This report crosses SmileBack CSAT ratings with HiBob employee hierarchy data to reveal which managers' teams consistently receive the highest and lowest client satisfaction scores. Two data sources, one question: does leadership quality show up in your CSAT numbers?
This report crosses SmileBack CSAT ratings with HiBob employee hierarchy data to reveal which managers' teams consistently receive the highest and lowest client satisfaction scores. Two data sources, one question: does leadership quality show up in your CSAT numbers?
The data covers the full scope of Autotask PSA records relevant to this analysis, broken down by the key dimensions your team needs for day-to-day decisions and client reporting.
Who should use this: Service managers, account managers, and MSP leadership tracking customer experience
How often: Weekly for trend monitoring, monthly for team reviews, quarterly for QBRs
This report crosses SmileBack CSAT ratings with HiBob employee hierarchy data to reveal which managers' teams consistently receive the highest and lowest client satisfaction scores. Two data sources, one question: does leadership quality show up in your CSAT numbers?
EVALUATE ROW("Employees", [Total Employees], "Managers", [Total Managers], "Ratio", [Manager Ratio], "Span", [Average Span of Control])| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Current | 87.7% |
| Last Year | 78.3% |
| Ratings | 10,178 |
The gap between the top and bottom is significant. Manager A's team scores 4.8 while Manager H's team sits at 3.0 - a 1.8-point spread on a 5-point scale. Manager B runs the largest high-performing team with 15 direct reports and 487 ratings, proving that team size does not automatically drag down satisfaction.
EVALUATE ROW("CSATAvg", [CSAT - Average Rating], "CSATLastYear", [CSAT - Average Rating - Last Year], "Ratings", [CSAT - Total Ratings])The visual makes it clear: Manager H is an outlier. The gap between Manager G (3.9) and Manager H (3.0) is nearly as large as the gap across all other managers combined. This suggests a systemic issue within Manager H's team rather than normal variation.
EVALUATE
ADDCOLUMNS(
SUMMARIZE(BI_HiBob_Employees, BI_HiBob_Employees[manager_name]),
"AvgCSAT", CALCULATE(AVERAGE(BI_SmileBack_Ratings[rating])),
"RatingCount", CALCULATE(COUNTROWS(BI_SmileBack_Ratings))
)
ORDER BY [AvgCSAT] DESC| Manager | Team Size | Span of Control | Avg CSAT | Observation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manager D | 18 | 18 | 4.4 | Largest team, still above average |
| Manager G | 16 | 16 | 3.9 | Second largest, below average |
| Manager B | 15 | 15 | 4.7 | Large team, top performer |
| Manager E | 14 | 14 | 4.3 | Mid-size, average CSAT |
| Manager C | 12 | 12 | 4.6 | Mid-size, above average |
| Manager F | 11 | 11 | 4.2 | Smaller team, average CSAT |
| Manager A | 9 | 9 | 4.8 | Smallest team, highest CSAT |
| Manager H | 8 | 8 | 3.0 | Small team, worst CSAT |
The data shows no clear correlation between team size and CSAT. Manager B runs 15 people at 4.7, while Manager H only manages 8 at 3.0. Manager D leads the largest team (18) and still beats the company average. Team size is not the problem - leadership quality is.
| Technician | Manager | Avg CSAT | Ratings | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tech A | Manager H | 2.4 | 67 | Declining |
| Tech B | Manager H | 2.8 | 54 | Declining |
| Tech C | Manager H | 3.2 | 42 | Flat |
| Tech D | Manager G | 3.4 | 89 | Flat |
| Tech E | Manager G | 3.6 | 76 | Improving |
Three of Manager H's eight direct reports score below 3.5. Tech A at 2.4 is the lowest individual score in the entire dataset, with 67 ratings - enough volume to be statistically meaningful. This is not a one-off bad review; it is a pattern.
The donut charts put the spread in perspective. Manager A's team fills 96% of the ring. Manager H fills only 60%. The company average sits at 4.3, meaning Manager H's team drags the overall number down while Manager A and B pull it up.
With an average rating of 3.0 across 211 reviews, Manager H's team scores 1.3 points below the company average of 4.3. Three of eight direct reports score below 3.5. This is the only team where more than one technician falls under the 3.5 threshold.
Manager B leads 15 people at a 4.7 CSAT while Manager H manages only 8 at 3.0. Manager D runs the largest team (18 reports) and still delivers above-average scores. The data shows no correlation between span of control and client satisfaction outcomes.
Managers A, B, and C together manage 36 employees and maintain an average CSAT above 4.6. Their combined 1,200 ratings provide strong statistical confidence. These teams set the benchmark for what good looks like in this organization.
1. Investigate Manager H's team immediately. A 3.0 average across 211 ratings is not a data anomaly. Review the types of tickets this team handles, the complexity of their client base, and whether training or coaching gaps exist. Compare their ticket mix to Manager A's team to rule out assignment bias before drawing conclusions about leadership.
2. Shadow the top performers to extract repeatable practices. Manager B's ability to maintain 4.7 with 15 direct reports is the most actionable insight in this report. Document what Manager B does differently - ticket routing, escalation procedures, coaching cadence - and test whether those practices transfer to lower-performing teams.
3. Set a team CSAT floor of 4.0 and review monthly. Any manager whose team drops below 4.0 for two consecutive months should trigger a structured improvement plan. Build a Power BI dashboard page that tracks this threshold automatically and alerts leadership when a team breaches it.
Each SmileBack rating is linked to a ticket, and each ticket has an assigned technician. That technician is matched to their manager through the HiBob employee hierarchy (BI_HiBob_Employees.manager_id). A manager's CSAT score is the average of all ratings received by their direct reports.
Managers with fewer than 3 direct reports who handle tickets produce sample sizes too small to draw meaningful conclusions. A single technician having a bad month could skew the entire team average. The 3-person minimum ensures each manager's score reflects team-level performance rather than individual variation.
Yes, but use the client-facing CSAT number (the overall 4.3 average) rather than individual manager scores. The per-manager breakdown is an internal operations tool. Sharing individual manager scores with clients could undermine trust. The DAX queries in this report let you filter CSAT by client for external-facing conversations.
Connect Proxuma Power BI to your PSA, RMM, and M365 environment, use an MCP-compatible AI to ask questions, and generate custom reports - in minutes, not days.
See more reports Get started