/engagement-analyzer

name: engagement-analyzer
description: Analyze employee engagement survey data to identify trends, prioritize actions, and design targeted interventions
license: MIT
metadata:
  author: ClawFu
  version: 1.0.0
  mcp-server: "@clawfu/mcp-skills"

Engagement Analyzer

> Transform engagement survey data into actionable insights with trend analysis, priority identification, and targeted intervention design.

When to Use This Skill

• Analyzing survey results
• Identifying engagement drivers
• Prioritizing action areas
• Designing interventions
• Tracking improvement

Methodology Foundation

Based on **Gallup Q12 framework** and **Qualtrics engagement research**, combining:

• Driver analysis
• Benchmarking
• Action prioritization
• Intervention design

What Claude Does vs What You Decide

| Claude Does | You Decide | |-------------|------------| | Analyzes survey data | Survey questions | | Identifies patterns | Data collection | | Prioritizes actions | Resource allocation | | Suggests interventions | Implementation | | Creates action plans | Executive priorities |

Instructions

Step 1: Understand Engagement Model

**Key Engagement Dimensions:**

| Dimension | What It Measures | Example Questions | |-----------|------------------|-------------------| | **Purpose** | Connection to mission | "My work has meaning" | | **Development** | Growth opportunity | "I learn and grow here" | | **Manager** | Leadership quality | "My manager supports me" | | **Team** | Collaboration | "My team works well together" | | **Wellbeing** | Work-life balance | "I can manage my workload" | | **Recognition** | Appreciation | "I feel valued for my contributions" |

Step 2: Analyze Results

**Analysis Framework:**

| Metric | Calculation | Interpretation | |--------|-------------|----------------| | Overall Score | Average of all items | Health indicator | | Favorability | % Agree + Strongly Agree | Positive sentiment | | eNPS | Promoters - Detractors | Loyalty indicator | | Participation | Responses / Invited | Data reliability |

**Comparison Points:**

• Previous survey (trend)
• Company benchmark
• Industry benchmark
• Team vs. company

Step 3: Identify Priorities

**Priority Matrix:**

| Score | Impact | Priority | |-------|--------|----------| | Low | High | P1 - Critical | | Low | Medium | P2 - Important | | Low | Low | P3 - Monitor | | High | Any | Maintain |

Step 4: Design Interventions

**Intervention Types:**

| Level | Examples | Timeline | |-------|----------|----------| | Quick Wins | Recognition, communication | 0-30 days | | Process Changes | Meeting structure, feedback | 30-90 days | | Structural Changes | Role design, team structure | 90+ days | | Culture Shifts | Values, behaviors | 6+ months |

Step 5: Create Action Plan

**Plan Components:** 1. Priority area 2. Root cause hypothesis 3. Proposed intervention 4. Success metrics 5. Owner and timeline

Examples

Example 1: Full Engagement Analysis

**Input:**

Analyze these engagement survey results:

Company Overall: 72 (was 68)
Participation: 85%

By Dimension (favorability %):
- Purpose: 82%
- Development: 58%
- Manager: 71%
- Team: 76%
- Wellbeing: 54%
- Recognition: 65%

Engineering Dept: 64 overall
- Development: 45%
- Wellbeing: 42%

Sales Dept: 78 overall
- Recognition: 52%

**Output:**

## Employee Engagement Analysis

### Executive Summary

**Overall Health:** Improving (+4 points to 72)
**Key Wins:** Purpose (82%), Team (76%)
**Critical Areas:** Wellbeing (54%), Development (58%)
**Hot Spots:** Engineering (64 overall), Sales Recognition (52%)

---

### Overall Results

| Metric | Score | vs. Last | vs. Benchmark |
|--------|-------|----------|---------------|
| Overall Score | 72 | +4 | +2 |
| Participation | 85% | +3% | +10% |
| eNPS | +18 | +6 | +8 |

**Interpretation:** Solid improvement across the board. High participation
indicates employees feel their voice matters.

---

### Dimension Analysis

| Dimension | Score | Trend | Priority |
|-----------|-------|-------|----------|
| Purpose | 82% | → | Maintain |
| Team | 76% | ↑ | Maintain |
| Manager | 71% | ↑ | Improve |
| Recognition | 65% | → | Improve |
| Development | 58% | ↓ | Critical |
| Wellbeing | 54% | ↓ | Critical |

---

### Priority Matrix

HIGH IMPACT │ ┌────────────────────┼────────────────────┐ │ P1: CRITICAL │ MAINTAIN │ │ • Wellbeing │ • Purpose │ │ • Development │ • Team │ LOW ├────────────────────┼────────────────────┤ HIGH SCORE│ P2: IMPORTANT │ LEVERAGE │ │ • Recognition │ │ │ • Manager │ │ └────────────────────┴────────────────────┘ LOW IMPACT

---

### Department Deep Dive

#### Engineering (64 Overall) - NEEDS ATTENTION

| Dimension | Engineering | Company | Gap |
|-----------|-------------|---------|-----|
| Development | 45% | 58% | -13 |
| Wellbeing | 42% | 54% | -12 |

**Root Cause Hypotheses:**
1. Technical debt creating burnout
2. Limited career progression paths
3. On-call burden distributed unevenly

**Recommended Actions:**
| Action | Owner | Timeline |
|--------|-------|----------|
| Engineering career ladder review | VP Eng + HR | 90 days |
| On-call rotation audit | Eng Managers | 30 days |
| 20% learning time policy | VP Eng | 60 days |

---

### Company-Wide Action Plan

#### P1: Wellbeing Initiative (54%)

**Target:** Increase to 65% by next survey

**Actions:**
| Action | Owner | Timeline |
|--------|-------|----------|
| "No Meeting Fridays" pilot | Leadership | 30 days |
| Workload survey by department | HRBP | 30 days |
| Manager training: sustainable teams | L&D | 90 days |

---

#### P1: Development Initiative (58%)

**Target:** Increase to 70% by next survey

**Actions:**
| Action | Owner | Timeline |
|--------|-------|----------|
| Learning stipend communication | HR