May 21, 2026
What’s the Most Overrated Metric in Employee Experience Right Now?
EX measurement has never been more sophisticated – yet many organisations are still tracking the wrong things. We asked four people leaders to name the metric they’d retire, and what they’d replace it with.
AI Adoption for Its Own Sake
Arne Sjöström, Regional Director People Science EMEA, Culture Amp
For Arne Sjöström, the most overrated metric in EX right now isn’t an engagement score or a retention rate; it’s the rush to quantify AI adoption. Tracking speed, tool usage, or automation rates as proof of progress, he argues, misses the point entirely.
“The most overrated metric in employee experience right now is AI adoption for its own sake. Too many organisations treat speed, tool usage, or automation rates as proof of progress, when those numbers say very little about whether work is actually getting better. AI can remove friction, but if it is applied indiscriminately it can also flatten judgment, weaken collaboration, and create a lot of fast but low-value output.
“What matters more is whether organisations are using AI intentionally: to strip away low-value grind while protecting the moments where friction is useful – such as reflection, debate, creativity, and human connection. That is often where better decisions, stronger alignment, and more meaningful work are created.
“In practice, the strongest organisations will not be the ones using the most AI. They will be the ones using it with intention – accelerating routine tasks, while slowing down where quality, judgment, and trust still matter most.”
Activity Metrics Masquerading as Effectiveness
Lisa Sterling, Chief People Officer, Perceptyx
Lisa Sterling’s concern is with a whole category of metrics that look like evidence of progress but aren’t. HR has become skilled at measuring participation – the problem is that participation and performance are not the same thing.
“The most overrated employee experience metrics right now are the ones that mistake workforce activity for workforce effectiveness. HR has become very good at measuring participation: engagement scores, course completions, internal mobility, retention trends. But most organisations still can’t answer a much more important question: did any of it actually improve how people perform?
“That’s the gap. A company can have strong engagement scores, high training participation, and low turnover while still struggling with manager effectiveness, execution, productivity, or customer outcomes.
“The organisations moving ahead are starting to measure demonstrated capability, not just sentiment or activity. They’re asking whether employees can apply new skills, whether managers are changing behaviours, and whether workforce investments are translating into operational impact. That means paying closer attention to metrics like productivity, revenue per employee, critical role readiness, and customer outcomes.
“EX metrics shouldn’t just describe the workforce. They should help organisations understand whether the workforce is actually getting better over time.”
Participation Doesn’t Equal Engagement
David Price, Head of Talent and CX, Wolferstans Solicitors
David Price’s frustration is with one of EX’s most persistent assumptions: that because people showed up, they must be engaged. In professional services especially, he sees organisations repeatedly measuring the wrong signals.
“In my experience, organisations assume that participation equals engagement. I think this is flawed. Too many organisations still treat attendance at events, completion of surveys, or clicks on wellbeing initiatives as evidence that people are engaged. In reality, participation often just tells you that employees are compliant, curious, or aware something exists. It tells you very little about whether the underlying experience is actually good or improving.
“The more useful signals are usually behavioural and seen in daily habits. Are people collaborating across teams without being forced to? Are managers having regular quality conversations with their people? Are high performers staying? Are employees recommending the organisation to others when nobody has asked them to? Do people feel psychologically safe enough to challenge decisions or admit mistakes?
“In professional services particularly, there seems to be a tendency to measure sentiment in isolated moments rather than looking at the cumulative day-to-day experience of working there.”
Turnover, Read Without Context
Ricky Burt, Employee Experience Specialist, EmpExHR
Ricky Burt doesn’t argue that attrition should be ignored, but that reading it in isolation leads organisations to the wrong conclusions. People leave for reasons that are often individual, and not always within the organisation’s control.
“Turnover can be misleading if looked at in isolation. People leave for a variety of reasons, which may have little to do with overall employee experience and be very individual in nature. Unlike metrics like engagement, turnover is influenced by ‘pull’ factors too. Individuals could have the best employee experience but an opportunity that is too good to miss comes up – it’s progression, a higher salary, closer to home, etc.
“Turnover of course needs to be managed – within the limitations of what can be managed. For example, career development. While organisations should maximise internal development opportunities, there’s always going to be a bottleneck for progression, so at some point that means people go elsewhere.
“Poor management is another key reason, but does that mean there’s a management team issue, a single manager issue or two people just didn’t get along? When looking at turnover in consideration of EX, it’s important to look at the context, not just the numbers.”
