check

The Leadership Risk Diagnostic

A structured assessment for HR, L&D, and People leaders 

Map where your organisation's leadership capability carries the highest hidden risk before it surfaces as a visible problem.

This assessment identifies where your leadership capability carries the highest hidden risk — not based on current performance data, but on the hidden patterns that predict future failure at the senior level.

The questions are about what you observe in your organisation right now. Answer based on what is actually happening, not what the organisation aspires to. The precision of the output depends entirely on the honesty of the input.

Click the button below to start your Leadership Risk Diagnostic.

Start

PROMOTION & PROGRESSION RISK

5 questions · Measures whether advancement decisions predict performance at the next level.

 

The most expensive talent mistake most organisations make is not a bad hire — it is a promotion that distributes its cost across two years and three teams before anyone names what went wrong. This domain measures whether your advancement decisions are based on evidence that actually predicts senior leadership performance, or on evidence that only describes what happened in conditions that no longer apply.

Question 2 of 30

When a leader is considered for promotion to a senior role, how formally is their performance under sustained pressure — rather than in stable conditions — assessed?

A

It is assessed formally, with specific evidence of how they operate under ambiguity, pressure, and peer challenge [2]

B

It is considered informally, based on impressions rather than structured evidence [1]

C

Performance in current conditions is the primary basis for the promotion decision [0]

Question 3 of 30

When a high-performing leader struggles after promotion, what is the organisation's most common first explanation?

A

The role was more complex than anticipated — we look at what we missed in the transition support [1]

B

We examine whether the pattern driving the difficulty was visible before promotion but not assessed [2]

C

The person was promoted beyond their capability — we focus on managing the underperformance [0]

Question 4 of 30

How specifically does your current leadership assessment process distinguish between performance that reflects individual competence and performance that reflects the conditions the leader operated in?

A

We have a structured methodology for separating situational performance from individual pattern — and it is applied consistently [2]

B

We are aware of this distinction but do not have a consistent methodology for applying it [1]

C

Our assessments primarily measure outputs and behaviours without separating individual pattern from situational context [0]

Question 5 of 30

In your organisation's last three to five significant senior leadership appointments, how many resulted in meaningful team disruption, performance decline, or leadership problems within 18 months?

A

None or one — our promotion hit rate is consistently strong [2]

B

One or two — we have had some transitions that were more difficult than expected [1]

C

Two or more — post-promotion leadership problems are a recurring pattern [0]

Question 6 of 30

To what degree does your organisation have explicit criteria for what patterns — not just competencies — disqualify a leader from a specific senior role, regardless of their performance track record?

A

We have explicit disqualifying pattern criteria that are applied consistently in promotion decisions [2]

B

We have informal awareness of patterns that create risk at senior levels but no formal criteria [1]

C

Our promotion criteria are competency and performance-based — pattern is not formally considered [0]

DEVELOPMENT ROI

5 questions · Measures whether L&D investment is producing durable change or awareness that reverts

 

Leadership development that produces awareness without behaviour change is not a neutral outcome — it is an expensive one. Leaders who know their patterns, can articulate them precisely, and still revert under pressure are harder to develop further than leaders who were never given the framework. This domain measures whether current investment is reaching the level where durable change actually happens.

Question 8 of 30

What is the most common evidence your organisation uses to evaluate whether a leadership development programme has been effective?

A

Sustained behaviour change observed by direct reports and peers in high-pressure situations, measured 6–12 months post-programme [2]

B

Manager observation of behaviour change in the 1–3 months following the programme [1]

C

Post-programme satisfaction scores, participant self-report, or knowledge assessment [0]

Question 9 of 30

How often does your organisation observe leaders who can articulate their development areas clearly but still exhibit the same patterns under pressure that they identified in their development process?

A

Rarely — when leaders can name the pattern precisely, behaviour change tends to follow [2]

B

Sometimes — awareness improves behaviour in normal conditions but pressure still triggers the old pattern [1]

C

Frequently — this is one of the most consistent frustrations in our development work [0]

Question 10 of 30

To what degree does your current L&D methodology explicitly work at the level of belief and identity — the level where operating patterns are actually produced — rather than primarily at the level of behaviour and skill?

A

Our methodology explicitly and consistently works at the belief and identity level with structured approaches for doing so [2]

B

Some of our development work touches this level, but we do not have a consistent methodology for it [1]

C

Our primary focus is behaviour, skill, and competency — belief and identity work is not a structured part of our approach [0]

Question 11 of 30

When a leadership development investment does not produce the expected behaviour change, what is the organisation's most common diagnosis?

A

We examine whether the development methodology reached the right level — belief, identity, and pattern — or whether it operated only at awareness and skill [2]

B

We look at application and accountability — whether the leader had enough support and opportunity to apply what they learned [1]

C

We question the leader's commitment, motivation, or coachability [0]

Question 12 of 30

How confident are you that your current leadership development investment is producing behaviour change that will hold in the situations that matter most — sustained pressure, genuine ambiguity, public accountability for decisions that do not have clean answers?

A

Very confident — we have consistent evidence of durable change in exactly those conditions [2]

B

Moderately confident — we see change in normal conditions but are less certain about high-pressure situations [1]

C

Not confident — this is a genuine gap in what our current approach can reliably deliver [0]

LEADERSHIP ENVIRONMENT

5 questions · Measures whether conditions for honest communication and real ownership exist at the senior level.

 

A leadership team that looks aligned is not the same as a leadership team that is aligned. An organisation that talks about accountability is not the same as one where accountability actually holds. This domain measures whether the conditions that senior performance requires actually exist — or whether the organisation is building on a foundation of managed surface and unexpressed truth.

Question 14 of 30

In your senior leadership team meetings, how often do significant concerns, risks, or disagreements that are later raised informally — in conversations after the meeting — get raised in the meeting itself?

A

Almost always — the meeting is where the real conversation happens [2]

B

Sometimes — there is a gap between meeting-room conversation and corridor conversation, but it is not pervasive [1]

C

Frequently — important issues consistently surface after the meeting rather than in it [0]

Question 15 of 30

When a senior leader receives critical feedback or is challenged directly on a significant decision, what is the most common pattern of response?

A

Genuine engagement — the challenge is considered seriously and sometimes changes the direction [2]

B

Polite acknowledgement — the challenge is heard but rarely materially affects the decision or direction [1]

C

Defensiveness — challenges are managed rather than genuinely considered, even if the response appears professional [0]

Question 16 of 30

How consistently do stated accountabilities in your senior team translate into actual ownership — situations where the accountable person drives the outcome independently, without the CEO or other senior leaders needing to manage the process?

A

Very consistently — accountability and ownership are genuinely aligned at the senior level [2]

B

Partially — accountability is stated and sometimes holds, but there are consistent patterns of ownership drifting back to the CEO or senior sponsor [1]

C

Accountability is largely nominal — real ownership of outcomes consistently resides with the CEO or a small number of senior leaders regardless of stated responsibilities [0]

Question 17 of 30

How accurately do you believe the information that reaches the senior leadership team from the layers below reflects what is actually happening — rather than what people believe the senior team wants to hear?

A

Very accurately — the organisation has consistent mechanisms for surfacing unfiltered information, and they are used [2]

B

Somewhat accurately — there is filtering, but significant problems generally surface before they become crises [1]

C

There is significant filtering — the senior team regularly learns about significant problems later than they should, or not at all [0]

Question 18 of 30

When a high-performing team member leaves the organisation, how often is their exit meaningfully connected to issues of autonomy, ownership, or the quality of the leadership environment — rather than primarily to compensation or external opportunity?

A

Rarely — our high performers leave primarily for compensation or exceptional external opportunities [2]

B

Sometimes — we see some departures that appear connected to leadership environment issues, but it is not a dominant pattern [1]

C

Frequently — we lose high performers who cite autonomy, ownership, or leadership culture as significant factors [0]

PATTERN VISIBILITY

5 questions · Measures whether the organisation can identify hidden leadership patterns before they become structural problems

 

The patterns that produce the most expensive leadership failures are almost always observable before they produce visible problems. They appear in how leaders respond to specific types of pressure, in how they make specific types of decisions, in what they consistently avoid and what they consistently rescue. This domain measures whether your organisation has the methodology and the language to see what is there before the cost arrives.

Question 20 of 30

Does your organisation have a structured methodology for identifying the hidden operating patterns — beliefs, identity responses, deeply wired habits — that drive visible leadership behaviour, as distinct from competency assessment?

A

Yes — we have a consistent, structured approach that goes beneath competency to the pattern level, applied as part of our assessment and development process [2]

B

Partially — some of our coaches or assessors work at this level, but we do not have a consistent organisational methodology [1]

C

No — our assessment and development work is primarily competency and behaviour-based. Pattern-level diagnosis is not a structured part of our approach [0]

Question 21 of 30

How effectively can your organisation distinguish between a leader who is underperforming because of genuine capability limitations and one who is underperforming because the environment is producing a specific behaviour through accumulated signal?

A

Very effectively — we have a consistent diagnostic approach that separates individual pattern from environmental influence [2]

B

Somewhat effectively — we make this distinction informally, based on coach or manager judgment, without a structured methodology [1]

C

We do not reliably make this distinction — capability and environment explanations are used interchangeably [0]

Question 22 of 30

When you observe a leadership problem that keeps returning despite development investment — the same behaviour pattern across different programmes, different coaches, different feedback cycles — how does your organisation respond?

A

We examine whether our development methodology is operating at the right level — whether it is reaching the belief and pattern layer rather than the behaviour layer [2]

B

We increase the intensity or frequency of the development intervention — more coaching, more feedback, more support [1]

C

We question the leader's commitment or coachability and consider whether the role is the right fit [0]

Question 23 of 30

How much visibility does your organisation have into the specific hidden patterns carried by leaders currently in your succession pipeline — the patterns that will be tested most severely by the conditions of the senior roles they are being prepared for?

A

Good visibility — we have structured assessment of pipeline leaders at the pattern level as part of our succession planning process [2]

B

Limited visibility — we have some informal awareness of the tendencies and development areas of pipeline leaders, but not at the pattern level [1]

C

Minimal visibility — our succession planning is primarily focused on experience, competency, and performance track record. Pattern-level visibility is not part of the process [0]

Question 24 of 30

When a new senior leader joins from outside the organisation, how thoroughly does your onboarding process assess the patterns they bring — not just their competencies and experience — and how those patterns will interact with your specific organisational environment?

A

Very thoroughly — pattern assessment is a structured component of our senior onboarding, informing the leader's development plan and their manager's support approach [2]

B

Moderately — we do some pattern-level conversation in early coaching conversations but it is not structured or consistently applied [1]

C

The onboarding focus is primarily on the business context, the role requirements, and cultural assimilation. Pattern-level assessment is not a structured part of the process [0]

PIPELINE READINESS

5 questions · Measures whether the succession layer can carry what the current generation is carrying — or will replicate its limitations

 

A leadership pipeline can look healthy on paper — the right number of high-potential leaders, the right experience profiles, the right development investment — and still carry the same hidden patterns that limited the generation above it. This domain measures whether the pipeline is actually building the capability to lead differently, or building a sophisticated version of what already exists.

Question 26 of 30

To what degree are the leaders in your current succession pipeline being developed in ways that specifically address the patterns most likely to limit them at the next level — rather than primarily building the competencies and experiences the current level requires?

A

High degree — succession development is explicitly forward-oriented, targeting the patterns and conditions of the next level [2]

B

Partial — there is some forward-orientation, but development is primarily focused on strengthening current-level performance [1]

C

Low degree — succession development is primarily about excelling in the current role. Preparation for the patterns required at the next level is not a structured focus [0]

Question 27 of 30

How aware are you of the specific patterns — rather than competency gaps — that are most likely to derail your highest-potential pipeline leaders at the senior level?

A

Very aware — we have structured pattern-level assessment of our pipeline leaders and know specifically what we are watching for [2]

B

Somewhat aware — we have informal awareness based on manager observation and coaching feedback, but not systematic pattern-level knowledge [1]

C

Not very aware — our pipeline assessment is primarily competency and performance-based. We would be unlikely to identify a derailing pattern before it emerged at the senior level [0]

Question 28 of 30

In your organisation's leadership pipeline, how prevalent are the patterns — overcontrol, conflict avoidance, dependency creation, or self-minimising — that limit the generation of leaders currently in senior roles?

A

Not very prevalent — our pipeline leaders show materially different patterns from the limitations we observe in current senior leaders [2]

B

Somewhat prevalent — there is some overlap between the patterns we see in current senior leaders and those we observe in pipeline leaders [1]

C

Highly prevalent — the pipeline largely reflects the patterns of the current senior generation, suggesting the limitations are being reproduced rather than addressed [0]

Question 29 of 30

If your three to five highest-potential pipeline leaders were placed in the senior roles they are being developed for today, how prepared do you believe they are to navigate the specific conditions — sustained pressure, cross-functional ambiguity, public accountability, peer challenge — of those roles?

A

Well prepared — there is clear evidence of pattern stability and operational capability in the conditions those roles require [2]

B

Partially prepared — they have the competency profile for the role but there are known pattern risks that have not yet been addressed [1]

C

Underprepared — the pipeline leaders have strong current-level performance but there are significant unknowns about how they will perform in the conditions of the senior roles [0]

Question 30 of 30

How would you rate your organisation's current ability to develop leaders who can create genuine ownership and real accountability in their teams — not nominal accountability, but distributed leadership that holds even when the leader is unavailable or distracted?

A

Strong — we consistently produce leaders who create genuinely distributed ownership in their teams [2]

B

Moderate — some of our leaders achieve this, but it is dependent on individual leadership style rather than a development methodology that reliably produces it [1]

C

Weak — leader-dependent team performance is a consistent pattern across our organisation. Teams tend to underperform significantly when their leader is absent [0]

Confirm and Submit