Two values were taking root. On the other two, the leaders agreed they were not.
A European energy group had a leadership conference coming. A university professor would join the chief executive on stage to open an honest discussion of the company's culture with the senior leaders. Before that, the group wanted a real read on its four leadership principles. Not the intention on the slide, but which ones were actually being lived, and how far the leaders agreed.
- 26senior leaders
- 4 daysend to end
- 4leadership principles audited
- 2 readingssentiment and agreement, per principle
- Expert-validatedfindings cross-checked by experts
Most values rollouts end at the launch. The principles are written, communicated, and assumed, and afterward no one can see which ones took root and which stayed on the slide. Putting the chief executive and a professor on stage to discuss the culture openly only works if the read in front of them names what is actually being lived, in the leaders' own words.
The audit was co-designed with the same professor who would later take the stage. Over four days, 26 senior leaders gave anonymous verbatim reflections on the platform, and experts cross-validated the analysis. Each principle was read two ways: how positive, ambivalent, or negative the reflections were, and how far the leaders agreed on the direction of the feedback. The second reading matters as much as the first. A principle can score badly and still be a problem the leaders see and agree on, which is exactly what makes it fixable.
The four principles did not move together. The two relational principles were taking root. Trust and psychological safety ran half positive, with around 70 percent of leaders agreeing it had improved but was not yet universal. Courage and openness showed forward momentum, agreed by around 60 percent, but inconsistent. The two execution principles were where the group fell short. Alignment behind a shared direction drew 70 percent negative reflections, and ownership the same. On both, around 80 percent of leaders agreed: alignment was a serious gap in daily practice, and weak ownership was a barrier the leaders knew about but had not fixed.
The pattern was the useful part. The values the group most needed for execution were the ones least lived, and that was exactly where agreement was loudest. At the conference, the chief executive and the professor put the read in front of the senior leaders and discussed the culture openly, principle by principle. The shared diagnosis the leaders already held became the basis of the conversation, instead of a set of slides no one could challenge.
Avoiding accountability still is one of the main issues... a failure to take ownership.
Yes, this is our work
Culture and values. Read whether the principles you have defined are actually being lived, principle by principle. The kind of read you need before you reinvest in the rollout, or put the culture on the table in front of your leaders.
And across our practice. For organisations: team-read diagnostics on strategy, growth, AI readiness, and culture, plus custom 360 feedback built around your leadership model.
No, we will point you to a partner (when you want):
- Crunch sales figures to set next quarter's pricing.
- Run a one to five poll on the cafeteria's Friday curry.
- A/B test which shade of blue your buy now button should be.
- Find your next chief financial officer.
- Migrate your data warehouse to the cloud.
If we are the right help, we will tell you. If we are not, we will say so, and where we know someone better, we will point you to them.