Section 4
Getting and reading the results
This section shows how to turn the exported responses into a needs profile: what to count, what each question can honestly support, and how a set of numbers becomes a written finding. The worked example uses invented figures purely to demonstrate the method.
Counting rules
Most misreadings of this survey come from a counting decision, not an interpretation. Each rule below has a matching mistake to avoid.
Count each respondent once per option, and show counts alongside percentages.
Do not report a percentage alone for a small group. Say “3 of 5 leaders”.
Include valid None, Unsure and Prefer-not-to-answer responses in the denominator and show them separately.
Do not silently remove them to make the substantive percentages look larger.
Exclude missing, skipped and invalid answers from that question's denominator and record their counts separately.
Do not treat a blank as a None.
Treat an answer as invalid for that question if it exceeds the limit, mixes an exclusive option with others, or picks a question 2 priority absent from question 1.
Do not discard the respondent's valid answers to other questions.
Expect multi-select percentages to total more than 100%.
Do not compare percentages across questions with different selection rules as though they measured the same thing.
Keep question 3 option X alongside A–H when selected; only Unsure is exclusive in question 3.
Do not read a larger number of question 3 selections as greater severity.
Report each group separately and describe stakeholder percentages as leaders selecting an option.
Do not combine the groups into one total, or weight them by how many employees each leader oversees.
Treat Other as a signal that the list may be incomplete, and read the short text before grouping.
Do not assume two Other descriptions are the same need, or invent a topic where no text was supplied.
Count unique respondents once per capability area if an area count is wanted.
Do not add the Q3-A and Q3-B percentages together to produce a Task percentage.
What each question can and cannot establish
Keep this table beside you while writing the summary. The last column is the one that protects you.
P1 / S1Which current management responsibilities are development priorities?Open
How to summarise it
Count selections for each option and show the percentage of respondents answering the question. Display each group separately.
What it can suggest
The breadth and relative prominence of perceived needs among respondents.
What it cannot establish
Objective proficiency, the severity of a gap, or the proportion of all N−3 employees who have a deficit.
P2 / S2Which selected priority would make the greatest difference?Open
How to summarise it
Count the single primary priority. Read alongside question 1. Check it was selected in question 1.
What it can suggest
Which needs deserve closer attention first. A topic may be widely relevant in question 1 without being the first priority in question 2.
What it cannot establish
A complete priority order or the magnitude of business impact.
P3 / S3What could support greater effectiveness or a higher standard in the chosen priority?Open
How to summarise it
Within each question 2 priority, count options. Interpret A–H through the four areas; retain X, O and U separately.
What it can suggest
Development and enabling conditions associated with a specific responsibility.
What it cannot establish
That current performance is poor, root cause, severity, a ranking of the selected steps, or a four-area capability level.
P4What thoughts does the participant recognise as potentially restricting useful approaches across management responsibilities overall?Open
How to summarise it
Count each thought across valid P4 responses, without filtering by question 2. Show None, Unsure and Prefer not to answer separately.
What it can suggest
Self-reported assumptions worth exploring as wider developmental context.
What it cannot establish
A complete belief system, the frequency or strength of a thought, or its connection to a particular question 2 priority.
S4What potentially relevant behavioural patterns has the leader observed across management responsibilities overall?Open
How to summarise it
Count patterns across valid S4 responses, without filtering by question 2. Show None and Unsure separately.
What it can suggest
Behavioural situations to explore as wider developmental context.
What it cannot establish
Private beliefs, prevalence among employees, or a connection to a particular question 2 priority. P4 and S4 are not equivalent items.
P5 / S5Where could professionalism develop further?Open
How to summarise it
Count options and compare the two groups descriptively.
What it can suggest
The concrete behaviours behind the broad term “professionalism”.
What it cannot establish
That every listed behaviour is a client problem. Overlap with question 1 is elaboration, not independent confirmation.
P6 / S6What needs strengthening as responsibility expands?Open
How to summarise it
Count options, then read alongside the current-role priorities. Report Unsure prominently where selected.
What it can suggest
Likely transition needs and uncertainty about next-role expectations.
What it cannot establish
A promotion recommendation, succession ranking or mapping to a pathway level.
P7 / S7What support is expected to help with the primary priority?Open
How to summarise it
Within each question 2 priority, count support choices.
What it can suggest
Acceptable or desired forms of support, and possible enabling conditions.
What it cannot establish
Evidence that the most popular format will be the most effective intervention.
PE1 / SE1What potential gains could development support?Open
How to summarise it
Within the question 2 priority, count potential gains.
What it can suggest
Desired work outcomes to consider when defining development aims.
What it cannot establish
Observed failures, verified benefits, urgency, financial impact or causality.
PE2 / SE2Which conditions could better support progress?Open
How to summarise it
Within the question 2 priority, count conditions. Keep None and Unsure visible.
What it can suggest
Opportunities for client-owned support alongside personal development.
What it cannot establish
That existing conditions are poor, the organisation caused a difficulty, or personal development is unnecessary.
PC / SCWhat could provide clarity where Unsure was selected?Open
How to summarise it
Count options by group among eligible respondents with valid follow-up answers. Report eligible and answered counts and trigger questions.
What it can suggest
Ways to establish more informed development conversations or observation.
What it cannot establish
A capability gap, a replacement answer to the original question, or a specific link to each Unsure when several questions triggered the follow-up.
A worked example, end to end
Delegation, from raw counts to a written need. Every number here is invented to show the method.
Illustrative figures only
| Finding | Participants | Stakeholders |
|---|---|---|
| Delegation selected in question 1 | 12 of 20 (60%) | 4 of 6 (about 67%) |
| Delegation chosen as primary priority in question 2 | 8 of 20 (40%) | 3 of 6 (50%) |
Then look at the nature of that priority
Among the eight participants whose primary priority is delegation, all eight answer question 3.
That is twelve substantive selections across eight people, because respondents can select every applicable development step. The two working-conditions selections coexist with personal development opportunities.
Separately, all 20 participants answer P4: seven select “doing it myself feels more reliable”. All six stakeholders answer S4: three select taking work back. These question 4 results concern management responsibilities overall, not specifically delegation.
Finding
Delegation is prominent in both groups. Within the delegation subgroup, reported development opportunities include execution, acting through discomfort, recognising personal habits and enabling conditions. These selections do not establish poor current performance. Across management responsibilities overall, some participants recognise a thought about personal reliability and some leaders observe taking work back.
Inference (provisional)
The linked question 3 evidence suggests delegation development may usefully combine practical skill, supported action and reflection, with attention to working conditions. The separate question 4 findings suggest a possible question about personal reliability and taking work back. They do not establish that either concerns the delegation priority, nor that the thought explains the behaviour.
Unresolved
The survey does not establish whether the overall question 4 findings concern delegation, whether the priority addresses a current challenge or a higher standard, or which conditions the Q3-X respondents mean. Any client explanation of role authority is separate context, not a replacement for submitted answers.
The written needs statement
Participants identify an opportunity to achieve stronger, more consistent delivery through others. Reported steps include practice, acting through discomfort and recognising personal patterns. Existing performance, employee readiness and specific enabling conditions remain unresolved.
What this suggests for the response
Use relevant Situational Leadership content and practice, add a real delegation assignment with manager feedback, and discuss enabling conditions with the client as a separate programme-planning matter. Explore assumptions about reliability and contribution if their relevance to delegation is confirmed. Review the quality of handover, the support provided and what happened after delivery. Do not assume the course itself produces sustained change.
Handling the clarity follow-up
Suppose four participants select Unsure in question 6 and all four answer the clarity follow-up. Three choose clearer next-role expectations and two choose a manager discussion; five selections are valid because each person may choose two. Report “3 of 4 eligible respondents requested clearer next-role expectations”, retaining all four original question 6 Unsure responses. Do not replace the Unsure answers, conclude they lack capability, or interview only these four to change the survey results.
And the caution that goes with it
Reading patterns across the results
Common shapes in the data, what each reasonably suggests, and the conclusion to resist.
| If you see this | It reasonably suggests | Useful next step | Do not conclude |
|---|---|---|---|
| Both groups frequently select the same priority. | There is shared perceived need among respondents. | Examine its linked question 3 responses and implications. | That every participant has the same gap. |
| Participants emphasise a need that stakeholders seldom select. | Participants may experience a challenge that is less visible to leaders, or interpret the topic differently. | Retain the difference. Ask the client contact about role expectations if useful, recording their answer separately. | That participants are mistaken or leaders are disengaged. |
| Stakeholders emphasise a need that participants seldom select. | Expectations or perceived priorities may differ. | Use submitted examples; otherwise record the situation as unresolved. Client expectations may be recorded separately. | That participants lack self-awareness. |
| Question 1 shows broad interest but question 2 shows little first-priority selection. | The area is relevant but not the first concern for many respondents. | Consider reinforcement or secondary emphasis. | That the topic is unnecessary. |
| Question 3 identifies development in Will or Self; question 4 separately identifies thoughts that could be relevant. | The priority may require supported action or reflection as well as technique. The possible relevance of the thoughts remains to be explored. | Use a submitted example if it establishes the connection; otherwise keep the proposed link provisional. | That motivation is low, or that a belief caused the problem. |
| E2 or Q3-X identifies enabling conditions. | Conditions could support further development alongside capability. | Record support and unresolved detail; raise organisational questions with the client contact separately. | That current conditions are deficient, or the issue is entirely organisational. |
| Unsure is common in question 6. | Next-role expectations may not be clear enough to specify readiness needs. | Use the clarity follow-up to identify clarity support; ask the client contact about defined next-role expectations, keeping their answer separate. | That respondents lack ambition or are unready. |
| Workshops are popular in question 7. | There is receptivity to a taught component. | Select content and activities against the identified need. | That a workshop alone will resolve it. |
Building the needs profile
Six steps between the counts and the design conversation. Complete all six before anyone proposes a workshop.
- 1
State whose views are represented
Record response numbers, invitation coverage if known, and visible gaps. Note high uncertainty or insufficient-observation responses rather than treating them as low need.
- 2
Identify the most prominent needs
Read questions 1 and 2 together for each group. Carry forward a manageable set of prominent priorities, preserving ties and noting important differences. A low-frequency issue with potentially serious consequences may still need attention; flag it as an unresolved concern for the client contact.
- 3
Describe the nature of each need
For each primary priority, examine linked question 3 responses through Task, Context, Will and Self, allowing enabling conditions to coexist with personal development opportunities. If evidence is thin, say that the nature of the need is unresolved.
- 4
Add professionalism and progression
Use question 5 to make the professionalism concern concrete. Use question 6 to identify what changes as responsibility grows. These cover the respondent's wider view, so do not assume they describe the question 2 priority.
- 5
Separate finding, inference and unresolved question
A finding is what respondents actually selected. An inference is a reasonable interpretation, explicitly provisional. An unresolved question is what the survey does not establish; retain the uncertainty.
- 6
Define the need before proposing activities
Use the sentence structure: “[Population] has identified an opportunity to develop [specific work capability] in order to [higher standard, work outcome or expanded responsibility]. Responses indicate particular attention to [supported areas]. [Relevant conditions or assumptions] may also need exploration. The main uncertainty is [what is not yet established].”