Management

Manager Effectiveness Diagnostic

Identify which management practices are helping or hurting team performance.

The question this diagnostic answers:

Which management practices are helping or hurting team performance — and what should change?

A grounded picture of management quality across your organization, with prioritized development actions and a follow-up plan.

Book a diagnostic discussion View all applications

Typical timeline: 2–3 weeks from launch to report

The business problem

Management quality is the single largest driver of team performance and retention, yet most organizations assess it through annual surveys, 360 tools, or anecdote. By the time a manager problem surfaces in the data, the damage is already done.

Business impact when this problem persists

Teams with poor management underperform by measurable margins on execution and delivery
Manager behavior is the primary factor cited in voluntary departures
Poor managers create cascading HR caseloads: conflicts, complaints, performance issues
Management development investments without diagnostic data are often misdirected
High-performing managers are frequently invisible to HR and leadership

What the diagnostic examines

Goal and priority clarity provided to direct reports
Quality and frequency of coaching conversations
Communication gaps between managers and teams
Trust, psychological safety, and escalation barriers
Workload management and protection of team capacity
Follow-through on commitments and accountability
Manager development priorities by population and level

Who participates

Individual contributors reporting to managers being assessed
Managers themselves (separate, parallel conversation track)
HR business partners with direct observation of the population
Skip-level leaders (when appropriate to diagnostic scope)

Conversation topics

Topics are reviewed and approved by the customer before any participant invitation is sent.

Clarity on team goals, priorities, and how work is measured
Frequency and quality of 1:1 conversations
How well the manager removes blockers and advocates for the team
Feedback — how often it happens and whether it is useful
Whether the manager follows through on commitments
Ability to escalate concerns without fear of retaliation
Areas where stronger management support would make the most difference

What the report includes

Management quality summary across the assessed population
Root-cause breakdown by management behavior dimension
Population-level patterns: role, tenure, business unit, manager tier
Manager development priority map
High-performing management behaviors worth scaling
Prioritized interventions: coaching, training, structural changes
Action plan with owners and 90-day follow-up measurement

Sample findings

Illustrative examples of the kind of findings this diagnostic produces. Actual findings are grounded in participant conversations and carry explicit confidence ratings.

Goal clarity rated as unclear or partially clear by 61% of individual contributors across the assessed population

High confidence

Follow-through on commitments identified as a theme in one business unit with above-average team turnover

High confidence

Coaching frequency below team expectations in the majority of conversations at director level and above

Medium confidence

Escalation barriers may be present in one functional area; sample size near threshold

Low confidence

Appropriate for

Organizations preparing a manager development initiative and needing a diagnostic baseline
Business units with high turnover or performance gaps attributed to management
Post-reorg environments where new manager-team combinations are still forming
Leadership teams that want objective evidence before investing in management programs
HR functions preparing a business case for manager coaching investment

Not designed for

Performance improvement plans or disciplinary action for individual managers
Replacing 360 feedback processes with legal or compliance implications
Ranking managers against each other for compensation or promotion decisions
Situations where individuals could be identified despite reporting thresholds

Employee trust safeguards

Specific protections built into this diagnostic

Employees are told the purpose is development, not evaluation, before participating

Reporting thresholds protect individuals from identification in small teams

Manager-level findings are aggregated and reviewed before any individual communication

HR reviews all findings before they are shared with business leaders

No findings are used to reduce compensation, change reporting relationships, or begin disciplinary processes without human review

Ready to diagnose this issue?

A 30-minute conversation is enough to assess scope and fit.

Book a diagnostic discussion