirst to always be learning, and making things better as a result.
It is with this spirit, and in alignment with our values, that we recently undertook an exploration of our core survey. We wanted to see what we could learn from the 400 plus companies on our platform and what nuggets of data we could mine to make things better.
We set out with two main questions:
- How closely do our follow up statements tie to our overall quality statements
- Should EMPLOYEE Net Promoter Score really be calculated the same was as a customer net promoter score
As a result, we have validated many of our follow up questions and also identified some areas where we can incorporate the latest research on culture and performance into our model. Most notably, perhaps, we also uncovered data that point to a small deviation in the way we calculate employee net promoter score. The rest of this articlewill focus on this change and the rationale behind it. For a copy of the updated core follow-up statements, take at look the templates in your survey builder.
Resident data expert Danny Pinghero pulled all of the core survey data we had received over the last 18 months. He then segmented out all responses based on each employees response to the net promoter score question, so we had 11 different buckets (for each possible answer 0-10).
For each of these buckets, we totaled the sentiment across every response to the core quality questions. This gave us 11 histograms that showed the frequency with which employees selected each of the 5 possible answers for each quality question (very weak, weak, average, strong, very strong). Below is an example histogram for all employees that responded with an eNPS of 10:
What we see here is strong alignment between the eNPS response and responses across the rest of the qualities. 93% of responses are strong or very strong indicating good alignment with the concept of being a “promoter.”
Here’s the graph for employees that responded with an eNPS of 8:
While there are a sizable number of “strong” responses across the qualities, “average” does outweigh the strong so we’ve opted to keep the bar high and leave 8 as a “neutral” score.
The data gets interesting when you look at an eNPS of 6 (typically the highest score counted as a “detractor”):
As you can see, the “Average” responses far outweigh the “Weak” and there are even a few “Strong” sprinkled in. This told us that employees who responded “6” on eNPS are really more likely to be in the “Neutral” category, and should be counted similarly to 7s and 8s.
So what does all this mean? Tactically, it means that all employee net promoter scores across our platform will go up. Scores of 6 will no longer be subtracted as part of the calculation.
Practically, this means that eNPS is now an even more accurate measurement of your overall culture and that “moving” people from 5 to 6 likely indicates a meaningful shift in your culture. As you continue to use CultureIQ to engage with your employees, you can pulse on eNPS and have a clearer understanding of the overall impact on your culture efforts.
Finally, this analysis also reinforces that creating a great culture is extremely hard work, just as hard in fact as creating customers who are “promoters”. We think about what our customers need from us everyday and we have to pay the same focus to our employees. And, just like with customers, we learn the most when we listen and then act on feedback.
As always, CultureIQ is here to help you listen and then act. To create your next listening opportunity and get set up with a pulse survey, chat us in the app or email us at email@example.com. To learn more about how our strategy team can help you act on your data, reach out to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Change in effect as of August 12, 2016.