Here's what we heard when we asked your organization how it's really doing.
246 people took part in this assessment, and 82% of them spoke openly. That level of honesty is rare, and it's the reason this report can be trusted. What follows is a plain look at where the organization is strong, where it's straining, and what to do about it.
Responses are aggregated and confidential. No individual is identifiable, and no score here is a judgment of any person.
The foundation this organization is building from
Before the gaps, a clear look at the genuine strengths worth protecting while the rest improves.
Over four in five people engaged honestly with this process — a strong signal of trust in the organization.
The skill and judgment already in the organization is a real, durable asset.
People feel a genuine emotional connection to why the organization exists.
Are people aligned on direction, and engaged enough to act on it?
Two different questions that often get confused with each other, and the gap between them is where most of the friction in this report lives.
Alignment — how clearly direction is shared and whether the structure exists to act on it. A lower score means people and teams are pulling in slightly different directions, even when everyone means well.
Engagement — how much skill exists and how well people are converting it into shared effort. A lower score usually means individual talent isn't yet compounding into collective output.
Alignment is ahead of Engagement: people broadly understand the direction, but that understanding isn't yet converting into shared, collective action.
Four dimensions of organizational health
A broader read on the organization, beyond the questions above, covering loyalty, confidence, values, and growth.
Reflects how likely people are to stay and advocate for the organization. This score signals moderate loyalty with notable flight risk in low-connection teams.
Measures how much people believe in the organization's direction and its ability to execute. People aren't yet sure the plan will land.
Captures how closely lived behaviour matches stated values. Values are known but not yet consistently shaping decisions under pressure.
Reflects how supported people feel in growing their skills and career. Moderate score driven by limited manager coaching capacity.
The values, vision, and mission underneath everything else
How clearly the organization's values, vision, and mission are being modelled day to day, and where that lands differently by department.
How strongly is each value being modelled?
Core value alignment by department
| Commitment | Accountability | Healthy Conflict | Results-Driven | Trust | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Accounting n = 18 | High 64 | High 70 | Low 44 | High 68 | Low 50 |
HR n = 12 | High 72 | High 66 | Moderate 54 | High 64 | Moderate 60 |
Technology n = 35 | Moderate 60 | Moderate 58 | Moderate 56 | High 70 | Moderate 52 |
Admin n = 14 | Moderate 60 | Moderate 56 | Low 40 | Moderate 62 | Low 44 |
Operations n = 68 | High 64 | Moderate 60 | Low 48 | High 66 | Low 48 |
Sales n = 91 | Low 48 | Low 44 | Very Low 32 | Moderate 54 | Very Low 36 |
Product n = 65 | Moderate 62 | High 64 | Moderate 52 | High 68 | Low 50 |
Vision & Mission alignment by department
| Vision | Mission | |
|---|---|---|
Accounting n = 18 | Low 50 | Moderate 52 |
HR n = 12 | Moderate 62 | Moderate 63 |
Technology n = 35 | Moderate 56 | Moderate 57 |
Admin n = 14 | Low 46 | Low 49 |
Operations n = 68 | Moderate 55 | Moderate 55 |
Sales n = 91 | Very Low 39 | Low 44 |
Product n = 65 | Moderate 62 | Moderate 63 |
The working system that turns direction into results
Four pillars carry the organization's day-to-day work, and how they hold up across departments.
The four pillars that turn direction into results
People are deciding faster than they are comprehending, acting before the thinking is shared.
Comprehension and decision are well-matched. Structure is a relative strength.
The standout strength. People have the skill and judgment to perform.
The critical pillar. Understanding exists but is not converting into shared action.
System pillar scores across all teams
| Communication | Capacity | Capability | Connection | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Accounting n = 18 | Moderate 56 | High 68 | Moderate 62 | Low 48 |
HR n = 12 | High 64 | Moderate 62 | Moderate 60 | High 64 |
Technology n = 35 | Moderate 60 | High 66 | Very High 78 | Moderate 56 |
Admin n = 14 | Moderate 52 | Moderate 58 | Moderate 58 | Low 46 |
Operations n = 68 | Moderate 60 | High 68 | High 70 | Low 48 |
Sales n = 91 | Low 42 | Moderate 62 | High 64 | Very Low 32 |
Product n = 65 | Moderate 62 | High 64 | Very High 76 | Low 46 |
Severity across each paired pillar
How exposed each of the six pillar pairings is right now, ranked from most to least urgent.
Color indicates severity. Ranked by urgency.
Where the biggest gaps are showing up
The two pairings carrying the most risk right now, and where to start closing them.
Individual to Collective
Relationship Gap“Are we stronger as a team, or just busier as individuals?”
Individual performance isn't converting to collective output. High performers are carrying the load alone. Without a connection layer, they will leave or disengage.
Introduce peer visibility structures so individual contribution lands visibly.
Experience to Wisdom
Growth Gap“Are we learning, or repeating the same mistakes?”
What people are learning on the ground isn't making it back into how the organization sets direction. The same mistakes can repeat, and the people with the most direct experience have the least influence on strategy.
Create structured feedback channels from frontline to strategy, starting with one team.
The themes behind what people said
Patterns that emerged independently across multiple respondents, grouped and validated against the scores above.
People don't know who owns decisions, so they wait
The most consistently raised issue across every team. Decisions stall at manager level, get escalated unnecessarily, or simply aren't made.
Feedback exists in theory but doesn't reach the people who need it
1:1s focused on status rather than development, feedback arriving months late, and a cultural norm where raising concerns upward feels risky.
Teams work in parallel but rarely together
Friction at the boundaries between teams, particularly between those responsible for delivery and those responsible for direction. The pattern is structural, not interpersonal.
Strategy doesn't translate into what people work on day to day
People are broadly aware of organizational goals but struggle to connect them to their own priorities. The vision exists, but it isn't yet a decision tool.
Managers are stretched, and not set up to develop their people
Managers are managing delivery, not people. Limited access to coaching and a sense that growth sits lower on the agenda than output.
What the data is really telling you
Behind every score is a financial reality and an opportunity. This section translates what your people said into what it means for the organization — the cost of staying still, and the value of choosing to act.
What your people told us
Each score reflects how your organization is doing on a question that matters to how it feels to work here.
What to do first
A sequenced set of next steps, prioritized by where action will unlock the most value the fastest.
Name who decides, who is consulted, and who is informed for the most common recurring decisions. This is the single highest-leverage fix in the report.
Introduce a regular, structured touchpoint between the teams with the most friction at handoff points.
Make it visible when feedback leads to a change. Even small, visible follow-through rebuilds confidence that speaking up matters.