If people aren't listening to Bob because they don't like his leadership style, then I would say that Bob is a bad culture fit (or, to be blunt, not a good leader). I wouldn't describe this as the organization "not letting him thrive."

I could also imagine it being that the org has a bad culture (e.g. they systematically don't listen to the ideas of people in more junior roles)

For groups support calls, one staff member's NPS was 83% and another's was 55%. (They were talking to different user groups, which probably explains some of the discrepancy.)

Thanks for explaining! The guess about how people use the scale seems pretty plausible to me.

Hmm, I still think the threshold effects are kinda weird, and so NPS shouldn't be the main measure. (I know you're just asking for it as supplementary info, and I think we'd maybe both prefer mean + histogram.)

There's a prima facie case, that's like: the threshold effects say that you care totally about the 6/7 and 8/9 boundaries, and not-at-all about the 5/6, 7/8, 9/10 boundaries. That's weird!

I could imagine a view that's like "it's really important to have enthusiastic promoters because they help spread the word about your product" or something, but then why would that view want you to care not-at-all about the 9/10 boundary? I imagine 10s are more enthusiastic promoters, and it seems plausible to me that the 9/10 differential is the same or greater than the 8/9 differential. 

And why would it want you to care not-at-all about the 7/8 boundary? I imagine 8s could be enthusiastic promoters, more so than 7s.

 And similar comments for a view that's like "it's really important to avoid having detractors, because they put people off".

I could also imagine a kinda startup-y view that's like "it's really important to get excellent product market fit, which means focusing on getting some people to really love your product, rather than a large group of people to like it". But on that view,  why ignore the 9/10 boundary? And why care about detractors?

I also think that maybe all of the above views make more sense when your aim is to predict whether your product will grow virally (not our focus), vs. whether it's generally high quality/providing something that people want (more our focus). So they might just not carry over well to our case.

Thanks - I'll pass this on to the people involved! 

EA Global: Reconnect NPS was 20%

Sure! I've asked the relevant people to respond with the NPS figures if it's quick/easy for them to do so, but they might prioritize other things.

Btw, I disagree about how useful NPS is. I think it's quite a weird metric (with very strong threshold effects between 6/7 and 8/9, and no discrimination between a 6 and a 1). That's why we switched to the mean. I do think that looking at a histogram is often useful though- in most cases the mean doesn't give you a strong sense of the distribution.

Yes, that's right.

These terms are generally referring to 19 university groups which we give some additional support (e.g. we offer extra 1:1 calls with them, and we pilot some programs with them). This is on top of the support we offer all groups (e.g. online resources, funding for events, 1:1 calls, advice over Slack/email).

The groups are chosen primarily based on the university’s track record of having highly influential graduates (e.g. Nobel prize winners, politicians, major philanthropists). We also place some weight on university rankings, universities in regions with rapidly-growing global influence, the group’s track record, and leader quality. 

Current focus university groups in no particular order: Harvard, Swarthmore, Oxford, London School of Economics (LSE), Cambridge, Georgetown, Stanford, Hong Kong University, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Caltech, Berkeley, University of Chicago, Columbia, Penn.

I changed the publish date of this post back to Nov 20, 2017, since it seems like you wanted to do that.