The Growth Readiness Profile examines whether the conditions for growth and development are present across an organisation.
It looks at five related dimensions: whether people have the capacity to meet the demands placed on them; whether a difficult problem or real uncertainty someone raises actually gets received and thought through, not just reassured away or solved for them; whether their work is developing capability; whether it stretches their thinking; and whether raising concerns leads to meaningful organisational response.
Together, these provide a picture of the conditions in which people are being asked to grow, rather than simply how they feel about the organisation.
The distinction is important. Imagine two people who both say, “I feel comfortable speaking up here.” One of them has actually raised something difficult, watched leadership respond to it, and seen things change as a result. The other has never actually tested it — they feel safe in theory, but nobody's ever found out what happens in practice. The distinction matters: feeling able to speak and knowing what happens when you do are not the same thing. The GRP is designed to capture that difference.
Leadership's view of the organisation is inevitably shaped by the parts of it they encounter most directly. The GRP compares that view with employees' reported experience across different parts of the organisation. Where those perspectives diverge, the gap itself becomes useful diagnostic information.
Individual responses are not visible to leadership, administrators or Inner Authority Suite. Results are reported only at group level and only where at least five responses are available. Groups below this threshold remain hidden.
This protection is built into the platform and cannot be disabled.
The 46-item Growth Readiness Profile measures employees' reported experience of the conditions for growth across the organisation.
The Founder & Executive Growth Readiness Profile captures both leaders' perceptions of those same organisational conditions and aspects of their own experience of leading.
Where the two profiles measure equivalent conditions, the results can be compared directly. The comparison shows both the organisation's growth conditions and how closely leadership's view matches employees' experience.
The dashboard lets you pick what to look at and compare — a single department, several departments side by side, your leadership team, or the whole organisation — and shows the results for whatever you choose.
This is often where the most useful, and sometimes uncomfortable, patterns show up. Two teams that look similar on the surface can turn out to be in very different places — one well-supported but not being stretched, another stretched in exactly the way that builds real capability, a third stretched in a way that's more likely to exhaust people than grow them. Averaging everything into one company-wide number hides all of this. Looking department by department is where it becomes visible.
Where the two profiles measure the same underlying condition, the dashboard shows leadership's view alongside employees' reported experience and the gap between them. For example, leadership may believe that people can speak up freely while employees report a very different experience. The difference is useful because it identifies an area that leadership may not currently see.
A small gap is not necessarily a positive result. Leadership may accurately recognise an area in which employee experience is poor. Equally, a larger gap may occur because leadership underestimates a genuinely strong area. The level and the gap should therefore always be interpreted together.
If you select a group and see a message about too few responses, that's the anonymity protection working correctly, not an error. It means fewer than five people in that specific group have responded yet, and showing a result would risk making individual answers identifiable. Once more people respond, or once you widen what you're looking at, it will appear.
The GRP is a diagnostic starting point, not a verdict.
A score identifies a pattern; it does not explain its cause. Understanding why that pattern exists requires conversation with the people closest to it and attention to the organisational context in which it occurs.
The most useful question is therefore not simply “What does this score mean?” but “What might be happening here that produced this pattern?”