Survey analysis — what the pulse survey shows

Simulated data constructed for portfolio purposes. Brightline Health Services is fictional. The survey file (survey-data-simulated.csv, n = 200) was generated by a seeded script with designed patterns — see the survey data README for the full generation method and column dictionary. The analysis below demonstrates how the discovery evidence was read; the correlations are designed, not discovered, and are disclosed as such.

Instrument reminder. Staff answered four Likert items (1–5). The key item — “I received useful feedback in the last two weeks” — is the pulse baseline (2.4/5) that the measurement plan tracks quarterly. Managers self-reported their one-on-one cadence and the share of those meetings containing structured feedback.

Finding 1: Feedback usefulness tracks meeting structure, not manager experience

Staff with a one-on-one at least every two weeks rate feedback usefulness 3.4/5; staff without one rate it 1.9/5 — a gap of 1.5 points.

Bar chart. Staff with a one-on-one at least fortnightly rate feedback usefulness 3.4 out of 5 (n=45); staff without a regular one-on-one rate it 1.9 out of 5 (n=85). The takeaway: regular one-on-ones are associated with much higher feedback usefulness.

Group n Mean usefulness (/5)
Has a 1:1 at least fortnightly 45 3.4
No regular 1:1 85 1.9
All staff 130 2.4

Finding 2: The larger the span, the lower the usefulness

Usefulness falls monotonically with team size — from 3.1/5 on teams of 12–13 to 1.5/5 on teams of 16–18.

Bar chart. Mean feedback usefulness by team size band: teams of 12 to 13 score 3.1 out of 5 (n=55), teams of 14 to 15 score 2.2 (n=45), teams of 16 to 18 score 1.5 (n=30). The takeaway: usefulness declines as span of control grows.

Team size band n Mean usefulness (/5)
12–13 reports 55 3.1
14–15 reports 45 2.2
16–18 reports 30 1.5

Finding 3: Manager tenure barely matters

If the problem were “inexperienced managers”, usefulness would rise sharply with manager tenure. It does not — the spread across tenure bands is 0.3 points, against 1.5 points for meeting structure.

Bar chart. Mean feedback usefulness by manager tenure band: manager under 1 year, 2.3 out of 5 (n=45); manager 1 to 5 years, 2.3 (n=40); manager over 5 years, 2.6 (n=45). The takeaway: manager experience alone explains very little of the difference.

Manager tenure band n Mean usefulness (/5)
< 1 yr (expansion cohort) 45 2.3
1–5 yrs 40 2.3
> 5 yrs 45 2.6

This is the finding that redirects the whole engagement: “train the new managers” would miss most of the problem. The manager-side data agrees — new managers are slightly more likely than veterans to report a fortnightly-or-better cadence (8 of 25, 32%) than managers over 5 years (7 of 25, 28%).

Finding 4: Only 31% of managers hold one-on-ones at least fortnightly

Bar chart. Self-reported one-on-one cadence of the 70 people managers: weekly or more, 6 managers; every two weeks, 16; monthly, 26; rarely, 16; never, 6. The takeaway: only 22 of 70 managers (31%) meet the recommended fortnightly cadence.

Self-reported cadence Managers % of 70
Weekly or more 6 9%
Every two weeks 16 23%
Monthly 26 37%
Rarely 16 23%
Never 6 9%
Fortnightly or better 22 31%

And the meetings that do happen are thin: managers report that only about 1 in 5 one-on-ones (mean 20%) include structured feedback — a specific behavior, its impact, and an agreed next step. Meeting more without changing the content is not the fix.

Finding 5 (the one that doesn’t fit): Cedar Point meets constantly and still scores worst

Cedar Point’s staff report the most frequent one-on-ones in the company (mean 4.3/5) and the lowest feedback usefulness (1.5/5 vs 2.5/5 elsewhere). Its managers meet weekly — and report almost no structured-feedback content in those meetings. HR’s business partner flagged the same anomaly in interviews.

Grouped bar chart. Cedar Point staff (n=12) report a mean one-on-one frequency of 4.3 out of 5 but a feedback usefulness of only 1.5; staff at all other clinics (n=118) report 2.3 frequency and 2.5 usefulness. The takeaway: frequent meetings without structure do not produce useful feedback.

Clinic n Mean 1:1 frequency (/5) Mean usefulness (/5)
Cedar Point 12 4.3 1.5
All other clinics 118 2.3 2.5

Why it matters: it kills the tempting simplification “just make managers meet more.” The intervention has to shape the content of one-on-ones (template, structured feedback), not only the frequency. This is why the solution pairs the cadence fix with the job aid and the scenario.

Interpretation and limits

Reading: the four findings triangulate with the interviews and document review: feedback at Brightline fails mainly for environmental and process reasons (no scheduled one-on-ones, spans of 12–18, a ratings-only review form), with a narrower skill gap (structuring a feedback conversation) and a consequence gap (scorecards pay for throughput only).

Limits (stated plainly):

  • All data is simulated, constructed for portfolio purposes; no real organization is described.
  • The survey is a cross-sectional snapshot — the associations above are correlations. In the fiction they would justify a controlled pilot (see the staggered-rollout design in the measurement plan), not conclusions.
  • n = 200 with cluster sampling by clinic; clinic-level comparisons (like Cedar Point) rest on small n.
  • Self-reported cadence was not audited against calendars for the full sample (the discovery calendar audit sampled one clinic; see the completed intake).

Where this goes next: the performance gap statement and the root-cause analysis.