Rate the six dimensions of candour honestly.
<p>The substrate diagnostic. Six dimensions of candour (feedback up, across, down; surfacing problems; sharing information; expressing disagreement) rated against HOLDS, MIXED, or BREAKS. Without this substrate in place, every other commitment is theatre.</p>
The Feedback and Candour Diagnostic is the workshop's most distinctive module. It examines the substrate of every other piece of culture work: the conditions for honest dialogue, the flow of information, the willingness to surface problems and disagreement.
The diagnostic uses six dimensions: Feedback Up (people give honest feedback to those above them), Feedback Across (peers give each other genuine feedback), Feedback Down (leaders give specific, useful, honest feedback), Surfacing Problems (issues come up early rather than being concealed), Sharing Information (information flows freely rather than being held), and Expressing Disagreement (disagreement is voiced in the room rather than the corridor).
For each dimension, the team places it under HOLDS, MIXED, or BREAKS. The pattern shows where the substrate needs repair. The work is in pairs first, drawing on the morning's evidence and their own observation, then whole-group convergence on a position the team agrees represents reality.
For each dimension marked MIXED or BREAKS, the team examines what is producing the gap: specific, observable causes, not personality or abstract values, but practices. What gets rewarded, what gets punished, what is structurally easy and what is structurally difficult.
The team identifies two or three dimensions doing most damage. Those become the highest-priority items for the Operating Practice Commitments at the end of the day, and they carry directly into the Leadership Mirror that follows.
The status palette (green/amber/red for HOLDS/MIXED/BREAKS) is a deliberate non-pillar palette. Status colours indicate consistency status; they do not refer to OTSP pillars.
The team produces an honest rating of six dimensions of the candour substrate against HOLDS, MIXED, or BREAKS. They identify the two or three dimensions doing most damage to the wider culture, with specific causes named. These become priority items for the afternoon's commitment work.
This session rates the team's candour honestly across six dimensions, then traces the gaps to specific practices and picks the ones doing most damage. The room itself is data throughout, so watch how the team behaves as closely as how it scores.
In pairs first, then as a whole group, rate the six dimensions of candour, feedback up, across and down, surfacing problems, sharing information, and expressing disagreement, against HOLDS, MIXED, or BREAKS. Use the morning's evidence and the room's own behaviour as data. Push for honest ratings, because the temptation is to put everything in HOLDS, and a dimension in MIXED with a specific example is more useful than one falsely placed in HOLDS. Ask for specifics: when did feedback up last actually happen, in what setting, and with what consequences? Watch surfacing problems especially closely, because if bad news cannot get to the top, none of the other dimensions can be trusted. The room checks its own ratings: if the team has placed expressing disagreement in HOLDS but the discussion has been uniformly agreeable, the rating is wrong.
For each dimension marked MIXED or BREAKS, name the specific, observable practices producing the gap. Keep the focus on practices, since practices can be changed and personalities are much harder to shift in ninety minutes. When the framing slides towards individuals, redirect it back to what the organisation does.
Identify the two or three dimensions doing most damage. These become the priority items for the afternoon's commitment work and carry into the session that follows, where the team examines its own contribution to the breaks.
Use The Feedback and Candour Diagnostic when you suspect a team's honest dialogue is breaking down and want a clear read on it. The team rates six dimensions of candour as holding, mixed or breaking, then names the practices producing the worst gaps.
Using this tool with a skilled facilitator means that discussions are focused, time is used efficiently, and the group moves toward consensus, making the session productive and impactful.
