Score

Cultural Health Check

Senior leadership, even for decisions that could reasonably be made closer to the work

A mix, though it often defaults upward when there's any uncertainty

Decisions are made as close to the information and the consequence as possible, with senior leaders stepping in mainly for genuinely strategic calls

It varies significantly by team and by manager, without a consistent pattern

Q1. Who typically takes decisions in your organisation, on matters that affect a team's day-to-day work?

Largely by the seniority or authority of whoever is in the room

By seeking broad consensus, even when it takes time

By a deliberate blend: relevant data and diverse perspectives inform the decision, and a clearly accountable person makes the final call

Inconsistently; the approach depends on the situation and the people involved

Q2. How are decisions actually made, once the "who" is settled? By data, by consensus, or by authority?

Information mostly flows downward, on a need-to-know basis

Information flows reasonably well, though some things are filtered before reaching the front line

Information flows transparently in both directions, including upward challenge and difficult news reaching leadership without being softened along the way

Information flow is inconsistent and depends heavily on individual relationships

Q3. How freely does information (performance data, strategic context, difficult news) flow across levels of the organisation?

Most people would keep disagreement to themselves or raise it only privately, later

People will push back if the stakes feel high enough, but it isn't the norm

Respectful challenge upward is a genuinely normal, expected part of how the organisation works, not an exception that requires courage

This varies a great deal depending on the specific leader involved

Q4. How safe do people feel challenging an idea, or a decision, from someone more senior than them?

There's an unspoken cost to being associated with the failure, even if nobody says so explicitly

It's tolerated, without much active reflection on what was learned

Failure from a genuine, well-reasoned attempt is treated as valuable information, actively discussed, and doesn't damage the standing of the people involved

We haven't had enough visible failures to know how this plays out

Q5. How does your organisation actually respond when a well-reasoned experiment or initiative fails?

Collaboration mostly happens when it's formally mandated (joint projects, task forces)

Some genuine cross-functional relationships exist, though they depend on individuals rather than structure

Collaboration is structurally and culturally normal; people default to reaching across functional lines without needing permission or a formal mandate

Functions largely operate independently, with limited natural overlap

Q6. How well do different functions or departments actually collaborate, versus operating as separate silos?

There's a noticeable gap; the stated values and what actually gets rewarded don't always line up

Mostly aligned, with occasional visible inconsistencies

Recognition and reward are consistently and visibly aligned with stated values, including when living those values comes at some short-term cost

We haven't examined this alignment explicitly

Q7. How well does what gets recognised and rewarded actually match the values the organisation states it holds?

Mostly through their direct manager, who may or may not carry it further

There are some informal channels, though nothing consistent or reliable

There's a genuinely reliable path, formal or informal, for a good idea to travel upward on its own merit, regardless of who had it

Ideas mostly surface through the level at which people are naturally already visible to leadership

Q8. How does new thinking or an unconventional idea from someone junior actually reach a decision-maker who could act on it?

Decisions tend to move slowly, with extensive review before commitment

There's a reasonable balance, though it varies by initiative and stakeholder

The organisation matches its pace to the stakes: fast and decisive on reversible, lower-risk moves, more deliberate where the cost of being wrong is genuinely high

Speed tends to depend more on who is championing the initiative than on the nature of the decision itself

Q9. How much deliberation versus speed characterises how your organisation moves on new opportunities?

Fairly different; culture seems to be experienced quite differently depending on where you sit

Broadly similar in spirit, though the details and emphasis would vary

Strikingly consistent; the lived experience of the culture holds up the same way whether you ask someone senior or someone three levels down