FAQ & Resources
Diagnostic work is different from traditional consulting. We don't start with solutions. We use multiple lenses to distinguish between what people say is wrong and what's actually holding things back.
Below are the questions clients typically ask before we start working together, along with a brief explanation of the theoretical underpinnings of our work.
What exactly do you mean by "diagnostic" - how is that different from regular consulting?
Most consultants arrive with solutions. We arrive with questions. The diagnostic approach means we look at multiple levels simultaneously before recommending any intervention.
Specifically, we examine four dimensions: what's happening in individual psychology, in team dynamics, in organisational systems, and in the broader context you're operating in. This is based on integral theory's four-quadrant model, which helps identify misalignments that single-lens approaches miss.
We're not here to implement a predetermined framework or roll out a standard methodology. We're here to understand why the thing that should be working isn't, and what's actually needed to shift it. The diagnosis comes first; the intervention design follows from what we find.
What kinds of "diagnostic lenses" do you use to figure out what's actually wrong?
We use three primary diagnostic frameworks:
First, integral theory's four-quadrant model. This examines: internal individual experience (how people are making meaning of the work), external individual behaviour (what capabilities and skills are actually present), internal collective dynamics (team culture, shared narratives), and external collective structures (systems, processes, governance).
Second, developmental frameworks including the StAGES model. We assess whether misalignment stems from stakeholders operating at fundamentally different levels of complexity. A common example: one stakeholder is optimising for efficiency while another is trying to navigate paradox - and nobody's named that developmental gap.
Third, systems and psychodynamic perspectives. We look at what's happening beneath the surface - unspoken power dynamics, organisational defenses, and patterns that keep repeating.
This multi-lens approach typically reveals 2-3 core issues underlying what initially appeared to be 10 different problems.
What are "developmental lenses" and why do they matter?
You've probably been in meetings where intelligent people talk past each other. Where what seems obvious to you lands as confusing to someone else. Where a perfectly reasonable suggestion gets inexplicably stuck, and nobody can quite say why.
Often, it's not about communication skills or goodwill. It's about something more fundamental: people are making sense of the situation in qualitatively different ways.
Here's what we mean:
Imagine three leaders facing the same partnership conflict.
The first sees a problem to solve. "We need clearer roles and decision rights." Get the structure right and we're done.
The second sees competing perspectives that need balancing. "Each partner has legitimate concerns. We need to find a solution that works for everyone." They're aware that optimising for one stakeholder might disadvantage another.
The third sees the conflict itself as information. "What if this tension is showing us something about what we're actually here to do?" They're comfortable sitting with ongoing complexity, watching what emerges.
All three are capable leaders. But they're operating at different levels of complexity - and that shapes what interventions will land, what makes sense to them, how they'll respond when things get messy.
This is what we call vertical development - the evolution in how people make meaning of complexity, ambiguity, and multiple perspectives. It's not about getting smarter or learning more skills (that's horizontal development). It's about transforming how we see and interpret what's happening around us.
Why this matters when work gets stuck:
When projects stall, it's often because stakeholders are working at different developmental levels without realising it. One person's optimising for efficiency while another's navigating paradox. They're solving different problems - and frustrated that others "don't get it."
This is where developmental lenses become powerful. We can see these gaps, understand what's causing the friction, and design interventions that work with where people actually are.
What we do (and don't do):
We don't teach you developmental theory. That's complex, specialised work that takes years to learn well - and it's not what will get your project unstuck.
Instead, we use developmental understanding to design interventions that fit your actual context. That might mean restructuring decision-making so different complexity levels can coexist productively. Or redesigning governance to accommodate different ways of thinking. Or helping a team recognise they're operating at different levels and finding practical ways to bridge the gap.
We hold the diagnostic complexity - drawing on frameworks like the StAGES model and Integral Theory to see what's happening beneath the surface. You get interventions designed for where people actually are, not where they wish they were.
Do you just diagnose the problem, or do you also help implement solutions?
We're diagnostic-first, not implementation-focused. Our primary deliverable is clarity about what's actually wrong and what interventions might shift it.
In practice, this typically means: a diagnostic report identifying the core issues (usually 2-4 key misalignments), an assessment of readiness for different interventions, and specific recommendations for what to do next.
Sometimes the next phase involves us - designing a reset process, facilitating critical conversations, or helping you make constant micro-adjustments on a complex partnership. But we're not here to run your project for six months or take over operations.
Think of us as the partnership whisperer. We help you see what you couldn't see from inside the system, then you (or someone else) does the ongoing work of changing it. Most of our engagements are 4-8 weeks for the diagnostic phase, with optional follow-on support for implementation.
What makes a project a good fit for your approach versus needing a different kind of help?
You're a good fit if:
You're willing to look underneath the surface problems (not just treat symptoms)
You're prepared to act on what the diagnosis reveals - even if it's uncomfortable
The project is genuinely complex - requiring constant adaptation rather than linear execution
You suspect the real problem isn't what people are saying it is
The work often involves multiple stakeholders with different interests, expertise levels, or ways of thinking
You're probably not a good fit if:
You already know what you want to do and just need implementation support
You're hoping we'll validate a predetermined solution
The timeline is so compressed there's no space for proper diagnosis
We work best with: Organisations and leaders who know something's fundamentally off and need help seeing what they can't see from inside the system.
This often shows up as ambitious cross-sector partnerships losing momentum, transformational projects with misaligned stakeholders, companies outgrowing their structures, transitions triggered by leadership or market shifts, or organisations whose story no longer matches what they're actually doing.
What if the diagnosis reveals problems with specific people or leadership - how do you handle that?
We name what we see, but we're not in the business of firing people or playing politics. Our role is diagnostic, not punitive.
Drawing on over a decade of coaching experience, we can navigate complex feedback and performance issues with both dexterity and sensitivity. This means we understand how to surface difficult truths in ways that land productively rather than defensively.
When we identify people issues, we typically find one of three patterns:
First, developmental mismatch. Someone's operating at a level of complexity that doesn't match what the role requires. For example: a role requiring navigation of paradox and ambiguity, filled by someone who excels at optimising clear processes. We frame this developmentally, not as personal failure - it's about fit between the person's current capabilities and what the context demands.
Second, context mismatch. The person has strong capabilities, but they're misaligned with what this specific context needs right now. They might thrive in a different role or environment.
Third, capability gaps. There are genuine skill or experience deficits that can't be closed quickly enough for the project's timeline or the organisation's needs.
Our approach: We provide a clear diagnostic assessment including what we observe about individual contributions, capabilities, and fit. We explain the developmental or contextual dynamics at play. We may suggest different support structures, role adjustments, or where external capability development might help.
What we don't do: Make hiring or firing recommendations, provide ongoing 1:1 coaching to individuals, or get involved in internal politics.
You receive the diagnosis with enough clarity to make informed decisions. What you do with that information - including whether to bring in coaches or other support for specific individuals - remains your call. Our background means we can help you think through those options, even if we're not the ones delivering them.
How do you help with strategy and positioning - is that a separate service or part of the project work?
Often they're deeply connected. If your project's stuck, it's frequently because your narrative is unclear - you can't explain what you're doing in a way that lands with different stakeholders. Or your positioning is off - you're trying to be everything to everyone and you've lost clarity about what you're actually building.
Our coaching background means we bring a particular lens to this work: we're attuned to how messages land differently depending on someone's developmental perspective, and we can help you craft positioning that resonates across diverse stakeholder groups without losing coherence.
Strategy and positioning work typically addresses three issues:
Narrative clarity. Cutting through complexity to find the core message that makes sense to diverse stakeholders. This includes identifying what story you're actually living (versus what you think you're doing), and building a coherent narrative that aligns internal teams and external partners.
Positioning and reputation. Defining what you're known for and what you're building towards. This involves deliberate choices about what to emphasise, what to stop doing, and how to consistently communicate your distinctive value.
Stakeholder alignment. Ensuring different audiences - investors, partners, customers, team members - understand your work in ways that make sense for their context, while maintaining a consistent core message.
How this shows up in practice:
Sometimes this work is embedded in project diagnostics - we discover that misalignment stems from an unclear or inconsistent story, and we address it as part of getting the project unstuck.
Sometimes it's standalone work - particularly when you're launching something new, undergoing transformation, or you've realised your public message has drifted significantly from what you're actually doing.
Most strategy and positioning engagements run 3-6 weeks and can include stakeholder interviews, message development, and positioning frameworks which you can use ongoing.