Blog / Improving Visibility of Cultural Risks for Governance Groups
Improving Visibility of Cultural Risks for Governance Groups
Andy Hamilton
4 August 2026
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?
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:
- Do boards have the right people and capability to monitor culture?
- Are the governance models appropriate for each entity type, or is reform needed?
- For public entities, do ministers have sufficient powers?
- How are members selected, are they independent, and who "pays for their seat at the table"?
The process for appointing directors may need review, along with the governance structures and capability of members - but the real questions should be:
"Do leaders and boards have access to the information they need to make informed decisions?"
or more specifically
"Do they have timely, objective and independent insights into what's really happening culturally, including several layers below the executive team?"
"Do leaders and boards have access to the information they need to make informed decisions?"
or more specifically
"Do they have timely, objective and independent insights into what's really happening culturally, including several layers below the executive team?"
Given how often boards are surprised (or rather blind-sided), the answer in many cases must be no.
Realistically, and regardless of their structure, boards can only be expected to govern with the information made available to them.
Rather than pointing fingers at individuals, we have an opportunity to learn from failures and improve the information flow. It has been done successfully in medicine and aviation, so why have we not achieved this with organisational culture?
Rather than pointing fingers at individuals, we have an opportunity to learn from failures and improve the information flow. It has been done successfully in medicine and aviation, so why have we not achieved this with organisational culture?
Cultural Issues Often go Unseen - Until its Too Late
At its core, there is an information gap about workplace culture that, when repeated across organisations, is eroding confidence and trust in governance frameworks.
All medium and larger organisations have a governance framework of some form with associated reporting. At regular intervals they see data such as CEO reports, executive presentations, annual engagement surveys, HR metrics, internal audit and risk reporting.
Cultural issues rarely emerge overnight. They appear via subtle signals and behaviours that exist long before they appear in traditional reporting. This suggests that most boards lack visibility of leading indicators and instead rely on lagging metrics that arrive too late to enable effective action. Rather than seeing declining trust in leadership, reduced psychological safety, team fragmentation, increased resistance to change, or rising levels of disengagement, they see the number of formal complaints, whistleblower reports, unwanted turnover, employment disputes, regulatory scrutiny and media attention.
Lagging indicators tell leaders what has already happened rather than what is beginning to emerge – i.e. the subtle cultural signals which can be difficult to detect. In addition, existing mechanisms to measure culture, such as eNPS, wellbeing and engagement surveys, may show dissatisfaction, but they only show what is going on, and not why – or how to improve workplace culture. Surveys have limited ability to identify and predict emerging cultural risks.
All medium and larger organisations have a governance framework of some form with associated reporting. At regular intervals they see data such as CEO reports, executive presentations, annual engagement surveys, HR metrics, internal audit and risk reporting.
Cultural issues rarely emerge overnight. They appear via subtle signals and behaviours that exist long before they appear in traditional reporting. This suggests that most boards lack visibility of leading indicators and instead rely on lagging metrics that arrive too late to enable effective action. Rather than seeing declining trust in leadership, reduced psychological safety, team fragmentation, increased resistance to change, or rising levels of disengagement, they see the number of formal complaints, whistleblower reports, unwanted turnover, employment disputes, regulatory scrutiny and media attention.
Lagging indicators tell leaders what has already happened rather than what is beginning to emerge – i.e. the subtle cultural signals which can be difficult to detect. In addition, existing mechanisms to measure culture, such as eNPS, wellbeing and engagement surveys, may show dissatisfaction, but they only show what is going on, and not why – or how to improve workplace culture. Surveys have limited ability to identify and predict emerging cultural risks.
Lack of Independence in Flow of Information
The issue is compounded by the fact that the people being monitored are often the same people shaping the information flow to their governance groups. There is a lack of independence in how the data is being prepared and provided.
When cultural issues emerge publicly, post-mortems often reveal that many staff knew, including middle management and others such as HR. This pattern has appeared repeatedly internationally, with workplace culture becoming one of the more difficult organisational risks to govern.
When cultural issues emerge publicly, post-mortems often reveal that many staff knew, including middle management and others such as HR. This pattern has appeared repeatedly internationally, with workplace culture becoming one of the more difficult organisational risks to govern.
Key Steps to Regain Confidence
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.
“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.
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:
- What is going on, and why issues are occurring
- Which issues require immediate attention
- Which interventions will deliver the greatest benefit and ROI
- The likely cost of implementation
- Expected timeframes for change
- On-going metrics to measure success against a baseline
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.
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.
Next Steps
The future of governance is unlikely to be defined by changing reporting lines, adding independent directors, increasing audits, or adding layers of bureaucracy. It will be shaped by access to reliable, validated and independent information that captures the voices of the people within organisations. This data will cut through governance structures, providing reliable and actionable information to leaders, avoiding the need for structural change.
The key steps for all organisations are:
The key steps for all organisations are:
- Equip governance forums to make informed decisions in a timely manner.
- Establish a baseline, identify emerging risks, then develop action plans prioritised on complexity, cost, time to deliver, and return on investment.
- Encourage a speak-up culture and focus on fixing management behaviours that supress employee voice.
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.
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.