An average of three people isn't an average, it's a hint. That's why the dashboard stays quiet below five responses.
In small teams a group figure can be reverse-engineered. If you know there are four people and the average dropped, you often know who held back. That's exactly the conversation that makes a training useless.
So we show nothing below five reporters. Not rounded, not as a range, not on request. In practice that means small departments are rolled up a level, or they only get their own individual feedback.
Why five and not three
There is no statutory threshold saying: from five it is allowed. What the GDPR does say is that data only falls outside the regulation once it can no longer be traced to a person — not with reasonable effort, and not in combination with what the recipient already knows. That last part is the crux here: a team lead knows their team.
With three reporters one deviating score is enough to visibly shift the average, and with four a manager who knows two answers can work out the rest. From five that sum becomes unreliable enough not to be attempted. It is a practical floor, not proof of anonymity — which is why we would rather roll small departments up a level than round their figures.
What this costs
Being honest about the price is part of it. An organisation with many small teams sees less breakdown than it wanted, and sometimes that is exactly the breakdown the conversation was about. The alternative is a figure that points at one person, and then the measurement turns from a tool into an assessment. The moment participants notice that, you stop measuring skill and start measuring caution.
What the employer does see
- Progress per group, from five reporters
- Which topics are lagging
- The difference between baseline and follow-up