Satisfaction is not engagement (and engagement is not performance)
“We have an eNPS of 52. We’re doing well.”
Are you sure?
The problem is not measuring eNPS.
The problem is believing it measures what we want it to measure.
Satisfaction is not the same as engagement, nor is it performance
The literature has been warning about this for years.
Studies have found a correlation between engagement and business results. Correlation. Not automatic causation.
And also:
-
Satisfaction: I like being here.
-
Engagement (Schaufeli & Bakker): I invest psychological energy in my work.
-
Performance: I generate measurable results.
These are three different variables. Sometimes they align. Sometimes they don’t.
A team can be comfortable… and stagnant.
Another can have high demands… and be growing.
eNPS mainly captures perception and relational climate. Not productivity. Not quality. Not strategic impact.
And yet, many cultural decisions are made as if it were a business KPI.
Cultural bias
Measuring eNPS and celebrating it can reinforce an organizational bias:
“If people are happy, we’re doing well.”
But that’s not the strategic question.
The real question is:
“Are we creating an environment where talent performs at its best and wants to stay?”
Order matters.
First, sustainable performance.
Then… genuine pride.
Not the other way around.
What happens when you combine it with performance
This is where things get interesting.
You can:
-
Cross eNPS by department with performance percentiles.
-
Filter by tenure and identify meaningful differences.
-
Compare strategic indicators (e.g. results orientation) with eNPS.
-
Semantically analyze comments to detect the real drivers of engagement.
And suddenly, uncomfortable patterns appear:
-
Teams with high eNPS but low-to-average performance.
-
Teams with moderate eNPS but 75+ percentiles in critical indicators.
-
Managers with high relational engagement but low capability development in their teams.
It’s not that eNPS is wrong.
It’s that in isolation, it’s short-sighted.
The mental model
Imagine an X-axis (eNPS) and a Y-axis (performance percentile).
What matters is not moving up on X.
It’s moving toward the top-right quadrant.
This is not achieved through emotional salary alone.
It comes from leadership, strategic clarity, and high-quality feedback.
And that can be measured.
How to measure eNPS better
Traditionally, eNPS has been measured with a single question:
On a scale from zero to ten, how likely are you to recommend this organization as a place to work to friends or family?
And yes, measuring it this way is better than not measuring at all.
But this approach has several important limitations:
-
We reduce a complex reality to a single question.
-
We isolate the employee from real context, answering without connecting to key elements such as climate, performance, recognition, or leadership.
-
We ask about others, not oneself. Someone may recommend their company... and still not want to stay.
So, how do we measure eNPS better?
The answer is not to eliminate it, but to integrate it into something more intelligent.
Our proposal at Hrider:
-
Include eNPS within broader evaluations
Such as climate or performance (in Hrider, this can be done without distorting its metrics).
-
Connect it with key variables
Engagement, commitment, motivation, recognition… This way eNPS stops being an isolated data point and gains context.
Evolution over time, differences between departments, roles, or levels.
-
Cross eNPS with performance. Use a Nine Box matrix to understand:
-
Who performs and recommends
-
Who performs but does not recommend
-
Who recommends but does not perform