Culture Diagnostic: Frequently asked questions

Not necessarily. The two serve different purposes.

Formal HR processes will usually focus on a particular complaint, allegation, incident or individual's conduct and determine how that should be handled within your organisation's policies and employment framework.

My work looks more broadly at the team and organisational dynamics surrounding the situation - including relationships, informal power, cliques, psychological safety, leadership dynamics and other conditions that may be contributing to or maintaining the difficulties.

Where formal processes are underway, I will carefully scope the work with you and, where appropriate, your HR or legal advisers so that it complements rather than compromises those processes.

Sometimes it may be appropriate to delay part of the work until a particular process has concluded. We will establish that before we begin.

Yes. You don't necessarily need a full Culture Deep Dive.

If you're a business owner or manager trying to navigate a difficult team situation, Team Culture Advisory gives you focused access to specialist psychological support without committing to a larger diagnostic.

We can start with one session, understand what's happening and consider your options. If that's enough, great.

If it becomes clear that we need to hear independently from other members of the team to understand what's happening, I'll explain why and we can discuss the options before you commit to anything further.

You don't need to know before contacting me.

Tell me what's happening, what you've already tried and what you're worried about. I'll help you think through whether the situation calls for individual advisory support, a team diagnostic or something more substantial.

And if I don't think you need a Culture Deep Dive, I'll tell you.

No. A workplace investigation will usually establish facts relating to particular allegations or incidents and may inform a formal employment process.

A Culture Deep Dive has a different purpose. It seeks to understand the wider patterns and dynamics operating within a team or organisation and the conditions that may be driving or maintaining them.

Where an investigation is required, it should be appropriately commissioned and kept distinct from the diagnostic work.

Creating sufficient psychological safety for people to speak candidly is fundamental to this work.

Before beginning, I agree clear confidentiality and reporting arrangements with the organisation and explain these to participants.

Findings are normally reported at a thematic level rather than attributing comments to named individuals, subject to clearly explained limits around issues such as serious safeguarding or legal concerns

My role isn't to arrive and identify a “problem person.”

Difficult workplace dynamics are rarely explained by one individual alone. I look at the interaction between people, relationships, group dynamics, leadership and the wider organisational environment.

That doesn't mean individual behaviour is ignored or excused. Where problematic behaviour is evident, it needs to be addressed. But simply removing one person without understanding the wider system doesn't necessarily remove the conditions that allowed the problem to develop.

Those interventions can be extremely useful when they match the problem. The difficulty is starting with an intervention before being sufficiently clear about what is driving the situation.

A team workshop won't necessarily resolve entrenched informal power dynamics. Mediation between two individuals won't necessarily address a wider clique. Coaching one leader won't necessarily resolve organisational conditions outside their control.

My approach starts with diagnosis before prescription.

That depends on what is uncovered.

At the outset, we agree how serious concerns will be handled, including the limits of confidentiality.

If information emerges that requires action outside the Culture Deep Dive, for example, a safeguarding concern or an allegation requiring a formal HR process, I will discuss the appropriate next steps with the relevant people while maintaining the agreed boundaries of my role.

It depends on the size and complexity of the situation. A diagnostic involving one team will naturally require a different scope from work spanning several teams, professions or sites.

Rather than selling a predetermined number of interviews or days, I'll scope the work around what we need to understand and whose perspectives need to be represented.

You'll know the proposed scope, timescale and cost before deciding whether to proceed.

Absolutely.

My role isn't to replace your internal expertise. An independent psychologist can be particularly useful where the situation is sensitive, internal colleagues are too close to the issue, employees may be more comfortable speaking to somebody independent, or the organisation needs additional specialist capacity.

I can work alongside HR, People, OD and senior leadership while maintaining the independence necessary for the diagnostic.

A formal HR process and a Culture Deep Dive answer different questions.

A grievance, disciplinary or investigation will usually focus on a particular complaint, allegation or individual's behaviour. It needs to establish what happened and determine what action, if any, should follow.

Think of that as dealing with what is visible above the surface. But underneath the immediate issue there may be wider dynamics that a formal process was never designed to diagnose: cliques and informal power, deteriorating trust, psychological safety, leadership dynamics, longstanding tensions, exclusion, team norms or organisational conditions.

Resolving the formal case may deal successfully with the immediate problem without necessarily changing those underlying conditions.

A useful analogy is treating a recurring leak. You can dry the floor and repair the visible damage, and that absolutely needs doing, but if you don't identify where the water is coming from, you may find yourself dealing with another patch of damp six months later.

The Culture Deep Dive looks for the source of the leak. It doesn't replace or interfere with the formal HR process. Where both are required, they can run separately and carefully alongside one another, with appropriate boundaries agreed at the outset.

I think that analogy is much more accessible than getting too psychological at this point.

Sometimes you can.

If the problem is relatively straightforward and the leader has a good understanding of what's happening, focused advisory support or a specific intervention may be all that's required.

But when the problem is complex, starting with a solution carries a risk: You may end up treating the wrong problem.

A team workshop might look like the obvious answer to poor communication. But what if people aren't speaking openly because they don't feel psychologically safe?
Mediation might appear appropriate for conflict between two colleagues. But what if the conflict actually reflects two competing factions across the wider team?
Leadership coaching might help a manager. But what if the behaviour they're struggling with is being reinforced by organisational conditions outside their control?

Diagnosis helps us understand what needs to change before investing time and money trying to change it.

I often use a healthcare analogy here: If you went to a doctor with persistent pain, you wouldn't expect them to schedule surgery before establishing what's causing it.

Workplace interventions shouldn't be fundamentally different. Understand first. Intervene second.

This is an important one because it creates the clinical-style decision rule behind your product ladder.

I'd say: A focused Team Culture Advisory session may be enough when the situation is relatively contained, you have a reasonable understanding of what's happening and what you mainly need is specialist support deciding how to respond.

A Culture Deep Dive becomes more appropriate when you can no longer reliably understand the problem from one person's perspective.

Some signs include:

• different people are giving very different accounts of what's happening

• cliques, factions or informal alliances appear to have developed

• several employees are affected rather than one or two individuals

• trust in leadership has deteriorated  employees don't feel safe speaking openly internally

• complaints, grievances, absence or turnover are increasing

• previous interventions haven't resolved the problem

• the difficulties have persisted despite changes in personnel

• the problem crosses teams, professions or leadership levels

• you're considering significant intervention but aren't confident you understand what is driving the situation.

A useful rule of thumb: if the question has moved from “How should I handle this?” to “We don't actually know what's really going on here”, it's probably time to consider independent diagnosis.