Huddle Metric Library

Huddle Metric Library

About the Metric library

The Teamgage metric library provides a curated set of validated Huddle metrics, grounded in best-practice survey science and proven research on team effectiveness, psychosocial safety, and risk management, and refined through Teamgage’s data and experience to support frequent, action-oriented pulse measurement.
InfoFor more information about the design principles and research foundations applied, you can learn more here.
Huddle metrics are not designed to be static. Teams, organisations and conditions change, and the questions asked should change with them.
For this reason, Teamgage recommends a core + rotational approach:
  1. Select 3–5 core metrics that remain always on and are always relevant.
  2. Rotate additional metrics alongside the core metrics (maintaining 7 total metrics per submission cycle) in response to specific organisational context, risk, or team priorities.
Why we recommend this approach:
  1. Maintains engagement by keeping the process fresh and relevant
  2. Supports targeted, effective action
  3. Improves data quality by reducing fatigue and repetition
  4. Supports clearer, more targeted action at team and leader level

How the metric library is structed:

To help with your selection, metrics are grouped into four signal areas to help you understand what kind of insight each metric provides.
Strong Huddle pulses draw a small number of metrics across different signal areas to maintain balance and actionability.

1. Team Health & Performance

These metrics capture the foundational conditions that enable effective, safe, and sustainable work in teams.

Team Priorities
Question - How clear are your team’s current priorities?
Anchor Points - Clear | Mostly | Somewhat | Not really | Not clear 
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. Drops following change or new initiatives
    2. Conflicting priorities raised in comments
    3. Good intent but visible rework or thrashing
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well
    2. Reconfirm the top three priorities for this period
    3. Make trade-offs explicit (“what we are not doing”)
    4. Reinforce priorities consistently, not just once
  3. Avoid
    1. Assuming clarity without checking
    2. Adding “just one more thing”
Info
Why we recommend this metric:
Clear priorities reduce uncertainty, misalignment and wasted effort. When priorities are unclear, stress rises before performance drops. Research links goal clarity to higher productivity, faster decision-making and reduced role conflict.

When to use:
Suitable as an “always-on” core metric in conditions where priorities can shift quickly. Use selectively as a rotational metric where priorities are usually stable, but you want a pressure test after change, new initiatives, or a strategy reset.
Role Clarity
Question - How clear are current expectations in your role?
Anchor Points - Clear | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very | Not clear 
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. Gradual decline during growth or restructure
    2. Confusion around ownership or hand-offs
    3. Tension between roles
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well
    2. Review and update role expectations as work evolves
    3. Reset expectations explicitly after change
  3. Avoid
    1. Assuming formal role descriptions reflect current work
    2. Leaving expectations implicit
    3. Letting “temporary” work become permanent without reset
Info
Why we recommend this metric:
Role ambiguity is a well-established psychosocial hazard. Unclear expectations increase conflict, workload strain and accountability gaps.

When to use:
Suitable as an “always on” core metric in conditions where work is interdependent or evolving and clear ownership underpins accountability.
Use selectively as a rotational metric in conditions where roles are formally defined and stable, but you want a pressure test during restructure, growth, or operating model change. 

Workload
Question - How manageable does your overall workload feel?
Anchor Points - Manageable | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very | Not manageable
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. Sudden drops in score
    2. Sustained low or “barely manageable” scores
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well
    2. Remove or pause a low-value task
    3. Reset expectations publicly
    4. Escalate resourcing concerns early
  3. Avoid
    1. Normalising overload
    2. Rewarding pressure with more work
Info
Why we recommend this metric:
Sustained workload pressure is a leading driver of burnout, errors and turnover. This metric helps leaders spot unsustainable demand early, before it shows up as burnout, errors, or attrition.

When to use:
Suitable as an “always-on” core metric because workload demand often fluctuates frequently and capacity constraints are a known psychosocial risk where monitoring is a priority. Rarely used selectively as a rotational metric because workload is almost always fast-moving and requires consistent monitoring.
Supported
Question - How supported do you feel in managing your job demands?
Anchor Points - Supported | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very | Not supported
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. Support declining while workload remains steady
    2. Lower scores among newer or remote team members
    3. Silence rather than requests for help
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well
    2. Increase check-ins during peak pressure
    3. Encourage peer support as well as manager support
    4. Make asking for help safe and visible
  3. Avoid
    1. Assuming strong performers don’t need support
    2. Treating support as purely personal
    3. Waiting for people to struggle before acting
Info
Why we recommend this metric:
Support buffers the impact of workload and change. Low support amplifies stress and risk even when demands are unchanged. 

When to use:
Suitable as an “always on” core metric because adequate support buffers job demands and is one of the most actionable levers leaders can adjust week-to-week. Rarely used as a rotational metric because support is a core buffer against risk and requires consistent monitoring.
Teamwork
Question - How effectively does your team work together to achieve shared outcomes?
Anchor Points - Effective | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very | Not effective 
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. Drops after team changes or workload spikes
    2. Rework or handover issues
    3. “Busy but disconnected” signals
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well
    2. Review handovers and dependencies
    3. Clarify shared goals and success measures
    4. Address friction early
  3. Avoid
    1. Over-indexing on individual performance
    2. Ignoring coordination issues
    3. Assuming conflict equals poor teamwork
Info
Why we recommend this metric:
Teamwork captures coordination and collaboration that underpin execution. Poor teamwork drives rework, frustration and hidden workload. 

When to use:
Suitable as an “always-on” core metric in environments with interdependent work, shared outcomes, or frequent handovers. Use selectively as a rotational metric in matrix or project structures where results reflect structural design more than leader action (rotation preserves signal quality).
Psychological Safety
Question - How safe does it feel to raise concerns or suggest ideas?
Anchor Points - Safe | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very | Not safe 
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. Sudden drops after conflict or leadership change
    2. Flat scores with limited qualitative input
    3. One or two voices dominating discussion
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well
    2. Invite dissent explicitly (“What am I missing?”)
    3. Thank people for raising issues 
    4. Model openness and fallibility 
  3. Avoid
    1. Defensiveness
    2. Explaining away feedback
    3. Only rewarding “positive” input
Info
Why we recommend this metric:
Psychological safety enables learning, early risk identification and continuous improvement. Low safety is a precursor to silence, unresolved conflict and psychosocial harm. 

When to use:
Suitable as an “always-on” core metric in conditions where speaking up is essential (risk, quality, client work). Use selectively as a rotational metric when safety is generally high, but you want a pressure test after conflict, leadership change, or a drop in qualitative feedback.
Healthy Conflict
Question - How effectively does your team handle different views or disagreements? 
Anchor Points - Effective | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very | Not effective
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. Avoidance of disagreement
    2. Decisions made outside meetings
    3. Passive agreement followed by resistance
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well
    2. Encourage respectful challenge
    3. Address tension directly
  3. Avoid
    1. Mistaking harmony for alignment
    2. Shutting down debate to move faster
    3. Letting conflict go underground
Info
Why we recommend this metric:
Healthy conflict enables better decisions, innovation and mutual trust. Avoided or poorly handled conflict leads to groupthink, resentment and disengagement. 

When to use:
Best used selectively as a rotational metric when debate is avoided, or conflict is heightened. Avoid continuous use - the signal dulls unless it’s a pressure test. 
Accountability
Question - How accountable is your team for following through on its commitments? 
Anchor Points - Accountable | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very | Not accountable
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. Gaps between commitments and delivery
    2. Frustration in comments about follow-through
    3. Over-commitment without consequences
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well
    2. Make commitments visible and specific
    3. Follow up consistently and calmly
    4. Address missed commitments early
  3. Avoid
    1. Public blame
    2. Letting commitments drift
    3. Confusing accountability with punishment 
Info
Why we recommend this metric:
Accountability reflects clarity, trust and ownership. Low accountability increases rework, frustration and hidden workload. High accountability supports reliable execution and reduces stress caused by uncertainty. 

When to use:
Suitable as an “always-on” core metric when reliable follow-through is critical to execution and trust, or where accountability has historically been inconsistent. Use selectively as a rotational metric in environments where accountability is usually strong, but you want a pressure test in response to slippage, change, or signals of unclear ownership.

2. Change, Adaptability and Execution

These metrics help explain how teams are experiencing change, making decisions and translating intent into execution. They are most valuable when used selectively and rotated in response to context, such as transformation, reprioritisation, delivery pressure, or operating model change.
Change Communication
Question - How effective is communication about changes that affect your work?
Anchor Points - Effective | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very | Not effective 
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. Drops during transformation or reprioritisation
    2. Confusion or rumours filling information gaps
    3. “We found out late” feedback
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well
    2. Communicate early, even when detail is limited
    3. Clarify what’s changing, why and when
    4. Close loops once decisions are made
  3. Avoid
    1. Overloading with information
    2. Assuming one message is enough
    3. Waiting for certainty before communicating
Info
Why we recommend this metric:
Poor change communication increases uncertainty, resistance and stress. Research shows breakdowns in communication often precede declines in performance and wellbeing. 

When to use:
Best used selectively as a rotational metric during transformation, reprioritisation, restructures, or major policy/process change when clarity and timeliness of comms determine strain and execution. Avoid steady-state use, the signal dulls unless it’s a pressure test. 
Sustainable Change
Question - How sustainable does the current pace of change feel? 
Anchor Points - Sustainable | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very| Not sustainable
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. Gradual declines
    2. Frustration or fatigue in comments
    3. Teams coping short-term but struggling long-term
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well
    2. Pause or sequence initiatives where possible
    3. Acknowledge change fatigue explicitly
    4. Reduce “hidden” or overlapping change
  3. Avoid
    1. Assuming resilience equals capacity
    2. Layering new change onto unresolved work
    3. Treating fatigue as a motivation issue
Info
Why we recommend this metric:
Even positive change creates demand. Unsustainable pace of change is a known driver of burnout and disengagement. 

When to use:
Best used selectively as a rotational metric during sustained or stacked change. Avoid steady state use, it works best as a focused check-in rather than a constant measure to preserves signal quality.
Innovation
Question - How open is your team to trying new ways of doing things?
Anchor Points - Open | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very | Not open
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. Declines under pressure or tight deadlines
    2. Risk avoidance or over-reliance on past approaches
    3. New ideas raised but not explored
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well
    2. Create safe space to trial small changes
    3. Separate experimentation from performance evaluation
    4. Acknowledge learning, not just success
  3. Avoid
    1. Treating innovation as optional during pressure
    2. Punishing failed experiments
    3. Confusing speed with rigidity
Info
Why we recommend this metric:
Innovation is linked to learning, adaptability, and long-term performance. Low openness often signals fear, overload, or low psychological safety.

When to use:
Use selectively as a rotational metric as part of innovation programs, during process redesign, continuous improvement pushes, or when teams appear stuck in “safe” routines. Avoid steady state use, innovation capacity fluctuates with pressure and permission (rotation preserves signal quality).
Ways of Working
Question - How effective are your team's current ways of working in enabling you to get work done?
Anchor Points - Effective | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very | Not effective
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. Repeated friction related to processes, tools, or meetings
    2. Work slowed by approvals, handovers, or coordination overhead
    3. Comments referencing “the process” rather than the work itself
    4. Strong effort without corresponding output
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well
    2. Identify specific points of friction in workflows or handovers
    3. Simplify or remove low-value steps, meetings, or approvals
    4. Clarify decision rights and escalation paths
    5. Trial small changes before scaling them
  3. Avoid
    1. Treating ways of working as fixed
    2. Redesigning everything at once
    3. Confusing activity or busyness with effectiveness

Info
Why we recommend this metric:
Ways of working reflects how team processes, tools, and norms enable or hinder effective work. When ways of working are misaligned, friction and rework increase even when effort is high.

Info
When to use:
Suitable as an "always-on" core metric in environments where teams are empowered to adjust ways of working locally, act quickly and remove friction as it appears. Use selectively as a rotational metric when action execution slows or teams need focus and permission to improve how work gets done (avoids “nothing changes” sentiment).

Improvement
Question - How effectively does your team take action to improve when challenges arise?
Anchor Points - Effective | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very | Not effective
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. Repeated issues raised with no resolution
    2. Learned helplessness (“nothing changes”)
    3. Good ideas without visible follow-through
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well
    2. Act visibly on one issue at a time
    3. Involve the team in fixing friction
    4. Close the loop on actions taken
  3. Avoid
    1. Collecting feedback without action
    2. Over-engineering solutions
    3. Treating improvement as a one-off project
Info
Why we recommend this metric:
Improvement capability reflects job control and system health. Teams that can identify and resolve issues locally experience lower sustained strain and stronger performance over time. 

When to use:
Suitable as an always-on core metric in environments with an established improvement rhythm and clear ownership for acting on feedback. Use selectively as a rotational metric when issues require bigger change, longer horizons, or cross-team action (avoids “nothing changes” sentiment).
Customer Focus
Question - How focused is your team on delivering value to its customers?
Anchor Points - Focused | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very | Not focused
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. Teams becoming internally focused during change
    2. Delivery success measured by activity rather than value
    3. “Busy work” that does not clearly serve customers
    4. Friction between speed, quality, and customer outcomes
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well
    2. Reconnect work to customer needs and outcomes
    3. Clarify who the “customer” is for different types of work
    4. Review priorities through a customer value lens
    5. Remove tasks that add internal effort without external value
  3. Avoid
    1. Assuming customer focus is implicit
    2. Treating customer value as someone else’s responsibility
    3. Over-indexing on internal metrics at the expense of impact
Info
Why we recommend this metric:
Customer focus is a critical execution signal. During change or delivery pressure, teams often drift inward, optimising for activity, process, or speed rather than value.  

When to use:
Suitable as an “always-on” core metric in environments with sustained focus on delivering customer value. Use selectively as a rotational metric when work is mostly internal and customer outcomes are indirect or delayed (rotation preserves signal quality).
Cross-Collaboration
Question - How effectively does your team collaborate with others? 
Anchor Points - Effective | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very | Not effective
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. Rework or delays caused by handovers between teams
    2. Frustration in comments about dependencies, approvals, or “waiting on others”
    3. Informal workarounds emerging to bypass other teams
    4. Delivery slowing despite strong internal effort
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Highlight and reinforce examples what has worked well
    2. Clarify ownership and responsibilities at handover points
    3. Make dependencies and timelines visible and explicit
    4. Reset working agreements with other teams (who does what, by when, and how)
    5. Escalate systemic friction that cannot be resolved locally
  3. Avoid
    1. Treating cross-team issues as individual performance problems
    2. Assuming alignment without shared expectations
    3. Letting ongoing friction become normalised
    4. Blaming other teams instead of addressing interfaces
Info
Why we recommend this metric:
Cross-team collaboration is a critical execution and risk signal in interdependent organisations. Poor collaboration creates hidden delays, rework, frustration, and duplicated effort, often before delivery metrics show problems. 

When to use:
Suitable as an “always-on core” metric in matrixed, program-based, or highly interdependent environments where execution depends on coordination across teams. Use selectively as a rotational metric when dependencies are occasional or require longer-horizon fixes (preserves signal quality and avoids “nothing changes” sentiment).
Empowered
Question - How empowered are you to make contributions to decisions that affect your work?
Anchor Points - Empowered | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very | Not empowered
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. Decisions made without local input
    2. Escalation for issues that could be solved locally
    3. Frustration or disengagement following decisions
    4. Comments such as “we weren’t consulted” or “it was already decided”
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Clarify which decisions teams can influence or make
    2. Invite input earlier in decision processes
    3. Explain constraints and trade-offs transparently
    4. Close the loop on how input was considered
  3. Avoid
    1. Asking for input after decisions are final
    2. Equating consultation with consensus
    3. Over-centralising decisions that affect day-to-day work 
Info
Why we recommend this metric:
Empowerment reflects autonomy and perceived influence over work. Low empowerment increases strain and disengagement, particularly during change and is a key requirement for effectively managing psychosocial hazards. 

When to use:
Best used selectively as a rotational metric during operating model change, centralisation, matrixed environments, or when feedback suggests frustration with decision-making or consultation. Avoid steady-state use, empowerment typically shifts with decision rights and change context, not week-to-week delivery.
Project/Delivery Confidence 
Question - How confident are you that your team is on track to achieve its project/delivery goals? 
Anchor Points - Confident | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very | Not confident 
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. Confidence declining before project/delivery metrics slip
    2. Misalignment between confidence and workload scores
    3. “Busy but uncertain” commentary
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well
    2. Revisit scope, priorities, and sequencing
    3. Address blockers explicitly
    4. Align effort with what actually matters
  3. Avoid
    1. Using confidence as a performance judgement
    2. Assuming optimism equals realism
    3. Ignoring early warning signs
Info
Why we recommend this metric:
Delivery confidence integrates signals across clarity, workload, and coordination. It often drops before formal performance measures, making it a valuable early indicator. 

When to use:
Best used selectively as a rotational metric in high-stakes delivery periods, major milestones, or when other leading indicators/metrics display mixed signals. Avoid use outside delivery moments, it becomes vague and less actionable.

3. Safety, Engagement & Retention Signals

These metrics surface early signals related to morale, connection, and retention risk. They reflect how people feel about their work, team, and contribution over time. These are leading indicators, not diagnostic engagement measures. They mainly work best when used responsively and rotated, rather than asked continuously. 

Connected
Question - How connected do you feel to your team right now? 
Anchor Points - Connected | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very | Not connected
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. Declines in distributed teams
    2. New starters lagging behind
    3. High performance alongside low belonging
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well
    2. Create regular moments for connection
    3. Strengthen team rituals and identity
    4. Check in on inclusion, not just output
  3. Avoid
    1. Assuming connection happens naturally
    2. Equating socialising with inclusion
    3. Leaving connection to informal channels
Info
Why we recommend this metric:
Connectedness reflects belonging and cohesion. It is strongly linked to retention, resilience and discretionary effort. 

When to use:
Suitable as an “always-on” core metric in environments where team structures are fluid, members are distributed, work is project-based or connection is expected to vary. Use selectively as a rotational metric in environments where teams are stable, here it’s best used as a periodic pressure test to maintain signal quality and relevance.
Purpose
Question - How meaningful does your current work feel? 
Anchor Points - Meaningful | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very | Not meaningful
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. High effort or output alongside comments questioning “why this matters”
    2. Frustration with work that feels repetitive, reactive, or disconnected from outcomes
    3. Cynicism about priorities or initiatives
    4. Reduced discretionary effort despite stable performance 
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Reconnect current work to purpose, customers, or community impact
    2. Explain why work is needed, not just what needs to be done
    3. Reduce or remove low-value tasks that consume time without adding meaning
    4. Share stories that highlight how work contributes to real outcomes
  3. Avoid
    1. Assuming people find meaning automatically
    2. Overloading teams with activity without context
    3. Treating loss of meaning as a motivation or attitude problem
Info
Why we recommend this metric:
A sense of meaning is a core driver of engagement and retention. When work feels low in meaning, motivation and discretionary effort decline before performance visibly drops. 

When to use:
Best used selectively as a rotational metric during periods of fatigue, sustained delivery pressure, or when teams appear productive, but morale or energy is drifting. Avoid steady-state use to preserve signal quality (meaning typically shifts slowly).
Development
Question - How satisfied are you with opportunities to develop your skillset?
Anchor Points - Satisfied | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very | Not satisfied 
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. Development dropping under pressure
    2. High performers plateauing
    3. Early-career attrition
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well
    2. Embed learning into day-to-day work
    3. Discuss growth beyond formal training
    4. Align development with future capability needs
  3. Avoid
    1. Treating development as optional
    2. Limiting growth to courses only
    3. Assuming tenure equals development
Info
Why we recommend this metric:
Perceived development opportunity is one of the strongest retention drivers, particularly for early and mid-career employees. This metric helps leaders see when growth and learning are being crowded out by pressure or short-term delivery. 

When to use:
Best used selectively as a rotational metric during growth phases, capability shifts, or when early-career retention is a risk. Avoid frequent use unless there’s real capacity for leaders to act (otherwise it can erode trust).
Recognition
Question - How well does your team recognise each other’s contributions at work?
Anchor Points - Well | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very | Not well
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. Recognition focused only on outcomes
    2. Same individuals repeatedly recognised
    3. Invisible work going unnoticed
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well
    2. Encourage peer-to-peer recognition
    3. Recognise behaviours as well as results
    4. Make recognition timely and specific
  3. Avoid
    1. Saving recognition for formal moments only
    2. Recognition tied to hierarchy or volume
    3. Assuming effort speaks for itself
Info
Why we recommend this metric:
Recognition reinforces positive behaviour, builds cohesion, and supports retention. Its absence undermines motivation even when other conditions are strong. This metric helps leaders understand whether contribution and effort are being noticed and reinforced fairly.

When to use:
Suitable as an always-on core metric in environments where recognition is expected to be frequent, informal, and behaviour-based. Use selectively as a rotational metric in environments where recognition rhythms are strong and clearly defined – here, it’s best used as a pressure test or release valve when negativity increases.

Values In Action
Question - How aligned are your team’s actions with [organisation's] values? 
Anchor Points - Aligned | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very | Not aligned
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. Trade-offs under pressure that contradict values
    2. “That’s not how we do things here” comments, sarcasm, cynicism
    3. Inconsistent behaviour tolerated because someone delivers results
    4. New starters describing “surprises” about what’s acceptable
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Call out specific examples of values in action (what “good” looked like)
    2. Reset expectations for behaviours, especially under pressure
    3. Remove or reduce incentives that reward value misalignment
    4. Address one recurring behaviour early and consistently
  3. Avoid
    1. Using values language to shame or moralise
    2. Measuring it too frequently
    3. Treating low scores as an individual issue instead of a system signal
Info
Why we recommend this metric:
When values are consistently lived in the team environment, people experience higher trust, fairness, and belonging. 

When to use:
Suitable as an always-on core metric where values actively shape day-to-day behaviour and decisions, and early detection of culture drift is critical to sustaining trust and retention. Use as a rotational metric in climates where values alignment is generally high – here it works best as a pressure test during heightened delivery pressure, growth, team change, or there are signs of drift.
Respect
Question - How respectfully do team members treat one another at work?
Anchor Points - Respectful | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very | Not respectful
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. Declines following pressure, conflict, or delivery stress
    2. Comments referencing tone, dismissiveness, sarcasm, or incivility
    3. Certain roles or individuals being spoken over or minimised
    4. “It’s just how they are” narratives excusing poor behaviour
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Highlight and reinforce respectful behaviours that are working well
    2. Set clear expectations for how disagreement and challenge should show up
    3. Address disrespectful behaviour early, calmly, and privately
    4. Model respectful language, listening, and response under pressure
  3. Avoid
    1. Normalising poor behaviour because someone delivers results
    2. Treating respect issues as personality clashes
    3. Waiting for patterns to escalate before intervening
    4. Addressing behaviour indirectly or through others
Info
Why we recommend this metric
Respect is a foundational condition for trust, safety, and effective collaboration. When respect erodes, teams experience higher conflict, withdrawal, and psychosocial risk, even if output remains high in the short term. 

When to use:
Best used selectively as a rotational metric to pressure-test culture following conflict, leadership change, growth, or feedback suggesting behaviour standards may be slipping. Avoid steady-state use to preserve signal quality, it’s most useful as a pressure test.

4. Strategy & Alignment

These metrics reflect broader organisational perceptions rather than immediate team-level conditions. They are influenced by factors outside a single team’s control and require more careful interpretation and should never be over-indexed in regular Huddle pulses.
Informed
Question - How effectively is information being shared by senior leadership?
Anchor Points - Effective | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very | Not effective
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. Information gaps filled by rumours or assumptions
    2. “We found out late” or “we weren’t told why” feedback
    3. Divergence between formal messages and lived experience
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well
    2. Escalate themes rather than isolated comments
    3. Share what context you can locally, even if incomplete
    4. Close feedback loops when information becomes available
  3. Avoid
    1. Treating this as a local communication performance metric
    2. Over-explaining decisions you don’t control
    3. Repeating leadership messages without added context
Info
Why we recommend this metric:
Perceived information flow from leadership affects trust, certainty, and change readiness. This metric helps leaders identify gaps between intended communication and lived employee experience.

When to use:
Best used selectively as a rotational metric in response to major organisational announcements, leadership change, or strategy rollout. Avoid overuse, senior-level communication is episodic and mainly influenced by events outside team control.
Decision Clarity
Question - How clearly do you understand the rationale behind recent decision-making?
Anchor Points - Clear | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very | Not clear
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. Delays or repeated escalation
    2. Decisions revisited or quietly reversed
    3. Confusion about “why this was decided”
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well
    2. Explain decision intent, constraints, and trade-offs
    3. Clarify decision ownership and escalation paths
    4. Share context, not just outcomes
  3. Avoid
    1. Treating transparency as optional
    2. Assuming people understand the rationale
    3. Explaining decisions only after pushback
Info
Why we recommend this metric:
Clear decision context supports trust and execution. This metric helps leaders identify where lack of decision context is driving frustration, perceived unfairness and lack of buy-in.

When to use:
Best used selectively as a rotational metric in matrixed/cross-functional environments, after escalation friction, or when people understand “what” but not “why”. Avoid steady-state use to maintain signal quality (it varies greatly with governance and change context).
Strategic Alignment
Question - How aligned is your team’s work with [organisation’s] strategy and direction? 
Anchor Points - Aligned | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very | Not aligned
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. Strong activity but weak line-of-sight
    2. Conflicting interpretations of priorities
    3. Frustration about “why this matters” 
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well
    2. Reconnect team goals to strategic intent
    3. Clarify how local work supports broader outcomes
    4. Feed misalignment signals back to leadership 
  3. Avoid
    1. Treating alignment as agreement
    2. Assuming strategy awareness equals understanding
    3. Using this metric continuously 
Info
Why we recommend this metric:
Alignment supports coherence, prioritisation, and motivation. Low scores suggest strategy may not be landing clearly at execution level.  

When to use:
Best used selectively as a rotational metric after strategy refresh, new operating model, or when teams are active but lack line-of-sight. Avoid overuse to preserve signal quality, it’s most useful at transition points.
Motivated
Question - How motivated do you feel by [organisation’s] strategy and direction?
Anchor Points - Motivated | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very | Not motivated 
Manager Prompts:
  1. What to watch for
    1. Apathy rather than resistance
    2. Compliance without commitment
    3. High effort alongside low enthusiasm 
  2. Suggested actions
    1. Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well
    2. Separate strategy clarity from motivation signals
    3. Surface themes rather than reacting to individual scores
    4. Focus on meaning, not persuasion
  3. Avoid
    1. Treating motivation as a personal shortcoming
    2. Using this metric as a performance proxy
    3. Running alongside multiple engagement items 
Info
Why we recommend this metric:
Motivation reflects belief and meaning in direction. Drops often precede disengagement. This metric helps sense weakening confidence in strategy.

When to use:
Best used selectively as a rotational metric after significant strategic shifts or when belief in direction seems fragile. Avoid frequent use, as it isn’t easily fixed through local action.

Why These Metrics Work

These Huddle metric recommendations are grounded in modern validated research and designed to deliver reliable, actionable insights for leaders; enabling earlier intervention, clearer accountability, and sustained improvement over time.
What these recommendations deliberately avoid:
  1. Broad attitudinal statements - e.g. “I am satisfied with my job”. These are slow to shift and offer little guidance for local action. 
  2. Composite or index questions - Combining multiple ideas into one score reduces clarity and actionability. 
  3. Agree / disagree statements - These increase cognitive load and response bias when used frequently. 
  4. Outcome or lagging measures - e.g. overall engagement, culture, or commitment scores. These are better suited to periodic diagnostics, not continuous monitoring
Instead, Huddle prioritises clear, single-construct questions that measure observable team conditions leaders and teams can influence in real time.

FAQ's

How often should we rotate Huddle metrics? 
Most organisations rotate 1–2 metrics every 1–3 months, or in response to a specific trigger such as:
  1. A change initiative
  2. Delivery pressure or peak workload
  3. Restructuring or team changes
  4. Emerging psychosocial or retention risk
Core metrics typically remain stable for longer periods, while rotational metrics are updated when their insight is no longer adding value. 

How many metrics is too many for a regular pulse? 
For regular use, 7 metrics per pulse is optimal. 
Research shows shorter surveys maintain participation, reduce cognitive load, and produce more reliable data when used frequently. Adding more questions rarely improves insight and often reduces data quality. 

Can different teams use different metrics? 
Yes. Teams may share the same core metrics but rotate different additional metrics depending on their context, risk profile, or priorities. 
This flexibility supports local relevance while maintaining organisational consistency where it matters. 

How do we choose which metrics should be core? 
Core metrics should:
  1. Reflect conditions that shift week to week
  2. Be clearly actionable at team or leader level
  3. Apply regardless of strategy, structure, or operating model 

What if scores are consistently high? 
High scores are not a problem. They provide opportunities to:
  1. Highlight what’s working well
  2. Reinforce effective behaviours
  3. Capture practices worth sustaining or scaling 
Consistently high metrics still offer value when leaders actively reinforce success rather than moving on too quickly. 

What if feedback surfaces issues we can’t fix locally? 
Huddle helps surface issues early; not all issues need to be solved at team level. When challenges sit outside local control:
  1. Escalate patterns, not individual comments
  2. Use trends to inform leaders and decision-makers
  3. Acknowledge constraints openly while feeding back progress 
This transparency builds trust even when solutions take time. 

Who can help us design or review our metric mix? 
If you’d like help reviewing or adjusting your metric mix, contact support@teamgage.com or your dedicated Teamgage expert.

    • Related Articles

    • Defining Huddle Metrics

      This article outlines the best practice for defining Teamgage Huddle pulse metrics. It explains: How Huddle differs from traditional engagement and culture surveys The options available for defining your Huddle metrics The modern research principles ...

    • Recommended Huddle Metric Set - Team Health & Effectiveness

      What this metric set is designed to do? Teamgage Huddle gives leaders timely, reliable insight into the team-level conditions that enable safe and effective work. It is designed to: Align with validated research on team effectiveness and survey ...

    • Creating a Huddle Metric

      Your metrics are the areas your employees will provide feedback on when making their regular Teamgage Huddle submission and what will be measured and improved by your teams. Creating a new Metric Log into Teamgage Click on Huddle > Metrics from the ...

    • Edit a Huddle Metric

      You can quickly and easily edit any components of your existing metrics. e.g the Name, Anchor Points, Description, and Suggestions (also known as Manager Prompts). When editing a metric you will retain all previous data and history associated with ...

    • Tailoring Your Huddle Metrics With A Teamgage Expert

      This article explains how to tailor your Teamgage Huddle metrics in consultation with a Teamgage expert, and why organisations choose this option when they want their Huddle pulse to closely reflect their strategy, operating context and risk profile, ...