Social Network Analysis
Centralization
Shows how much recognition depends on a small number of central people. A higher value means the network is more hub-driven.
Fragmented clusters
Shows how separated the recognition network is into smaller clusters. A higher value means collaboration is more split between groups.
Lonely islands
Shows the share of people with very little incoming recognition. A higher value means more people risk being disconnected.
Cross-team appreciation given ratio
Shows how much of a team's recognition is given to people in other teams. A higher value means the team reaches more beyond its own boundary.
Cross-team appreciation received ratio
Shows how much of a team's received recognition comes from other teams. A higher value means the team is more connected across the organisation.
Team network diversity given
Shows how broadly a team spreads recognition across other teams. A higher value means appreciation is distributed across more relationships.
Team network diversity received
Shows how broadly a team receives recognition from other teams. A higher value means support comes from a wider part of the organisation.
Connector dependency ratio
Shows how dependent cross-team recognition is on a few connectors. A higher value means collaboration may be vulnerable if those connectors disappear.
Team bridge redundancy
Shows how many alternative bridges exist between teams. A higher value means cross-team collaboration is less dependent on single relationships.
Organization share of team pairs with one giver
Shows the share of team-to-team links that rely on only one person giving recognition. A higher value means more cross-team connections have a single point of dependency.
Psychological safety
Psychologically safe
Shows the share of people whose recognition patterns indicate a high level of psychological safety.
Psychologically un-safe
Shows the share of people whose recognition patterns indicate a low level of psychological safety.
Participation Depth
Participants who gave kudos
Shows the share of participants who have given at least one kudos in the event.
Participants who met the expected kudos level
Shows the share of participants who have given at least the expected number of kudos for the event.
Participants who exceeded the expected kudos level
Shows the share of participants who have given more than the expected number of kudos for the event.
Average kudos given per participant
Shows the average number of kudos given per participant, including participants who gave none.
Median kudos given per participant
Shows the median number of kudos given per participant, including participants who gave none.
Reach
Average unique receivers per giver
Shows how broadly active participants spread their recognition by counting unique receivers per giver.
Recognition coverage
Shows the share of participants who received at least one kudos.
Recognition coverage at desired level
Shows the share of participants who received at least the number of kudos that made them eligible for receiving their appreciation certificate.
Quality Weighted Engagement
Average phrase quality per giver
Shows the average phrase quality score per active giver, based on phrase machine points.
Meaningful kudos ratio
Shows the share of kudos above the meaningful-quality threshold out of all kudos given.
Reliability Risk
Top-giver dependency
Shows the share of kudos coming from the most active 10% of givers. A higher value means engagement depends more on a few people.
Silent group ratio
Shows the share of groups where more than the configured threshold of participants gave no kudos.