Employee Net Promoter Score (eNPS) has gained popularity in recent years as a quick and easy way for companies to gauge employee engagement. While it offers a snapshot of how employees feel about their workplace, the metric has some serious flaws that prevent it from being an effective tool for driving real cultural improvements. In fact, eNPS often leads to surface-level fixes that address symptoms rather than root causes. Here’s why relying on eNPS might be doing more harm than good, and what leaders should do instead.
The Fundamental Flaws of eNPS
It Excludes Passives – A Critical Blind Spot One of the biggest flaws of eNPS is that it completely disregards "passives"—those who give a score between 7 and 8. These employees are neither detractors nor promoters, and yet they make up a significant portion of the workforce. Ignoring their feedback means that companies are missing out on a wealth of insights from people who are likely still engaged, but not fully committed or enthusiastic. Passives can give you vital clues about the areas of culture that need attention to prevent disengagement.
eNPS Is a Lagging Indicator eNPS measures the symptoms of deeper cultural problems, not the root causes. It’s a lagging indicator, meaning it only tells you how employees are feeling after they’ve become dissatisfied. Leaders might scramble to boost scores, offering perks or superficial benefits that fail to address underlying issues such as poor leadership, unclear communication, or lack of growth opportunities.
Oversimplification of Complex Issues Employees’ feelings about their workplace are complex and multi-faceted. Asking them a single question—“Would you recommend this workplace to a friend?”—oversimplifies their experiences. This reductionist approach limits deeper exploration into areas that need improvement. Moreover, employees may give high scores out of fear of retaliation or due to loyalty that doesn’t necessarily reflect the workplace’s actual health.
Lack of Actionable Insights While eNPS provides a number that is easy to track and compare, it lacks the depth needed for real cultural transformation. It doesn’t tell leaders why people are detractors or promoters. Instead, it prompts quick fixes that address surface-level complaints but fail to touch the deeper cultural issues. R
Recommendations for a Better Approach
Shift to Leading Indicators Instead of focusing on lagging indicators like eNPS, leaders should shift to leading indicators that provide more actionable insights. Metrics like team alignment, clarity of role, leadership trust, and opportunities for growth are much more telling about the health of an organization. These inputs allow companies to predict potential issues before they manifest as disengagement.
Include All Employees—Promoters, Detractors, and Passives Employee feedback should be inclusive of all groups, not just the most satisfied and least satisfied. Gathering insights from passives—those who may feel neutral or ambivalent—can give leadership a clearer picture of where things might be slipping. Passives can often point out areas that are underdeveloped, offering valuable input for improvement.
Dig Deeper with Qualitative Data In addition to quantitative metrics, it’s crucial to gather qualitative data that gives context to employee feelings. Surveys should ask why employees feel the way they do, exploring their perspectives on leadership, communication, work-life balance, and opportunities for personal development. This allows leaders to understand the root causes of dissatisfaction rather than just focusing on boosting a score.
Focus on Data-Driven Culture Assessments A data-driven approach that evaluates key aspects of culture—such as cohesion, clarity, and courage—offers a much clearer roadmap for improvement. By measuring whether employees are aligned with the organization’s mission, understand their roles, and feel empowered to take risks, leaders can address the real drivers of engagement and performance.
Conclusion: Rethink the Value of eNPS
eNPS is a shallow metric leading to shallow fixes, and while it can offer a snapshot of employee sentiment, it is not a comprehensive tool for evaluating and driving a high-performance culture. Its focus on symptoms rather than root causes and its exclusion of a significant portion of the workforce (passives) make it a flawed metric. Leaders should instead focus on data-driven, inclusive, and proactive measures that dive deeper into the heart of organizational culture. By identifying the root causes of dissatisfaction and investing in solutions that foster alignment, trust, and growth, companies will see far more meaningful and long-lasting improvements in employee engagement.