Net Talent Score
One question that tells you how much people would recommend this leader.
Most 360 reviews measure how well a leader performs. They don't measure whether people want to keep working for them. A leader can score well on every dimension and still have a team that is actively looking for the door. Net Talent Score catches that. One question: "How likely are you to recommend working on a team or project led by [name]?" Respondents answer on a 0-10 scale. Ambassadors (9-10) would seek this leader out again. Supporters (7-8) are satisfied but not committed. Sceptics (6 or lower) have already started to disengage.
Why one question works
In 2003, Fred Reichheld published "The One Number You Need to Grow" in Harvard Business Review. His insight: customer loyalty could be measured with a single question. "Would you recommend this company?" It worked because it was short enough to answer and predictive enough to matter.
We took that insight and applied it to leadership. Instead of asking whether someone would recommend a company, we ask whether they would recommend working for a specific person. The Net Talent Score is the percentage of Ambassadors minus the percentage of Sceptics, producing a number between -100 and +100.
What the number reveals
Net Talent Score answers the question that most 360s avoid: would people choose to work for this person again? High scores on individual dimensions can mask the fact that people are looking for the door. A leader can score well on Focus and Standards and still lose the people they need most.
It surfaces something HR teams usually discover in exit interviews. When a strong performer leaves citing their manager, the data existed. No one chose to ask.
The distribution matters as much as the score itself. A leader with 60% Ambassadors and 20% Sceptics has a very different problem from a leader with 40% Ambassadors and zero Sceptics, even though both might score around +40. One has a loyalty gap. The other has a ceiling. The report shows both, because what to do next depends on which problem you're solving.
Six shapes, thirty distinct readings
The NTS is not one number with one meaning. The system identifies six distribution shapes based on how Ambassador, Supporter, and Sceptic percentages are distributed across your team. Thirty distinct readouts exist across five score bands and six shapes, because the same aggregate can reflect fundamentally different situations.
The six shapes are: Fraying (Sceptics outnumber Ambassadors, a signal of active disengagement that precedes exit by months), Coiled (most of the team are Supporters clustered just below the Ambassador threshold, a plateau with real room to improve), Polarized (meaningful Ambassador and Sceptic groups coexist on the same team), Tilted positive (Ambassadors comfortably outnumber Sceptics, a clear warm lean), Dominant (a large Ambassador majority with very few Sceptics), and Balanced (a fallback for distributions that do not cluster into a clear pattern).
Here is why the shape matters in practice. Two leaders both score +35 NTS. One has a Tilted positive shape: broad warmth across the team, with Ambassadors leading and Sceptics almost absent. The other has a Polarized shape: a real Ambassador group and a real Sceptic group coexisting on the same team, the number pulled to +35 by the Ambassador majority. Same score. Completely different action.
The Tilted leader protects what is working and asks which specific people are not yet in the Ambassador circle. The Polarized leader names the Sceptic group specifically, asks what they have in common (tenure, function, seniority, proximity during the pressure moments where behavior shifts), and starts there. One intervention is about extending warmth. The other is about a specific relationship gap. The aggregate number does not tell you which problem you have. The shape does.
The report shows both the number and the distribution. Read them together.
References
- Reichheld, F.F. (2003). "The One Number You Need to Grow." Harvard Business Review.