About the Metric library

1. Select 4-6 core metrics that remain always on and are always relevant.
2. Rotate 1-3 additional metrics alongside the core metrics (maintaining 7 total metrics per submission cycle) in response to specific organisational context, risk, or team priorities.
   

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 three 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.

Metrics are provided as best practice guidance. We recommend tailoring the language to reflect your organisation’s own internal voice. For example, if one of your values is "Better Together", the Teamwork metric can be reframed to align with that language and sentiment. This keeps the experience meaningful for submitters and ensures insights connect clearly to your strategy, culture and values.

---

1) Communication, Clarity & Alignment

These metrics show whether people understand priorities, strategy and decisions, and whether their work connects meaningfully to them. They surface gaps between intent and execution before misalignment turns into drift.

---

Team Priorities

Question - How clear are your team’s current priorities?

Anchor Points - Clear | Mostly | Somewhat | Not really | Not clear 

Manager Prompts:

• What to watch for

• Drops following change or new initiatives

• Conflicting priorities raised in comments

• Good intent but visible rework or thrashing

• Suggested actions

• Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well

• Reconfirm the top three priorities for this period

• Make trade-offs explicit (“what we are not doing”)

• Reinforce priorities consistently, not just once

• Avoid

• Assuming clarity without checking

• Adding “just one more thing”

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:

• What to watch for

• Gradual decline during growth or restructure

• Confusion around ownership or hand-offs

• Tension between roles

• Suggested actions

• Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well

• Review and update role expectations as work evolves

• Reset expectations explicitly after change

• Avoid

• Assuming formal role descriptions reflect current work

• Leaving expectations implicit

• Letting “temporary” work become permanent without reset

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.

---

Change Communication

Question - How effective is communication about changes that affect your work?

Anchor Points - Effective | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very | Not effective 

Manager Prompts:

• What to watch for

• Drops during transformation or reprioritisation

• Confusion or rumours filling information gaps

• “We found out late” feedback

• Suggested actions

• Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well

• Communicate early, even when detail is limited

• Clarify what’s changing, why and when

• Close loops once decisions are made

• Avoid

• Overloading with information

• Assuming one message is enough

• Waiting for certainty before communicating

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. 

• What to watch for

• Strong activity but weak line-of-sight

• Conflicting interpretations of priorities

• Frustration about “why this matters” 

• Suggested actions

• Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well

• Reconnect team goals to strategic intent

• Clarify how local work supports broader outcomes

• Feed misalignment signals back to leadership 

• Avoid

• Treating alignment as agreement

• Assuming strategy awareness equals understanding

• Using this metric continuously 

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.

• What to watch for

• Decisions made without local input

• Escalation for issues that could be solved locally

• Frustration or disengagement following decisions

• Comments such as “we weren’t consulted” or “it was already decided”

• Suggested actions

• Clarify which decisions teams can influence or make

• Invite input earlier in decision processes

• Explain constraints and trade-offs transparently

• Close the loop on how input was considered

• Avoid

• Asking for input after decisions are final

• Equating consultation with consensus

• Over-centralising decisions that affect day-to-day work 

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.

• Decisions perceived as reactive or short-term

• Disconnect between stated values and actual choices

• Silence rather than open disagreement

• Clearly explain the rationale behind key decisions (what, why, trade-offs)

• Connect decisions explicitly to purpose and strategy

• Acknowledge constraints openly (budget, timing, risks)

• Equating compliance with confidence
• Hiding trade-offs or uncertainty
• Over-selling certainty when risks exist
• Dismissing concern as resistance

Why we recommend this metric:
Decision confidence is a leading indicator of trust and discretionary effort. When people believe decisions are aligned to purpose, alignment and momentum increase. 

When to use:
Best used selectively as a rotational metric during strategy refreshes, restructures, operating model change, or after high-impact decisions. Avoid steady-state use to preserve signal quality — confidence typically shifts around visible decision moments rather than week to week.

• What to watch for

• High effort or output alongside comments questioning “why this matters”

• Frustration with work that feels repetitive, reactive, or disconnected from outcomes

• Cynicism about priorities or initiatives

• Reduced discretionary effort despite stable performance 

• Suggested actions

• Reconnect current work to purpose, customers, or community impact

• Explain why work is needed, not just what needs to be done

• Reduce or remove low-value tasks that consume time without adding meaning

• Share stories that highlight how work contributes to real outcomes

• Avoid

• Assuming people find meaning automatically

• Overloading teams with activity without context

• Treating loss of meaning as a motivation or attitude problem

Why we recommend this metric:

A sense of purpose 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).

2) Performance & Execution

• What to watch for

• Drops after team changes or workload spikes

• Rework or handover issues

• “Busy but disconnected” signals

• Suggested actions

• Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well

• Review handovers and dependencies

• Clarify shared goals and success measures

• Address friction early

• Avoid

• Over-indexing on individual performance

• Ignoring coordination issues

• Assuming conflict equals poor teamwork

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).

• What to watch for

• Avoidance of disagreement

• Decisions made outside meetings

• Passive agreement followed by resistance

• Suggested actions

• Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well

• Encourage respectful challenge

• Address tension directly

• Avoid

• Mistaking harmony for alignment

• Shutting down debate to move faster

• Letting conflict go unaddressed

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. 

• What to watch for

• Gaps between commitments and delivery

• Frustration in comments about follow-through

• Over-commitment without consequences

• Suggested actions

• Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well

• Make commitments visible and specific

• Follow up consistently and calmly

• Address missed commitments early

• Avoid

• Public blame

• Letting commitments drift

• Confusing accountability with punishment 

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.

• Gradual dips during periods of high demand

• Increase in rework, errors, or last-minute fixes

• Comments referencing rushed timelines, poor handoffs or unclear standards

• Clarify what “good” looks like (standards, examples, definitions of done)

• Strengthen peer review or quality checkpoints

• Celebrate quality explicitly, not just speed

• Treating quality issues purely as capability problems

• Pushing more output when consistency is already slipping

• Ignoring systemic causes (unclear brief, poor sequencing, workload)

Why we recommend this metric:
Quality is a leading indicator of performance health. Consistent delivery signals clarity, capability, and manageable demand. Declines often reflect overload, unclear expectations, fragmented processes, or reduced psychological safety — not lack of effort.

When to use:
Suitable as an “always-on” core metric, particularly during sustained growth, resourcing shifts, process changes. Use selectively as a rotational metric if high quality work is already embedded as check in or after quality incidents.

• What to watch for

• Repeated friction related to processes, tools, or meetings

• Work slowed by approvals, handovers, or coordination overhead

• Comments referencing “the process” rather than the work itself

• Strong effort without corresponding output

• Suggested actions

• Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well

• Identify specific points of friction in workflows or handovers

• Simplify or remove low-value steps, meetings, or approvals

• Clarify decision rights and escalation paths

• Trial small changes before scaling them

• Avoid

• Treating ways of working as fixed

• Redesigning everything at once

• Confusing activity or busyness with effectiveness

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.

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).

• What to watch for

• Repeated issues raised with no resolution

• Learned helplessness (“nothing changes”)

• Good ideas without visible follow-through

• Suggested actions

• Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well

• Act visibly on one issue at a time

• Involve the team in fixing friction

• Close the loop on actions taken

• Avoid

• Collecting feedback without action

• Over-engineering solutions

• Treating improvement as a one-off project

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).

• What to watch for

• Knowledge held by a few people

• Rework or repeated questions

• Slower onboarding or handovers

• Bottlenecks when key people are away

• Suggested actions

• Create simple, shared artefacts (checklists, notes, recordings)

• Protect time for handover and cross-training

• Recognise and reinforce people who share openly

• Avoid

• Assuming tools alone solve knowledge sharing

• Letting pressure crowd out documentation and handover

• Relying on “go ask X” as the default

Why we recommend this metric:
Perceived access to knowledge is a strong driver of confidence, performance and psychological safety. When knowledge stays tacit or siloed, teams become fragile — delivery slows, errors increase, and dependence on key individuals rises.

When to use:
Suitable as an "always-on" core metric - especially during growth, role changes, restructures or when work is becoming more complex or cross-functional. Use selectively as a rotational metric if knowledge sharing behaviour are embedded or action requires longer horizons (preserves signal quality and avoids “nothing changes” sentiment).

• What to watch for

• Teams becoming internally focused during change

• Delivery success measured by activity rather than value

• “Busy work” that does not clearly serve customers

• Friction between speed, quality, and customer outcomes

• Suggested actions

• Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well

• Reconnect work to customer needs and outcomes

• Clarify who the “customer” is for different types of work

• Review priorities through a customer value lens

• Remove tasks that add internal effort without external value

• Avoid

• Assuming customer focus is implicit

• Treating customer value as someone else’s responsibility

• Over-indexing on internal metrics at the expense of impact

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 if customer focused behaviour is already embedded or action requires longer time frames to execute (preserves signal quality and avoids “nothing changes” sentiment).

• What to watch for

• Rework or delays caused by handovers between teams

• Frustration in comments about dependencies, approvals, or “waiting on others”

• Informal workarounds emerging to bypass other teams

• Delivery slowing despite strong internal effort

• Suggested actions

• Highlight and reinforce examples what has worked well

• Clarify ownership and responsibilities at handover points

• Make dependencies and timelines visible and explicit

• Reset working agreements with other teams (who does what, by when, and how)

• Escalate systemic friction that cannot be resolved locally

• Avoid

• Treating cross-team issues as individual performance problems

• Assuming alignment without shared expectations

• Letting ongoing friction become normalised

• Blaming other teams instead of addressing interfaces

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 cross-team dependencies are occasional or action requires time frames to execute (preserves signal quality and avoids “nothing changes” sentiment).

• What to watch for

• Confidence declining before project/delivery metrics slip

• Misalignment between confidence and workload scores

• “Busy but uncertain” commentary

• Suggested actions

• Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well

• Revisit scope, priorities, and sequencing

• Address blockers explicitly

• Align effort with what actually matters

• Avoid

• Using confidence as a performance judgement

• Assuming optimism equals realism

• Ignoring early warning signs

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.

• What to watch for

• Declines under pressure or tight deadlines

• Risk avoidance or over-reliance on past approaches

• New ideas raised but not explored

• Suggested actions

• Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well

• Create safe space to trial small changes

• Separate experimentation from performance evaluation

• Acknowledge learning, not just success

• Avoid

• Treating innovation as optional during pressure

• Punishing failed experiments

• Confusing speed with rigidity

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).

• What to watch for

• Sudden drops in score

• Sustained low or “barely manageable” scores

• Suggested actions

• Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well

• Remove or pause a low-value task

• Reset expectations publicly

• Escalate resourcing concerns early

• Avoid

• Normalising overload

• Rewarding pressure with more work

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.

Sustainable Pace

Question - How sustainable does the current pace of work feel? 

Anchor Points - Sustainable | Mostly | Somewhat | Not very| Not sustainable

Manager Prompts:

• What to watch for

• Gradual declines over consecutive pulses

• Short-term coping behaviours (longer hours, shortcuts)

• Quality dipping while output remains high

• Suggested actions

• Acknowledge delivery pressure openly

• Remove or defer low-value activity

• Build in visible recovery points

• Avoid

• Normalising prolonged peak periods

• Adding priorities without subtracting others

• Framing strain as a resilience issue

Why we recommend this metric:
Sustained pressure — even when performance remains high — erodes energy, quality, and retention over time. Pace is often a stronger early warning signal than workload alone because it reflects speed, intensity and recovery patterns, not just volume of work.

When to use:
Suitable as an always-on metric in environments with consistently high or volatile demand (e.g. frontline operations, continuous delivery, consulting/project work, fast-growth settings).
However, avoid continuous use where leaders cannot adjust workload, sequencing or priorities — measuring without the ability to act risks eroding trust. If Workload is already monitored, use this best used as a rotational metric to pressure test during peak delivery, transformation, rapid growth, or competing priorities.

---

Energy

• What to watch for

• Energy declining while workload remains stable

• Sustained low ratings (early fatigue signal)

• Drop in energy following extended delivery pressure

• Suggested actions

• Clarify what can pause, stop or defer

• Create visible recovery space (focus time, realistic timelines)

• Clarify short-term goals to narrow cognitive load

• Avoid

• Framing low energy as a resilience issue

• Adding new priorities without removing others

• Adding perks instead of reducing pressure

Why we recommend this metric:
Energy is a leading indicator of sustainability. It reflects how work is landing on people — mentally and emotionally — not just how much work exists. Energy often declines before workload is rated as unmanageable and before engagement drops. Monitoring energy helps leaders detect emerging fatigue, burnout risk, and productivity drag early.

When to use:
This metric complements (but is distinct from) Workload by focusing on endurance and recovery patterns rather than volume of work alone. Best used as a rotational metric during extended delivery cycles, transformation periods, or when fatigue signals are emerging. 

• What to watch for

• Support declining while workload remains steady

• Lower scores among newer or remote team members

• Silence rather than requests for help

• Suggested actions

• Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well

• Increase check-ins during peak pressure

• Encourage peer support as well as manager support

• Make asking for help safe and visible

• Avoid

• Assuming strong performers don’t need support

• Treating support as purely personal

• Waiting for people to struggle before acting

 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.

• What to watch for

• Sudden drops after conflict or leadership change

• Flat scores with limited qualitative input

• One or two voices dominating discussion

• Suggested actions

• Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well

• Invite dissent explicitly (“What am I missing?”)

• Thank people for raising issues 

• Model openness and fallibility 

• Avoid

• Defensiveness

• Explaining away feedback

• Only rewarding “positive” input

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.

• What to watch for

• Declines in distributed teams

• New starters lagging behind

• High performance alongside low belonging

• Suggested actions

• Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well

• Create regular moments for connection

• Strengthen team rituals and identity

• Check in on inclusion, not just output

• Avoid

• Assuming connection happens naturally

• Equating socialising with inclusion

• Leaving connection to informal channels

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.

• What to watch for

• Development dropping under pressure

• High performers plateauing

• Early-career attrition

• Suggested actions

• Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well

• Embed learning into day-to-day work

• Discuss growth beyond formal training

• Align development with future capability needs

• Avoid

• Treating development as optional

• Limiting growth to courses only

• Assuming tenure equals development

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).

• What to watch for

• Declines following pressure, conflict, or delivery stress

• Comments referencing tone, dismissiveness, sarcasm, or incivility

• Certain roles or individuals being spoken over or minimised

• “It’s just how they are” narratives excusing poor behaviour

• Suggested actions

• Highlight and reinforce respectful behaviours that are working well

• Set clear expectations for how disagreement and challenge should show up

• Address disrespectful behaviour early, calmly, and privately

• Model respectful language, listening, and response under pressure

• Avoid

• Normalising poor behaviour because someone delivers results

• Treating respect issues as personality clashes

• Waiting for patterns to escalate before intervening

• Addressing behaviour indirectly or through others

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.

• What to watch for

• Recognition focused only on outcomes

• Same individuals repeatedly recognised

• Invisible work going unnoticed

• Suggested actions

• Highlight and reinforce what’s worked well

• Encourage peer-to-peer recognition

• Recognise behaviours as well as results

• Make recognition timely and specific

• Avoid

• Saving recognition for formal moments only

• Recognition tied to hierarchy or volume

• Assuming effort speaks for itself

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.

• What to watch for

• Trade-offs under pressure that contradict values

• “That’s not how we do things here” comments, sarcasm, cynicism

• Inconsistent behaviour tolerated because someone delivers results

• New starters describing “surprises” about what’s acceptable

• Suggested actions

• Call out specific examples of values in action (what “good” looked like)

• Reset expectations for behaviours, especially under pressure

• Remove or reduce incentives that reward value misalignment

• Address one recurring behaviour early and consistently

• Avoid

• Using values language to shame or moralise

• Measuring it too frequently

• Treating low scores as an individual issue instead of a system signal

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.

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

FAQ's