Inquiring Minds

Do They Actually Want Leaders? — Kind Path Guide

Spark Work

Do They Actually Want Leaders?

An honest assessment for employees who want to know whether their executive team genuinely wants leadership — or just wants people who agree, defer, and make them feel safe.

Most organisations say they want leaders. Few actually mean it. This assessment helps you see clearly what your executive team is really rewarding, really tolerating, and really asking of you — so you can make informed decisions about how you spend your energy.

About You & Your Organisation

Your Name

Organisation

Your Role / Title

How long have you been here?

Your Email Address — required to receive your results

Sector

I'd like to receive my results by email and be added to Inquiring Minds and Visionary Thinkers — the Kind Path Guide email for people who ask the questions others won't. You can unsubscribe at any time.

What Actually Gets Rewarded

Watch what advances people — not what the values poster says.

Looking at the people who have been promoted or publicly recognised in your organisation — what do they have in common?

They agree with leadership, avoid conflict, and make executives feel validated

They perform well and stay in their lane — competence within compliance

A real mix — some independent thinkers advance, but so do some yes men

People who demonstrate courage, independent thinking, and challenge ideas constructively

Think of someone in your organisation who regularly challenges leadership respectfully and holds their own view. How are they regarded?

Seen as difficult, not a team player, or quietly managed out

Tolerated but not trusted — they're heard but not advanced

Respected by peers but their relationship with executives is complicated

Genuinely valued — their challenge is seen as a contribution, not a threat

When your executive team publicly praises someone on your team, what are they usually being praised for?

Loyalty, reliability, and making leadership look good

Hitting targets and keeping things smooth

Results — though the how rarely gets examined

Courageous decisions, honest input, and meaningful outcomes for people

Domain Signal–

How Dissent Is Handled

The real culture shows up in what happens when someone says what no one else will.

When someone pushes back on a decision made by the executive team, what typically happens next?

The decision stands unchanged and the person is noted as a problem

It's acknowledged in the room, then quietly ignored afterward

Sometimes it changes things, sometimes not — depends on who raised it

It's genuinely considered and often influences the outcome

Is there an unspoken list of things that are simply not safe to say to the executive team?

Yes — everyone knows it, no one says it out loud

Mostly yes — some topics are clearly off-limits

Some topics are sensitive, but most things can be raised carefully

No — honest conversation is genuinely welcome at all levels

How does the executive team respond when they receive feedback that reflects badly on them personally?

Defensively — it's deflected, dismissed, or the messenger is managed

With surface acceptance but no real change in behaviour

With varying degrees of openness — some can hear it, some can't

With genuine curiosity — they ask questions and actually change as a result

Domain Signal–

The Language vs The Reality

Do they say the right things and then behave differently — or does the language match the lived experience?

Your executive team talks about wanting strong leaders and empowered teams. How closely does that match what you actually experience?

It doesn't match at all — the language is completely disconnected from reality

It matches in small ways but breaks down when anything significant is at stake

It's improving — there's genuine movement, even if the gap isn't fully closed

It matches closely — what they say and what they do are largely consistent

When your executive team says "we want your input," what do they usually mean?

Tell us you agree — and frame it as your idea

Give us feedback within limits — don't go anywhere uncomfortable

Genuine input on some things, managed input on others

Exactly what they say — they want real input, even when it's hard to hear

When significant change is implemented, how does it usually happen?

Decided at the top, announced as final, consultation is theatre

Some process exists but outcomes rarely change because of it

Genuine consultation happens, though the final call still sits at the top

Real co-design — decisions are shaped by people at multiple levels

Domain Signal–

Executive Ego & Identity

Is the executive team's sense of self getting in the way of the organisation's ability to grow?

How does your executive team relate to people who are clearly more skilled or knowledgeable than them in a given area?

They manage the threat — subtly undermining or limiting those people

They tolerate it but don't actively elevate or defer to that expertise

They recognise it, though their own ego sometimes gets in the way

They genuinely celebrate it and actively position those people to lead

Does your executive team talk about their own failures, limitations, or mistakes — openly and without spin?

Never — mistakes are reframed, minimised, or attributed elsewhere

Occasionally, in controlled ways that don't risk their authority

Sometimes — some members more than others

Yes — they model accountability and name their own failures directly

When an idea comes from below — from a team member rather than an executive — what typically happens to it?

It gets absorbed and re-presented as a leadership idea, or quietly shelved

It's acknowledged but has to be re-pitched through official channels to go anywhere

It depends on who had the idea and whether leadership champions it

It's taken seriously on its merits and credited to the person who raised it

Domain Signal–

The Cost of Being Yourself

What does it actually cost you to show up with independent thinking, honest voice, and genuine leadership in this place?

In your honest experience — what happens to people who consistently say what they actually think, even when it's inconvenient?

They get managed out, sidelined, or their career quietly stalls

They survive but don't advance — honesty has a ceiling here

It depends on how they say it and which executive is in the room

They're valued — honest voice is treated as a contribution, not a risk

Have you ever stayed quiet about something important because you calculated the personal cost of speaking was too high?

Regularly — I've learned what is and isn't survivable here

Sometimes — there are clear lines I've learned not to cross

Occasionally — mostly I speak, but I've self-censored on a few things

Rarely or never — I feel genuinely safe to say what I think

If you stopped managing upward entirely — stopped framing things for comfort, stopped softening your views — what would realistically happen?

I would be seen as a problem. It would cost me significantly.

I'd survive, but lose influence and access I currently have

Probably fine — some discomfort but no real consequence

Nothing — I'm already doing that, and it's respected

Domain Signal–

Here's What the Evidence Says

Do They Actually Want Leaders? — Kind Path Guide

–

Overall Score / 100

–

What Each Area Is Telling You

What to Do With This

Your results will be shown below and you will receive them by email. Spark Work will also receive your results and you will be added to the Spark Work email for Inquiring Minds and Visionary Thinkers.

✓ Submitted. Your results are on their way to your inbox. Welcome to Inquiring Minds and Visionary Thinkers.