FAQ & Diagnostic Consulting Resources
Fitzhugh & Associates provides diagnostic consulting for complex organisational partnerships and projects. Using integral theory, developmental frameworks, and systems thinking, we identify what's actually blocking progress versus what stakeholders believe is wrong. Based in Auckland, New Zealand, we work with organisations facing partnership misalignment, stalled transformation projects, and developmental gaps between stakeholders.
Below are the questions clients typically ask before we start working together, along with a brief explanation of the theoretical underpinnings of our work.
We're under enormous pressure right now. Is this really the time for diagnostic work?
When organisations are under pressure, they tend to hunker down, make decisions based on urgency rather than importance, and often miss the leverage points that could actually shift things. It's completely understandable - when you're in survival mode, strategic thinking feels like a luxury.
Pressure creates tunnelling. Your attention gets captured by what's most urgent, which means you stop seeing options. You make short-term decisions that sometimes make the long-term situation worse.
Diagnostic work is designed for exactly this situation. We're not asking you to pause everything and embark on a six-month transformation programme. We're looking for the specific places where a small shift creates disproportionate relief.
When you're juggling too many balls, the answer isn't to juggle harder or faster. It's to figure out which balls you can safely set down, which ones actually need to stay in the air, and what's making the juggling harder than it needs to be.
A diagnostic engagement under pressure typically runs 4-6 weeks and requires about 8-10 hours of your team's time total. We're hunting for the contradictions or structural issues that are amplifying your pressure unnecessarily - the things that, once shifted, create breathing room across multiple areas.
How do you help organisations make better decisions when resources are limited?
Limited resources create a particular kind of problem: every decision feels high-stakes because you can't afford to get it wrong, but the pressure itself makes it harder to think clearly about what matters most.
Organisations under resource constraint tend to either freeze (avoiding decisions to avoid risk) or grab at whatever looks like it might help (which often creates more complexity). Neither works well.
Our diagnostic approach looks for leverage points - places where a relatively small intervention creates meaningful shift across multiple areas. We're not looking for the single perfect answer. We're looking for several interconnected moves that build on each other over time to create momentum.
The value of diagnostic work under constraint isn't adding more to your plate. It's creating the clarity that allows you to act decisively on the things that will actually matter, rather than spreading limited resources across everything equally.
How do you identify leverage points when everything feels equally important?
This is one of the core challenges of working under constraint - when you don't have enough resources, time, or capacity, it genuinely feels like everything matters equally. And when everything's important, nothing gets the attention it needs.
We use what we call diagnostic mapping to distinguish between what's genuinely foundational and what's symptomatic. If you have ten problems, some of them are roots and some of them are branches. Fixing a branch problem gives you temporary relief. Addressing a root problem shifts multiple things at once.
Our process:
Map the contradictions - where are incompatible goals creating friction?
Identify what's load-bearing - which issues, if shifted, would relieve pressure elsewhere?
Look for the smallest viable intervention - what's the least complex move that creates meaningful change?
We're explicitly hunting for multiplier effects: changes that cascade through the system rather than needing to address every issue individually.
The value of this approach when capacity is limited: instead of trying to do everything (which overwhelms people and often makes things worse), you can focus your limited resources on the moves that will create the most meaningful shift. You're working smarter, not harder - which is exactly what's needed when you genuinely don't have the capacity to work harder.
What is "tunnelling" and why does it matter for organisations under pressure?
Tunnelling is what happens when scarcity - whether of time, money, or capacity - captures your attention so completely that you lose peripheral vision. You become hyper-focused on the immediate constraint, which means you stop seeing options, trade-offs, or consequences that sit outside that narrow focus.
I've observed this pattern consistently during over a decade of coaching work: intelligent, capable people and teams making decisions that seem obviously problematic in hindsight, not because they lack skill or information, but because the pressure itself has narrowed what they can see.
Tunnelling shows up as:
Neglecting important-but-not-urgent work because you're constantly firefighting
Missing obvious solutions because they're slightly outside your immediate field of concern
Making short-term decisions that create bigger problems down the line
Forgetting commitments or letting relationships deteriorate because they're not right in front of you
Feeling like you're working incredibly hard but not making real progress
The challenge is that tunnelling feels productive. You're intensely focused, getting things done, responding to what's urgent. It's only later - sometimes much later - that you realise you've been optimising for the wrong things or missing opportunities that were sitting just outside the tunnel.
Organisations experiencing tunnelling often describe it as "we keep putting out fires but never get ahead" or "we're so busy we can't think straight." That's not a time management problem or a prioritization problem. It's a cognitive load problem created by operating under sustained constraint.
Diagnostic work helps by bringing an outside perspective that can see what's outside your tunnel. We map what you're not seeing because you can't see it from inside the pressure. We identify where tunnelling is causing you to neglect things that matter, make unnecessarily costly trade-offs, or miss leverage points that would actually reduce the pressure you're under.
The goal isn't to make tunnelling go away - some degree of focus under constraint is natural and necessary. The goal is to prevent it from narrowing your options so completely that you inadvertently make your situation worse while trying to make it better.
What's the science behind tunnelling?
Tunnelling isn't just a metaphor - it's a well-documented cognitive phenomenon studied by behavioural economists Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir in their research on scarcity.
When you're operating under constraint, your brain has what they call limited "cognitive bandwidth" - the mental resources available for attention, decision-making, planning, and self-control. Scarcity (of time, money, capacity, or other resources) doesn't just create practical problems. It actually reduces your available bandwidth by capturing attention and creating ongoing cognitive load.
The mechanism works like this: when a resource is scarce, your mind automatically focuses on that scarcity. That focus can be helpful for dealing with the immediate problem, but it comes at a cost. Everything outside that narrow focus - including things you genuinely care about - gets less attention. You're not choosing to ignore them; your cognitive system is literally allocating fewer resources to processing information that isn't directly relevant to the scarcity you're experiencing.
This creates what researchers call "tunnelling" - sharp focus on what's inside the tunnel (the scarce resource and immediate related problems) while everything else fades from view. You become more present-biased, prioritising immediate needs over future consequences. You're more likely to neglect important tasks that aren't urgent. You miss opportunities or solutions that require looking beyond the immediate constraint.
The research shows this affects everyone, regardless of intelligence or capability. Put someone in a situation of scarcity - give them tight deadlines, limited budgets, or insufficient capacity - and their cognitive performance on unrelated tasks measurably declines. They make more mistakes, forget more things, and show reduced ability to plan ahead.
What makes this particularly challenging for organisations: the people experiencing tunnelling often don't realise it's happening. They feel focused and productive, not cognitively compromised. It's only visible from outside the tunnel.
This is precisely why an external diagnostic perspective becomes valuable. When you're inside the tunnel, you can't see what you're missing - that's the nature of the phenomenon. Someone outside the constraint can see the full picture: what you're hyper-focused on, what you're neglecting as a result, what trade-offs you're making without realising it, and where you might be creating bigger problems while trying to solve immediate ones.
The diagnostic process isn't about telling you what you're doing wrong. It's about lending you cognitive bandwidth you don't currently have - bringing the peripheral vision that scarcity has temporarily taken away, so you can make more informed choices about where to focus your genuinely limited resources.
Further reading: Mullainathan, S. & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much. Based on research published in Science journal
Our partnership has hit a wall. Everyone's exhausted and we're not sure what to do next. Can you help?
Yes - and this is one of the most common situations where organisations seek us out. Partnerships often stall not because people aren't trying hard enough, but because they're trying to solve the wrong problem or working toward incompatible goals without realising it.
When everyone's exhausted, it's usually a signal that something structural needs to shift, not that you all need to try harder. Exhaustion often comes from what we call "rowing in circles" - putting in enormous effort but not actually moving forward because the underlying dynamics haven't been addressed.
Our Partnership Health Check service is specifically designed for this. We assess whether the partnership architecture is actually set up for what you're trying to achieve, where decision-making is getting stuck, and whether there are hidden contradictions that are creating drag.
Sometimes what's needed is relatively straightforward: clarifying decision rights, renegotiating resource commitments, or making explicit some assumptions that were never actually agreed to. Sometimes it's more fundamental: the partnership may be trying to achieve things that actually contradict each other, and everyone's exhausted because they're working really hard on something that can't succeed in its current form.
The diagnostic process creates space to see what's actually happening without blame. When partners are exhausted, they often can't see their own situation clearly. We bring the outside perspective that allows everyone to understand what's not working - and make informed choices about what to do next.
Whether that's a reset, a restructure, or sometimes even a graceful dissolution, the diagnostic gives you the clarity to act from choice rather than collapse.
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.
Why "Fitzhugh & Associates"?
The name reflects how I work. When you engage with Fitzhugh & Associates, you become the associate. This isn't traditional consulting where an expert diagnoses your problems and tells you what to do. It's a partnership. We work together as associates to understand what's actually happening in your organisation, design interventions that will make a difference, and navigate the transformation together. I bring diagnostic frameworks and strategic insight; you bring deep knowledge of your context and the commitment to change. The best transformations happen when we're genuinely associated in the work, not when expertise is simply delivered and left at your door.