What a useful culture report can reveal.
This invented three-level example shows the shape of a decision-ready report: not just scores, but a pattern, its limits, and practical actions a team can own.
Intent is visible. Execution gets harder at the handoff.
In this fictional organization, executives are more favorable about priorities than employees. The widest shared-core friction appears in capacity and tools: 61% favorable among executives versus 31% among employees. The next question is operational—not “Who is wrong?” but “Which decisions and handoffs are making the work harder?”
Executive Leadership
12
illustrative responses
Leadership
18
illustrative responses
Employee Base
36
illustrative responses
Seven dimensions. Three perspectives.
The percentages below are fictional favorable-response shares for the same question themes across levels. The tailored questions for each level are interpreted separately. A percentage describes these respondents, not the entire organization.
| Shared dimension | Executive | Leadership | Employee Base |
|---|---|---|---|
| Purpose and priorities | 83% | 67% | 58% |
| Decisions and autonomy | 72% | 61% | 42% |
| Voice and trust | 67% | 50% | 39% |
| Coordination and handoffs | 64% | 47% | 36% |
| Manager support and development | 69% | 56% | 50% |
| Recognition and fairness | 72% | 61% | 53% |
| Capacity and tools | 61% | 44% | 31% |
Illustrative percentages are not benchmarks, statistical estimates, or individual-level results. Real releases require qualifying participation and CNNCTD review.
What CNNCTD would investigate before recommending change.
A hypothesis, not a verdict
The gap in decisions and handoffs could mean the decision boundary is unclear, context is lost between teams, or capacity makes even good decisions late. A report should lead to a focused review of actual work—not an accusation aimed at one tier.
What to preserve
The executive group shows stronger clarity on purpose and priorities. That is useful: the next move is to translate that clarity into rules and handoffs that survive everyday pressure, rather than restarting the strategy conversation.
Make the interpretation accountable.
CNNCTD refines the interpretation, ownership, evidence, and review points before release. These three are fictional examples, not prescriptions.
ACTION 01
Publish the decision boundary
Name which decisions teams can make locally and which require escalation. Test the rule in two live workflows.
- Owner
- Executive sponsor
- Evidence
- Escalation log and time-to-decision
- Check-in
- 30-day review
ACTION 02
Repair one cross-team handoff
Choose the handoff with the most rework. Agree on the minimum context, owner, and acceptance point before work moves.
- Owner
- Operations lead
- Evidence
- Rework count and blocked handoffs
- Check-in
- 45-day review
ACTION 03
Make capacity visible before adding work
Review load alongside priorities each week; retire or defer work when the available capacity changes.
- Owner
- Department leaders
- Evidence
- Work-in-progress and missed commitments
- Check-in
- 60-day review
You do not have to start with everyone.
Start
Executive only
Find where strategic intent, tradeoffs, and decision ownership need clarity.
Add
+ Leadership
See whether managers can translate those choices into priorities and unblock work.
Complete
+ Employee Base
See whether the same operating rules reach the people doing the work.
Each added level joins the same client program; earlier released reports remain intact. If the levels are surveyed at different times, the report marks that timing rather than treating the results as one simultaneous snapshot.