Reports and outcomes

Structured reports that drive decisions, not decks that describe them.

Every Tezox diagnostic produces a structured report with root causes, affected populations, evidence and attribution, a prioritized action plan, and an explicit limitations section. The data below is illustrative — not from real engagements.

See a report for your situation

01 Executive Summary

What was found and what to do about it

A plain-language summary of the top root causes, the affected populations, the confidence level, and the highest-priority recommended actions. Designed to be shared with leadership without the full technical detail.

Regrettable Turnover · Engineering · Mid-Market Products

Primary finding Role scope has expanded significantly beyond initial offer for the majority of the assessed population.

Affected group IC engineers with 2–4 years tenure; highest concentration in the Mid-Market Products org.

Confidence High — consistent across 34 of 50 conversations.

Priority action Conduct role-scope audit for at-risk population before Q3 performance cycle.

Sample data for illustration only. Not from a real diagnostic.

02 Root-Cause Hierarchy

Causes ranked by prevalence and business impact

A structured breakdown of every root cause identified, with the percentage of conversations in which it appeared, a confidence rating, and the evidence base. Each finding is separated from uncertain or low-evidence claims.

Root causes — Regrettable Turnover (sample data)

Role scope expansion 68% prevalence · High confidence · 34/50 conversations

Limited internal mobility 54% prevalence · High confidence · 27/50 conversations

Manager communication gaps 41% prevalence · Medium confidence · requires threshold review

Compensation concerns 28% prevalence · Low confidence · insufficient evidence for structural conclusion

Sample data for illustration only. Not from a real diagnostic.

03 Affected Populations

Where the issue is concentrated

Findings segmented by role, level, business unit, tenure band, or manager group — where reporting thresholds are met. Groups below threshold are noted but not broken out.

Population breakdown (sample data)

Highest risk segment IC engineers · 2–4 year tenure · Mid-Market Products

Lower risk Senior engineers · 5+ year tenure · Platform team

Note Manager-level breakdown available for 2 of 4 managers assessed (others below threshold).

Sample data for illustration only. Not from a real diagnostic.

04 Evidence and Attribution

What participants actually said

Representative evidence from conversations, presented as synthesized themes — not individual quotes that could identify a participant. Every evidence item is linked to the finding it supports.

Evidence synthesis (sample — not real participant data)

Theme A Multiple participants described taking on responsibilities significantly beyond their original job scope, often without title or compensation adjustment.

Theme B Internal transfer or promotion conversations described as unclear, inconsistently available, or requiring external advocacy.

Attribution Themes A and B appear across multiple conversations and business units; not attributable to a single manager or team.

Sample data for illustration only. Not from a real diagnostic.

05 Recommended Actions

What to do, who owns it, and when

A prioritized intervention list with effort and impact framing. Each recommendation includes a suggested owner, a target date, and a measurable success criterion.

Action plan (sample)

Action 1 (High priority) Role-scope audit for the at-risk population — owner: HRBP K. Okonkwo · Target: 30 days · Measure: % of employees with updated scope documentation.

Action 2 (Medium priority) Internal mobility process clarification — owner: Unassigned · Target: 60 days · Measure: % of eligible employees aware of the process.

Action 3 (Low priority) Manager communication cadence review — owner: T. Rashid · Target: 90 days · Measure: 1:1 frequency tracked in survey follow-up.

Sample data for illustration only. Not from a real diagnostic.

06 Limitations and Uncertainty

What we do not know — and why it matters

Every Tezox report includes a dedicated limitations section. This is not a disclaimer — it is a required element of a trustworthy diagnostic. Findings without limitations are not more confident; they are less honest.

Limitations (sample)

Participation rate Response rate of 68% (34/50). Non-participants may have different views.

Threshold note Two manager groups fell below the reporting threshold. Their populations are described but not broken out.

Compensation Compensation concerns appeared in 28% of conversations but lack sufficient evidence for a structural conclusion. Market benchmark data not available.

Human review required Two conversations were flagged for HR review. These are not included in aggregate findings.

Sample data for illustration only. Not from a real diagnostic.

Follow-up measurement

Did the response work?

Tezox includes a structured follow-up conversation plan as part of every diagnostic. At 30, 60, or 90 days, a follow-up diagnostic is run against the same population to measure whether the issue improved.

The follow-up report compares results against the baseline finding — showing not just what changed, but whether the actions taken were the ones that made the difference.

90-day follow-up (sample)

Role scope clarity +35 pts

Baseline: 32% 90 days: 67%

Internal mobility awareness +23 pts

Baseline: 28% 90 days: 51%

Manager communication +5 pts (in progress)

Baseline: 59% 90 days: 64%

Sample data. Not from a real engagement.

Want to see a report structure for a specific issue?

We can walk through what a diagnostic report would look like for your workforce problem in a 30-minute call.

Book a diagnostic discussion