Surface the practices the organisation actually runs.
<p>Surfaces the gap between the culture the team articulates and the operating practices the organisation actually runs. Evidence-led, working from internal data to private reflection to shared diagnosis.</p>
The Operating Practices Audit is the gap-naming module of the Culture workshop. It surfaces the difference between what the leadership team says about its culture and the operating practices the organisation actually runs.
The session has three movements. First, structured input from inside the organisation: employee survey themes, exit interview patterns, anonymous reflections, observable patterns in meetings, decisions, and escalations. The facilitator brings prepared evidence into the room and reads it directly where possible.
Second, private reflection. Each leadership team member writes individually about the gap between what the organisation articulates and what they suspect is actually happening. The reflection is silent and private. Honesty is easier in private than in conversation.
Third, shared diagnosis. The room reconvenes. Each person shares the one or two reflections most worth bringing forward. The facilitator captures findings on the canvas, refining for specificity. The output is 5 to 7 sentences the team agrees represent the lived practices: specific, concrete, about practices rather than personality.
The findings become the input for the Feedback and Candour Diagnostic that follows in the afternoon. Without them, the diagnostic has no material to work on. With them, the workshop has its own evidence base and the rest of the day moves with the gravity of the team's own honest diagnosis.
The module benefits enormously from preparation. The facilitator should ask the client to share survey data, exit interview themes, anonymous comments, and any observable patterns two weeks before the workshop. The most striking 8 to 12 pieces are read aloud during the Evidence phase.
The team produces 5 to 7 specific, named, observable findings about the operating practices the organisation actually runs. The findings become the input for the Feedback and Candour Diagnostic and the Leadership Mirror that follow.
This module depends on preparation, so two weeks ahead ask the client for survey data, exit interview themes, anonymous comments, and any observable patterns, then read it and pick the most striking eight to twelve pieces. On the day, bring that evidence into the room, give people private time to reflect, and reconvene for a shared diagnosis.
Bring the prepared internal evidence into the room: survey themes, exit interview patterns, anonymous reflections, and observable patterns in meetings and decisions. Read it directly where possible, and anonymise carefully while still quoting specifically. Three exit interviews this year mentioned this exact pattern lands harder than exit interviews suggest concerns, so surface specific data without identifying specific people.
Each leadership team member writes individually about the gap between what the organisation articulates and what they suspect actually happens. This is silent and private, and what people write stays theirs; they share what they choose to share, so invite without forcing.
Reconvene, and ask each person to share the one or two reflections most worth bringing forward. Capture five to seven specific, observable findings about the practices the organisation actually runs. Keep findings as sentences: we are not transparent is a category, and compensation conversations happen behind closed doors and the rumours that fill the gap are usually wrong is a finding. When findings start to be about individuals, redirect to practices, because the work is on what the organisation runs. Resist the temptation to capture everything, because the afternoon's diagnostic work uses a small number of substantial findings.
Use The Operating Practices Audit when a leadership team is ready to name the gap between the culture it describes and the practices the organisation actually runs. Working from real internal evidence, the room turns private reflection into five to seven specific, shared findings.
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.
