Seeing clearly to transform sustainably

Would you change a medical treatment without first consulting a professional? None of us would consider it. Yet this is precisely what organisations do all the time: they reorganise before understanding the situation, recruit without analysing their actual needs, and change procedures without knowing why the previous ones failed.

This article explores the fundamentals of organisational assessment: why it is essential, what it examines, how to conduct it without bias, and how to turn it into a genuine driver of change.

Why conduct an organisational assessment?

A substantial body of management literature, notably associated with McKinsey and John Kotter, suggests that approximately 70% of organisational transformations do not fully achieve their objectives.

This figure is debated among researchers—and rightly so. Rigour demands it. Yet observations consistently point to the same conclusion: the gap between intentions and results remains significant.

Among the commonly identified causes—such as the absence of a shared vision, resistance from teams or an unsuitable organisational culture—a limited understanding of the starting point plays a central role.

An organisational assessment provides precisely that understanding. It is a structured process that examines an organisation, analyses how it actually operates and identifies the gaps between how it is expected to function and what happens in practice.

What an organisational assessment is not

An audit: an audit verifies compliance with a defined framework; an assessment explores and seeks to understand.

A performance evaluation: an assessment does not judge. It observes and analyses.

An exercise in assigning blame: it identifies the causes of dysfunction, rather than individual responsibility.

Warning signs that should prompt an assessment

A general sense that something is wrong: the indicators may appear satisfactory, yet the organisation has lost momentum and no one can clearly identify why.

The same problems repeatedly returning: people, procedures or organisational arrangements change, but the same difficulties reappear a few months later.

A required transformation: a new strategic direction, regulatory development or reorganisation. Before transforming, the organisation must first understand.

The assessment is the first lever of transformation.

Understanding before acting allows efforts to be directed towards the areas where they will create lasting value, rather than correcting decisions made too quickly several months later.

The different levels to assess

An organisation is a system operating across several interconnected levels. Assessing only one level is like trying to understand a machine by examining a single component.

The strategic level: the organisation’s purpose

Vision, mission and positioning.

In many organisations, each senior manager gives a different answer to the question: “What is our mission?” This apparently minor divergence can generate countless operational misalignments.

The structural level: the framework

Organisational charts, governance, roles and responsibilities.

Assessments often reveal a significant gap between the official organisational chart and the way the organisation actually operates.

The process level: the engine

How work, information and decisions move through the organisation.

This is often where the most accessible performance gains can be found. Simplifying a procedure or removing an unnecessary approval stage, for example, may release considerable capacity.

The human level: the organisation’s core

Skills, working environment, engagement and culture.

This is often the most delicate level to explore, but also the one that produces the most valuable insights and unexpected findings.

These levels cannot be examined in isolation. A change at one level will almost always affect the others. The most powerful transformation levers are found in the way they interact.

Existing analytical models

How can these levels be explored in practice without becoming overwhelmed by the range of possible observations?

Three established models can help structure the analysis. They are standard, straightforward and effective.

SWOT: the essential starting point

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats.

This framework provides a concise overview combining internal and external perspectives. It is particularly useful at the beginning of an assessment or when preparing a strategic decision.

The risk is that it becomes a purely formal exercise: a list of bullet points that creates the appearance of analysis without producing any real insight.

McKinsey 7S: an interconnected, systemic approach

Strategy, Structure, Systems, Shared Values, Style, Staff and Skills.

The model is based on the principle that one dimension cannot be changed without affecting the others. It is particularly useful for major transformations and for understanding why previous changes failed to take hold.

5S: an organisational method

Sort (Seiri), Set in order (Seiton), Shine (Seiso), Standardise (Seiketsu) and Sustain (Shitsuke).

Originating in Japan, the 5S method can reveal numerous practical, everyday operational weaknesses when applied as part of an assessment.

The best approach is not necessarily to choose between these models, but to combine and adapt them according to the organisation’s actual needs.

Models provide different perspectives depending on the context. They are tools: observations should not be forced to fit within them.

Collecting information without bias

Information can be gathered through several complementary methods.

Interviews: the human perspective

Interviews reveal perceptions, unspoken concerns and contradictions between the official version of events and people’s lived experience.

They are also vulnerable to bias, including social desirability, selective memory and caution in relation to hierarchy.

Observation: the operational perspective

Observation is one of the most valuable methods available. What people say they do and what they actually do are often two different things.

Document review: the evidence-based perspective

Documents provide an objective record that complements individual perceptions: articles of association, meeting minutes, reports, dashboards and other written materials.

The main risks in the collection process include:

• confirmation bias, by looking only for evidence that supports an existing belief;

• relying on the usual sources, by speaking only to the most visible people;

• haste, by reaching conclusions too quickly;

• overlooking what remains unsaid;

• weak traceability, through incomplete or disorganised notes.

Sources should always be cross-checked. Areas of convergence generally provide robust findings. Divergences indicate matters requiring further investigation, while the discrepancies themselves often provide valuable information that should be documented.

Prioritising the findings

Ten findings and ten priorities ultimately mean no priority at all.

A useful assessment does not attempt to address everything. It distinguishes what is important from what is genuinely urgent.

Distinguishing findings, causes and consequences

“Deadlines are being missed” is a finding.

“The validation process includes five approval levels” is a cause.

“Stakeholder satisfaction is declining” is a consequence.

These elements must be distinguished in order to establish meaningful priorities.

For example, an NGO director may say: “Our problem is that we do not have enough staff.”

The assessment may instead reveal that job descriptions do not exist, three people are unknowingly carrying out the same work, and a purchase order requires five levels of approval.

The perceived lack of staff was a finding, not the underlying cause. Recruiting without first conducting an assessment would only have aggravated the problem.

Assessing impact and frequency

To prioritise the causes identified, consider two dimensions:

• Impact: how serious would the consequences be if the issue were not addressed?

• Frequency: how often does the issue occur?

A high-impact, high-frequency issue requires immediate priority. Other matters can be planned for or kept under observation.

The Pareto principle is also useful: approximately 80% of effects tend to arise from 20% of causes.

Among twenty or thirty findings, four or five may be responsible for most of the organisation’s difficulties. Once identified, those causes should receive the greatest share of attention and resources.

Presenting an assessment that drives transformation

An assessment that is poorly presented may lose its value before it has had the opportunity to produce any effect.

Too many assessments end up in lengthy reports, read by only a handful of people and then filed away, despite the time and resources invested in producing them.

The presentation of findings deserves as much attention as the information-gathering and analysis stages.

Common mistakes to avoid

An excessively long list of findings: after twenty minutes, the audience begins to disengage. An effective presentation should focus on five to seven well-supported key messages.

An accusatory tone: situations and systems are being analysed, not individuals. Accusation triggers an emotional defence and closes the door to transformation.

Recommendations without explanation or support: the sequence should remain clear:

Findings → causes → consequences → recommendations

Each stage must be demonstrated, supported by evidence and accompanied through implementation.

The approach that makes the difference

Three qualities must be applied simultaneously:

Clarity: acknowledging the issues without minimising them or passing judgement.

Consideration: communicating difficult findings accurately and respectfully so that they remain constructive and can be heard.

Practicality: always opening the discussion towards the next question: “What happens now?”

A useful principle is to present the organisation’s strengths before its weaknesses.

This is not an exercise in reassurance. Strengths are real, and they provide the first foundations upon which transformation can be built.

The seven key principles of organisational assessment

Clarity: seeing the organisation as it truly is.

Method: drawing on established analytical frameworks.

Cross-checking: recognising that no single source is sufficient to establish a reliable finding.

Prioritisation: distinguishing what is urgent from what is fundamental.

Consideration: adopting the approach that makes clarity constructive and acceptable.

Communication: recognising that an assessment that is neither understood nor shared will have little effect.

Action: understanding that assessment is not the end of the process, but the beginning of transformation.

An organisation that understands how it operates gives itself the means to transform.

An organisation that transforms strengthens its ability to fulfil its mission.

Article adapted from the eBook “Organisational Assessment”.

© 2026 — All rights reserved. Any reproduction, distribution or adaptation, whether in whole or in part, is subject to prior authorisation.