Employee Experience
Employee experience covers how people inside the company work: what they are measured on, what they can say without penalty, and whether what they know reaches a decision. It is usually treated as an HR topic. It is also a measurement topic, because employees hold information about the business months before the numbers show it. Support agents hear complaint themes shift. Salespeople hear a new competitor's name in deals. The open question in any company is whether those signals get reported upward or filtered out on the way.
How it actually works
The standard structure has each team measured on its own function's reports. Marketing grades marketing, sales grades sales, support grades support, and each report reaches leadership already shaped by the team that produced it. Numbers that reflect well on a function get reported prominently; numbers that would raise questions get explained away before leadership sees them. Leadership then plans from a composite of self-assessments. The incentive comes from the measurement structure, and people respond to it rationally.
The second filter is the handling of bad news. Research from Harvard Business School, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology, found across eleven experiments that people rate the deliverer of bad news as less likable and attribute malicious motives to them, even when the deliverer had no control over the outcome; in the absence of a clear cause, people assign blame to the person closest to the information. We cover [what that research means for reporting](/insights/s-curve-of-growth#blaming-the-messenger) in the S-curve article. The practical effect is that problems stop being reported. Teams learn which findings are welcome. Findings that are not, such as a competitor pulling ahead or a product problem behind rising churn, surface later each time, until the decline shows up in revenue instead. By then the people who saw it earliest have often left, and the company has lost both the warning and the people who could have delivered it. That attrition has a price finance already tracks: recruiting, backfill, ramp time, and lost institutional knowledge are all recorded as replacement cost, but the cost is never attributed to the reporting structure that made leaving rational, so the structure keeps producing it.
The fix is structural. Shared metrics that no single function controls give leadership numbers no team has an incentive to shape. Channels for frontline observation, support themes, sales objections, operational friction, treat those reports as market signal. Run this way, employee experience serves as an early-warning layer alongside external research: customers report what frustrates them, and employees report what customers have been telling them. Internal friction between functions also carries a treasury cost: every day a handoff adds between marketing, sales, and delivery extends the lead-to-cash cycle, and lead-to-cash days multiplied by daily revenue is working capital tied up in the funnel, released when the handoff is compressed.
In practice
In one engagement, a client's product had fallen behind a new entrant. Employees in several functions had seen the evidence before we arrived, but under the existing incentives, reporting it was a risk to the person reporting it, so the finding stayed internal and unexamined. When the data was finally examined it held up, and by that point customers had already been lost. The counterexample comes from a publicly traded mattress company, where we met with a senior leader in an advisory capacity. Stakeholders there were hesitant to take the findings about diluted positioning to their counterparts, fearing backlash. One senior leader did have the courage to deliver the message. Their entire media strategy over the following year and a half refocused on what makes them unique, the benefits of its proprietary technology, and the fear that almost kept the message from being delivered turned out to be a misconception; it was not even true in their own organization ([overcoming organizational inertia](/insights/what-turnarounds-teach#overcoming-organizational-inertia); the messenger research is covered in [blaming the messenger](/insights/s-curve-of-growth#blaming-the-messenger)).
Where we come in
We restructure measurement so internal signals reach decisions: shared metrics tied to profit instead of function-owned scorecards, and frontline observation read as market data alongside customer research. On the Potbelly turnaround, alignment across teams was part of the work that preceded 30% and then 19% year-over-year revenue growth.
Start a Revenue Health Pre-Assessment →See it in action
Related terms
- Siloed metrics
- Measures owned and reported by the function they evaluate. Each one can be green while the company's shared outcome declines, because each is graded by its own author.
- Shared metrics
- Measures spanning functions, tied to revenue and profit, that no single team controls or reports on its own. They remove the incentive to shape the number.
- Perverse incentives
- Reward structures that pay for the appearance of performance rather than for actual results. Grading teams on self-reported functional metrics is a common form.
- Frontline signal
- What customer-facing employees observe directly: complaint themes, objections, competitor mentions. It precedes the quantitative record when a channel exists to carry it.
- Psychological safety
- Whether an employee can report a problem without penalty. Where it is absent, internal reporting drifts toward what leadership wants to hear.
- Employee engagement survey
- The standard instrument for measuring employee sentiment. Like customer surveys, it captures what people state, and the open-ended responses carry most of the information.