Why Use the Employee Net Promoter Question or Score (eNPS)?

The Employee Net Promoter Score (eNPS)—adapted from the original Net Promoter Score (NPS) used in customer experience—has gained popularity as a single-item proxy for measuring employee engagement, satisfaction, and loyalty. Despite its ease of use, cost-efficiency, and simplicity, growing research suggests it has substantial limitations when used in isolation.

"Pros" of Using the Net Promoter Score (eNPS) and Question

• Simplicity & Speed: eNPS asks just one question—"How likely are you to recommend this company as a place to work?" or similar—which boosts response rates and reduces survey fatigue.

• Cost-Efficient: Requires fewer resources to administer and analyze, especially for small or under-resourced HR departments.

• Benchmarking Capability: Enables comparisons across departments or industries, mirroring how NPS is used for customer loyalty.

• Actionable at a High Level: Can signal immediate hotspots in employee advocacy that may merit deeper diagnostics.

Limitations and Criticisms of using eNPS

1. Lack of Psychological Breadth

• Engagement is multi-dimensional—encompassing multiple concepts. Additional concepts, depending on the framework, may include vigor/energy, dedication/commitment to the organization, and absorption/fit in work—in none of which are directly assessed by eNPS which encompasses the concept of advocacy.

• Research confirms eNPS correlates with engagement but does not capture its complexity, potentially masking critical issues. The research we conducted in my organization confirms a range of correlations between 0.76 and 0.79 of the Employee Net Promoter question with a couple of variations of measures of Employee Engagement or Employee Experience.

2. Oversimplification of Sentiment

• A binary Promoter/Detractor model risks losing nuance. Employees may be passively disengaged yet still unwilling to recommend—or vice versa.

3. Susceptibility to Bias

• eNPS can be influenced by external events (e.g., layoffs, leadership changes) and lacks the stability of multi-item scales with tested reliability.

• Although multi-item scales will also be impacted by organizational and external economic headwinds, the single item, and the way the score is calculated, is much more prone to instability and large swings.

4. Weak Diagnostic Power

• As a stand-alone score, eNPS does not explain why employees feel the way they do—resulting in limited utility for strategic intervention. You need additional questions or comments to understand the causes, and then action must be taken on those causes to create improvement.

• The question asks about intent to recommend. Studies in the NPS space have shown that the intent to recommend does not always result in the action of making a recommendation.

Practical Implications

While eNPS can be a useful entry point, it should be viewed as a starting signal, not a diagnostic conclusion. Studies like Löfstrand et al. (2025) show that employee engagement outcomes (e.g., loyalty, advocacy) are strongly influenced by leadership, strategic management, and motivation—dimensions not captured in a single-item measure. Research I completed with organizations show additional factors such as burnout, chaotic schedules, psychological safety/organizational silence, and belonging, among other areas can also strongly influence employee engagement and the overall employee experience.

Relying solely on eNPS may lead to misinterpretation of employee sentiment and underinvestment in deeper causes of disengagement. Leaders are urged to use eNPS alongside robust instruments that provide richer context and higher psychometric rigor.

Good eNPS and Significant Differences in Scores

How do you know if your eNPS is good or weak? How do you determine if a change in eNPS is significant? The attached document has guidance on how to determine significant differences, and very broad guidance on good vs. weak Employee Net Promoter Scores.

Final Takeaway

Use eNPS only when:

• You need a quick pulse or high-level benchmark;

• It is supplemented with diagnostic follow-up questions or qualitative data; use the Net Promoter System or other methodology for taking action and closing the gaps.

• Leadership understands eNPS limitations and commits to deeper experience measurement over time.

References

Brown, M. I. (2020). Comparing the validity of net promoter and benchmark scoring to other commonly used employee engagement metrics. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 31(4), 355-370.

Fleck, S., & Inceoglu, I. (2010). A comprehensive framework for understanding and predicting engagement. Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice, 31, 42.

Gupta, N., & Sharma, V. (2018). The comparative analysis of employee engagement measures: a theoretical perspective. International Journal of Management Practice, 11(1), 42-68.

Hanapraveena, L., & Ayisha Millath, М. (2024). Exploring the role of employee net promoter score (eNPS) in organizational development. International Journal of Engineering Technology Research & Management (Ijetrm), 8(11), 417-428.

Löfstrand, P., Wall, E., Selander, J., Nordenmark, M., & Vinberg, S. (2025). Employee Engagement in Swedish Public Sector Organizations: The Impact of Organizational and Social Factors on Employee Net Promoter Scores. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 29(1), 40-58.

 Roberts, C., Alpert, F., & Roberts, C. (2015). Strategic drivers of customer and employee engagement: Practical applications. In Customer engagement (pp. 171-192). Routledge.

 Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2014). What do we really know about employee engagement?. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), 155-182.

Sedlak, P. (2020). Employee net promoter score (eNPS) as a single-item measure of employee work satisfaction. An empirical evidence from companies operating in Poland. Contemporary Organisation and Management. Challenges and Trends, Michałkiewicz A. and Mierzejewska W.(eds), Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łód, 347-357.

 Stahlkopf, C. (2019). Where net promoter score goes wrong. Harvard Business Review, 10(5), 2-6.

 Yaneva, M. (2018). Employee satisfaction vs. employee engagement vs. employee NPS. European Journal of Economics and Business Studies, 4(1), 221-227.

Zaki, M., Kandeil, D., Neely, A., & McColl-Kennedy, J. R. (2016). The fallacy of the net promoter score: Customer loyalty predictive model. Cambridge Service Alliance, 10(1), 1-25.