Over the last 12-18 months we have seen a constant stream of high-profile leadership and culture “failures” across public and private bodies, including sports organisations. In many cases, critical cultural information about individuals, work practices or behaviours hasn't reached governing groups in time, resulting in some very public scandals, with reputational and financial damage.
The debate around governance, accountability and oversight has increased as a result, with the conversation ranging from identifying and exposing rogue individuals, through to cover-ups and systemic failures.
The immediate response has been to question the governance frameworks and ask why cultural issues weren’t identified and reported earlier?
Looking at the governance models, some have boards, others have trustees, some report through to government ministers or regulators, while the governance models for police (for example) varies around the globe. For this conversation, I’ll use the term “board” to refer to all governance framework types. The questions have included:
To help restore confidence, boards need access to robust, independent and reliable data to help them make informed decisions. A key step to take in managing any risk is understanding the current state. Organisations routinely measure financial performance against budgets and forecasts. Operational performance is measured against service levels and KPIs. Yet many organisations cannot answer this question:
“What does healthy culture actually look like for us today?”
A cultural diagnostic can act as a key step to regain confidence, by establishing an objective baseline. The results may reveal unexpected surprises, but they will allow organisations to understand their current state across strengths, opportunities, vulnerabilities, capability gaps, trust, readiness for change and psychological safety.
It will also help those on boards to understand their potential exposure and liability.
Independence and Good Data Cuts through Governance Models
The best part is that a well-designed, independent cultural diagnosis provides an evidence-based view of organisational health regardless of the governance structure, and who they are accountable to whether ministers, shareholders, regulators or trustees.
It creates a common language for discussing leadership effectiveness,organisational performance and emerging risks. This enables organisations to identify and address issues early, before they escalate into financial and reputational damage, regulatory intervention, or employee relations challenges.
Moving from Diagnosis to Action
Our discussions with leaders have revealed that many are frustrated with reports from well being and engagement surveys that only show what is going on and not why issues are occurring. They complain that survey fatigue, shown by reduced participation, lowers confidence in survey data. In additon, some leaders note that often reports from culture consultants deliver data about the current state, but have no clear action plan to deliver practical solutions. Knowing there is a problem is only part of the solution. Effective diagnostic tools should also help organisations understand:
This enables leaders and boards to move beyond discussion and into prioritised action. Early visibility gives boards and executives time to respond proactively rather than react to issues that arise.
Key Takeaway
The governance of cultural risks depends on timely access to predictive, not lagging data.
Tangible Benefits
Fixing issues early brings many tangible benefits.
Consider the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) in New Zealand, where more than 50 employees resigned in 2025 from a workforce of around 320 people due to cultural issues - 10 of whom were senior. FMA scaled from approximately a 90-employee entity in 2012 to 340 in 2025, a 3-4x increase. Assuming an average salary of $150k, that it can cost up to 200% of salary to replace, and half of the leavers needed to be replaced, the avoidable costs are likely to be more than $7.5m. This calculation doesn’t account for the cost of disruption on the remaining work force such as job insecurity, lower morale, presenteeism and burnout due to increased stress. Or the loss of institutional IP and regulatory expertise, and costs of appointing a KC for independent review.
Meanwhile in Australia, recent cultural issues exposed in major consulting firms Accenture, PWC and KPMG have brought significant financial and reputational impacts, far greater than FMA (in some cases, in the order of the $100’s of millions). Interestingly KPMG's own internal metrics found signals in 2023 showing many staff felt unable to challenge leaders - independent diagnosis and reporting may have helped to completely avoid this scandal.
By comparison the cost of a robust, independent 3rd party diagnosis, benchmarked and tracked over time that provides predictive data, is a modest investment.
The organisations best positioned for success will be those that can detect the warning signs early and act before they become major crises, helping to restore trust and confidence in our governing bodies.
At Helder, our independence and diagnostic tools backed by PhD research help leaders understand cultural issues that can lead to improved performance, wellbeing, innovation, productivity and talent retention, while reducing burnout, absenteeism and unwanted turnover. We help leaders, executives and boards identify and make sense of complex cultural signals and organisational risk, enabling healthier workplaces, stronger leadership, and more sustainable performance.
If you'd like to learn more about our platform and how we can help your organisation, get in touch for a confidential conversation.