Revealing where perceptions converge and diverge
Format: Name, Function, then 32 question scores (1-5). First row should be headers. Avoid commas in names unless the field is quoted, e.g. "Compton, Rich".
With fewer than 8 respondents, statistical measures like Krippendorff's Alpha and standard deviation become less reliable. The patterns are still informative, but interpret the precision of the numbers with appropriate caution.
Common organisational patterns. Suggested patterns are highlighted based on your team's data, but this is a starting point for exploration, not a diagnosis.
Each cell shows how far an individual's score deviates from the team mean. Green indicates consensus; amber and red indicate divergence (regardless of direction).
Team averages with variance indicators. Wide bands suggest disagreement; narrow bands suggest consensus.
Questions where the team diverges most. These are conversation starters, not problems per se.
Who sees things most differently? Euclidean distance from the team centroid, with direction of divergence.
How different functions see each lens. Gaps often reflect genuine differences in experience.
Detailed statistics for those who want the numbers behind the narrative.