our advisory work
Helping leaders make sense of the human side of performance AND RISK
MAKING SENSE OF COMPLEXITY, PRESSURE AND PEOPLE
We work with boards, CEOs and senior leadership teams on the human systems that shape performance, risk and long-term sustainability.
Our role is to help leaders see patterns clearly, think well under pressure, and address issues before they become entrenched or expensive – or to work through them carefully when they already are.
Our work typically falls into four overlapping areas:
Board and executive advisory
Helping leaders understand what’s really happening beneath the surface – and what it means for decisions, risk and performance.
Culture and trust
Identifying gaps between intent and lived experience, and supporting leaders to close them in practical, human ways.
Leadership behaviour under pressure
Supporting leaders and teams when complexity, change or strain start to affect judgement, relationships or outcomes.
Psychosocial risk and wellbeing
Helping organisations meet their obligations and responsibilities in ways that strengthen culture, rather than reduce it to compliance.
Sometimes this work is preventative. Sometimes it’s responsive. Often it’s both.
When useful, we draw on a small number of well-tested tools and frameworks to support the work – always in response to context, never as a one-size-fits-all solution.
You can explore those in more detail here.
HOW THIS WORK SHOWS UP IN PRACTICE
The issues described above rarely arrive labelled as “culture” or “risk”. They show up as tension, ambiguity, defensiveness or drift.
The following examples illustrate how human risk can surface quietly – and how disciplined governance can prevent it from escalating.
CASE STUDY EXAMPLE 1
GOVERNANCE TENSION IN A MEMBERSHIP ORGANISATION
A membership-based organisation received a governance risk memo raising concerns about leadership behaviour, cultural drift and growing loss of confidence.
The initial response was defensive. The CEO and HR believed the issues had already been “handled”. Some board members questioned the credibility of the concerns and wanted evidence before giving them weight. There was a quiet rush to close the matter down.
Operational leaders viewed it as a people issue. The author felt unheard. Communication was fragmented. Confidence – even without hard data – was beginning to erode.
Confidence often deteriorates before evidence becomes measurable.
On the surface, it looked like a complaint. In reality, it was a governance signal. Role clarity, accountability boundaries and risk framing were misaligned. The board was at risk of treating an early warning sign as noise.
The work involved:
- slowing down the rush to resolve or dismiss
- reframing the memo from allegation to risk indicator
- helping the chair distinguish between operational defence and governance responsibility
- establishing guardrails for a proportionate listening process
- designing communication that acknowledged concern without inflaming it
The outcome was not dramatic. It was disciplined.
By responding thoughtfully rather than defensively, the organisation avoided escalation, reduced psychosocial and reputational exposure, and prevented further erosion of cultural trust. Governance confidence was strengthened in the process.
CASE STUDY EXAMPLE 2
LEADERSHIP STRAIN UNDER GROWTH & CHANGE
A growing organisation was delivering commercially. Targets were being met. On paper, nothing was wrong.
Inside the leadership team, however, the tone had shifted. Meetings were sharper. Decisions were becoming reactive rather than deliberate. Challenge felt personal. Psychological safety was thinning – not dramatically, but enough to be felt.
No one described it as a culture problem. It was attributed to pace, market pressure and “just a busy period”.
But pressure changes behaviour faster than policy ever will.
Underneath the surface, judgement was narrowing. Informal influence was increasing. Certain voices were dominating while others withdrew. The environment was drifting toward sustained high demand with diminishing support – edging into psychosocial hazard territory without anyone intending it.
The work did not begin with a culture program. It involved:
- making behavioural patterns visible without assigning blame
- slowing decision cadence long enough to examine quality, not just speed
- clarifying decision rights and accountability boundaries
- restoring conditions for constructive dissent
- addressing workload and expectation alignment before strain became burnout
The shift wasn’t loud. It was cumulative.
By stabilising leadership behaviour under pressure, the team regained clarity, trust strengthened and risk was reduced before it became measurable in turnover, absenteeism or formal complaints.
Performance did not suffer. It became more sustainable.
CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT'S POSSIBLE?
If you’re exploring how culture, leadership behaviour and trust are shaping performance in your organisation, we’d love to have a conversation.
Let's talk. Get in touch.
By submitting this form, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.