This report example uses the same report structures and output format as Culture State assessment reports. Your own results appear in your assessment reports.
Sample organizational culture report
Example Company Ltd
Demo organization · Culture State · Q2 2026
What does Culture State measure?
Culture State measures organizational culture through eight categories. Each category answers one practical question about how work actually feels and functions. Every question is answered on a 1–5 scale, and results are always reported at group level.
- Trust
- Can we trust each other and the organization?
- Leadership
- Does leadership provide direction and follow through on decisions?
- Purpose
- Do people understand why their work matters and feel appreciated?
- Influence
- Can people influence decisions and changes affecting them?
- Psychological Safety
- Do people feel safe speaking up, disagreeing and raising concerns?
- Collaboration
- How effectively do people and teams work together?
- Clarity
- Do people understand expectations, responsibilities and how the organization works?
- Wellbeing & Recovery
- Does the organization support sustainable and healthy work?
The same eight categories are used across the employee, manager and leadership versions, which is what makes it possible to compare how differently groups experience the same organization.
Indexes
OCHI
Organizational Culture Health Index
Measures overall organizational culture health across trust, leadership, psychological safety, clarity, meaning, collaboration, influence and wellbeing. Key question: “How healthy is our organizational culture?”
OCCI
Organizational Culture Cohesion Index
Measures how consistently different organizational groups experience the same organization. Key question: “How shared is the organizational reality across leadership, managers and employees?”
Executive summary
Overall the organization describes a stable culture with strong collaboration and meaningfulness. The most significant finding is not the average score but the distance between groups: leadership rates communication, participation and decision making considerably higher than employees. There is no indication of an acute conflict, but the pattern is typical of an organization where information and influence concentrate at the top during a growth phase.
Current strengths
- Meaningfulness: All three groups rate meaningfulness 80+. Purpose is understood consistently across the organization.
- Collaboration: Collaboration is the most aligned indicator (79 / 78 / 76) — protect it when teams are reorganised.
- Leadership quality: Immediate managers are experienced as supportive across all groups. This is the organization's main stabiliser.
Development areas
- Communication: The largest gap in the assessment. Focus on understanding and return channels, not volume.
- Purpose: Employees rate purpose and appreciation 16 points below leadership. A low-cost, high-visibility area to address.
- Feedback culture: Feedback culture is the weakest leadership indicator among employees (59).
Emerging risks
- Participation: Perceived influence at 52 among employees. Low participation predicts change resistance in the next round.
- Commitment: Commitment among employees (66) is 14 points below leadership. Watch alongside voluntary turnover.
- Change readiness: Change readiness gap of 21 points. Plan the next change with the front-line perspective explicitly represented.
01
Experience gaps
| Leadership Team | Managers | Employees | |
|---|---|---|---|
| CommunicationGap 28 | 86 | 71 | 58 |
| Decision makingGap 28 | 83 | 66 | 55 |
| ParticipationGap 27 | 79 | 63 | 52 |
| TrustGap 21 | 84 | 74 | 63 |
| Change readinessGap 21 | 82 | 70 | 61 |
| Psychological safetyGap 17 | 81 | 72 | 64 |
| PurposeGap 16 | 76 | 66 | 60 |
| Feedback cultureGap 15 | 74 | 65 | 59 |
Key observations
- · The organization is aligned on purpose and collaboration, and divided on information and influence.
- · Every one of the four largest gaps sits in communication, participation, decision making or change readiness.
- · Managers consistently report the midpoint, which suggests cascading rather than a leadership–employee divide.
- · No group fell below the minimum response threshold, so all results are reportable.
02
Recommendations
Communication
Observation
Employees rate communication 28 points lower than leadership (58 vs. 86). Managers sit in between at 71.
Interpretation
A communication perception gap is likely. The pattern — a stepwise decline from leadership to front line — usually indicates that information loses clarity as it is cascaded, rather than that too little is sent.
Recommendation
Review communication channels and transparency practices. Test understanding rather than delivery: ask a sample of employees to describe the last significant decision and its reasoning.
Participation
Observation
Participation shows the second largest difference: leadership 79, managers 63, employees 52.
Interpretation
Those who make decisions experience the process as participatory. This is a common structural effect and does not indicate intent to exclude.
Recommendation
Define one decision category where employee input is collected before the decision, and communicate visibly how that input changed the outcome.
Decision making
Observation
Clarity of decision making is rated 83 by leadership and 55 by employees.
Interpretation
Decision rights are probably clear to those holding them and unclear elsewhere. Evidence is moderate — the assessment does not distinguish between unclear ownership and unclear timing.
Recommendation
Document who decides what for the ten most frequent decision types and publish it. Revisit in the next round to see whether the gap narrows.
Psychological safety
Observation
Psychological safety is 64 among employees and 81 among leadership, with no group below the reporting threshold.
Interpretation
The difference is meaningful but smaller than in communication. It may reflect the communication and participation gaps rather than an independent safety problem.
Recommendation
Monitor rather than intervene directly. If the communication gap narrows and safety does not follow, treat it as a separate issue.
Meaningfulness
Observation
Meaningfulness is rated 80 or above by all three groups — the most consistent result in the assessment.
Interpretation
Shared understanding of purpose is a genuine organizational asset and a resource during change.
Recommendation
Anchor upcoming change communication in purpose, and avoid diluting it with process-heavy messaging.
Group-level reporting only. Groups below the minimum response threshold are not shown.