Diagnostics

Rigour before commitment.

Diagnostics are used to reduce ambiguity where the cost of error is real — giving leaders a structured view of what is happening, what is driving it, and what decisions are now required.

Optional • Context-dependent • Designed to de-risk serious decisions

What diagnostics are

  • A discipline, not a product
  • A way to make judgement examinable
  • Structure for decisions made under pressure
  • Used selectively, after fit is established

Tools come after trust. The purpose is clarity — not complexity.

What this enables

Senior leaders rarely suffer from lack of intelligence or effort. They suffer from misdiagnosis — confusing symptoms for causes, mistaking activity for progress, or delaying trade-offs until the environment forces them.

Diagnostics exist to interrupt that pattern calmly and credibly, so the next decision is cleaner.

What becomes clear

  • the actual problem — separate from noise and narrative
  • the constraints shaping behaviour and decisions
  • where accountability is drifting or stuck
  • what is being avoided — and why
  • the trade-offs that must now be owned

What becomes possible

  • faster, more defensible decisions
  • clear language for what is really happening
  • alignment at the top without performative consensus
  • reduced risk of costly rework and reversal
  • more coherent leadership presence under scrutiny

This is about decision quality, not “insight” for its own sake.

How it works

A short, structured engagement.

Diagnostics are designed to be practical. They do not create a report for the sake of a report. They create a clearer decision landscape — and a disciplined basis for what happens next.

  • Context intake (what’s at stake, time horizon, constraints)
  • Structured interviews (leaders close to the decisions)
  • Decision and accountability mapping
  • Pressure patterns: avoidance, over-control, false certainty
  • Findings synthesis (what’s true, what’s assumed, what’s missing)
  • A concise readout with implications and next steps

The diagnostic is tailored to the situation. The aim is precision, not theatre.

OutputClear findings + decision implications
FocusJudgement • Trade-offs • Accountability
UseDe-risking before major commitments
Discuss a diagnostic →

If the situation fits, I’ll recommend the simplest diagnostic shape.

Typical diagnostic uses

This is not a menu. These are common patterns where a diagnostic reduces risk and improves decision quality.

Decision Quality Review

When leadership decisions are becoming slower, noisier, or less defensible under pressure.

  • decision patterns and criteria
  • assumptions and constraints
  • where responsibility is blurred

Leadership Alignment Scan

When the top team is “aligned” in words but divergent in behaviour, priorities, or risk appetite.

  • shared intent vs lived reality
  • tensions avoided or unmanaged
  • accountability and ownership

Scale & Consequence Assessment

When growth decisions (capital, structure, hires, pace) are creating second-order consequences.

  • capacity and capability gaps
  • risk and pace trade-offs
  • what must change first

What you receive

The output is designed to be usable — not academic.

Concise diagnostic readout

  • what is true vs what is assumed
  • what is driving behaviour under pressure
  • the trade-offs now required
  • decision implications and risks

Next-step recommendation

  • the simplest path forward
  • what to do immediately vs later
  • where advisory support helps most
  • where coaching becomes appropriate

Diagnostics do not “sell” deeper work. They clarify whether deeper work is warranted.

Good fit

  • high-stakes decisions with real trade-offs
  • complexity, scrutiny, or organisational drift
  • leaders who want rigour, not reassurance
  • situations where clarity reduces real risk

Not a fit

  • generic team surveys or engagement exercises
  • diagnostics used to justify a pre-made decision
  • situations requiring operational consulting delivery
  • low-consequence curiosity

If you already know what you want to do and only want validation, this is not the right tool.

Clarity first. Then commitment.

If you’re carrying a decision where ambiguity increases risk, request a conversation and share the context. If a diagnostic is the simplest next step, I’ll say so.

Diagnostics are optional and used selectively. The goal is disciplined thinking, not more activity.

To discuss a diagnostic

  • Your role and organisation
  • The decision context
  • What is at stake
  • Your time horizon

The clearer the stakes, the sharper the diagnostic.