Digital & Technology · Co-Design
Full record →

Leadership session results

Digital and Technology leadership session, 27 August 2026. Five leaders, five activities. Every figure on this page comes from the session export.

25%rated space for innovation mostly or very true. Lowest of the five values.
9.0Consensus, the lowest-scoring collaboration style. Nobody led with it.
80%chose to log a broken process rather than raise it openly.
5 of 7survey findings the room guessed below the real number.
17behaviours written on the boards.

Four gaps, and the behaviour the room named

The gap on the left is from the session data. The behaviour on the right was written by a participant after the activity.

From the data

Expert-led was the second-lowest collaboration style at 11.4, and only one leader had it as anything but their least-used mode.

Behaviour written

Be more proactive in engaging experts.

From the data

Consensus was the lowest collaboration style at 9.0, and nobody led with it.

Behaviour written

Make informed decisions in consultation if in doubt.

From the data

In Respect, 80% chose to log a known-broken process through the proper channel rather than name it openly.

Behaviour written

Report issues early.

From the data

Space for innovation was the lowest-scoring value at 25%, and in Integrity the room declined even a documented pilot on non-sensitive data.

Behaviour written

Innovation through continuous improvement and problem solving. Prioritisation.

Full results

The 5, with Dr Duck

5 of 7 guessed low

The room guessed seven survey figures before seeing them. Five of the seven were guessed below the real number.

FindingRealRoomDirectionClosest
The Innovation Squeeze 25% 34 Guessed high Paul
The Kindness Baseline 100% 85 Guessed low Evan
Enterprise Mindset 100% 65 Guessed low Melanie
The Strategy Gap 60 38 Guessed low Paul
Building In-House Muscle 75% 97 Guessed high Will
One-Team Culture 100% 80 Guessed low Paul, Maya, Melanie
The Physical Legacy Weight 22 21 Guessed low Melanie, Paul, Evan
Every guess, and the points
The Innovation Squeeze · real 25
Paul 23 off 2Maya 32 off 7Will 42 off 17Evan 0 off 25Melanie 73 off 48
The Kindness Baseline · real 100
Evan 90 off 10Will 85 off 15Melanie 85 off 15Paul 84 off 16Maya 79 off 21
Enterprise Mindset · real 100
Melanie 80 off 20Paul 66 off 34Will 61 off 39Maya 60 off 40Evan 60 off 40
The Strategy Gap · real 60
Paul 52 off 8Maya 42 off 18Melanie 38 off 22Will 33 off 27Evan 25 off 35
Building In-House Muscle · real 75
Will 90 off 15Maya 96 off 21Melanie 100 off 25Evan 100 off 25Paul 100 off 25
One-Team Culture · real 100
Paul 100 exactMaya 100 exactMelanie 100 exactWill 79 off 21Evan 20 off 80
The Physical Legacy Weight · real 22
Melanie 22 exactPaul 22 exactEvan 22 exactWill 20 off 2Maya 17 off 5
Points · Paul 4 · Melanie 3 · Evan 2 · Maya 1 · Will 1

Collaboration · How We Work

Consensus 9.0, nobody led with it

Average across the 5 leaders who finished. Relationship scored highest at 32.2. Consensus scored lowest at 9.0.

Relationship 32.2 3 led here
Structured 27.0 1 led here
Networked 18.2 1 led here
Expert-led 11.4 nobody led here
Consensus 9.0 nobody led here
Individual profiles (5)
LeaderLeads withThenReaches for least
Maya Relationship Networked Consensus
Melanie Relationship Structured Consensus
Will Structured Relationship Consensus
Evan Networked Relationship Expert-led
Paul Relationship Structured Consensus

Respect · With the Flock

74% average agreement

Leaders predicted how their people would answer eight everyday situations. Agreement averaged 74%. One round was unanimous.

The majority answer in each round, written as a behaviour

  • Hear an idea out before judging it.
  • Reply within the day, so no one is left waiting.
  • Keep respect steady even when it is not returned.
  • Hold one standard, whoever you are in front of.
  • Write a problem down where it can be tracked.
  • Value the contribution, not the working style it comes in.
  • Ask whether someone is engaged; you cannot read it off their face.
  • How you say something is part of what you say.
All eight rounds, and who matched the majority most often
SituationWhat the room predictedAgreed
In a meeting Shooting an idea down before it’s finished 60%
Everyday habits Replying to messages within the day 60%
At the counter Stay warm and help them anyway 80%
Inside vs outside Exactly the same. Respect does not change with the audience 100%
Courageous conversations Log it through the proper channel and move on 80%
Different working styles That is simply how they think best, and the ideas count 80%
Reading people Nothing. You cannot read attention off eye contact 60%
Getting feedback Disrespectful. How you say it matters 75%
LeaderMatched the majority
Maya7 of 8
Melanie7 of 8
Will5 of 8
Paul5 of 7
Evan5 of 8

Service Excellence · Empathy map

“They hear no”, both stakeholders

27 observations across two stakeholders: Libraries with 15 cards and All staff with 12 cards. Every card is attributed.

  • “They hear no” was written for both stakeholders.
  • “Where do I go?” and “lots of change in DTS but do not know who to contact”.
  • The all-staff Think and feel quadrant is almost all change anxiety, including whether people know enough about AI.
  • 2 of the 15 Libraries cards are about what they think and feel.
All 27 observations by quadrant
Think and feel 6
  • LibrariesDisconnected as they are in a separate location
  • LibrariesNervous about the role they are playing in regards to the technology
  • All staffWow more change
  • All staffMore things to learn
  • All staffI'm getting left behind
  • All staffDo I know enough about AI
See 10
  • LibrariesComputer
  • LibrariesLibrary App
  • LibrariesIT Help Desk
  • LibrariesTelepony
  • LibrariesInternet access and website
  • LibrariesPublic
  • All staffChanging interfaces with technology
  • All staffChange (seeing less)
  • All staffRemoved perks
  • All staffMore security
Hear 6
  • LibrariesD&T Strategy Comms
  • LibrariesTech changes & changes
  • LibrariesTraining
  • LibrariesThey hear 'no' from us
  • All staffThey hear 'no'
  • All staffLot of change in DTS but don't know who to contact
Say and do 5
  • LibrariesSearching for information
  • LibrariesI want new systems
  • LibrariesAsking for access (how do I do x)
  • All staffNeed access to technology and files / information
  • All staffWhere do I go?

Integrity · The Trade-Off

Process option in all four

Four decisions where two right answers pulled against each other. The room chose the process option every time: check the data, wait for the assessment, use the documented exception, confirm before escalating. Counts below are how often each domain was in play.

Professional 3
Organisational 2
Public 2
Intellectual 1
The four decisions, and the option not taken
1. Funding with evidence gaps

Chose: Wait until the missing data is checked.

Not chosen: Seek approval today and clearly disclose the missing data. · Domains: Professional + Organisational

2. An AI tool, assessment incomplete

Chose: Do not use the tool until the assessment is complete.

Not chosen: Run a documented pilot on non-sensitive data while the assessment continues. · Domains: Professional + Public

This is the choice to watch. The room declined even a documented pilot on non-sensitive data, which suggests the ceiling on the risk threshold may need lifting if the team wants to innovate.

3. Launch with the review unfinished

Chose: Use the formal risk exception, document the gap and launch tomorrow.

Not chosen: Delay the launch until the review is complete. · Domains: Organisational + Public

4. Reporting an unconfirmed issue

Chose: Wait overnight to confirm whether the issue is real, and do not mention it in today’s update.

Not chosen: Tell leadership what is known, suspected and still uncertain. · Domains: Intellectual + Professional

Change load and resilience

This came up in the session and there was not time to work it. The Long Haul is a six-situation activity that measures two things separately: which resource a person reaches for under change, and what the current run of change is costing them. The situations are drawn from what this team named: repeat restructures, stacked go-lives, meeting load, one-way communication, decisions made elsewhere, and AI arriving. It runs on this page, so take it here.

The five anchors

PaceControls sequence and tempo. Works out what lands when.
PurposeNeeds the why before carrying the how.
AgencyFinds the part they can control and moves it.
RecoveryProtects the space to consolidate before the next thing.
SupportCarries change with other people rather than alone.

The three load bands

Steady 6 to 9Change is landing without much cost.
Carrying 10 to 13The load is real and being managed.
Depleted 14 to 18The load is high enough to name out loud.

A conversation tool, not a clinical or diagnostic measure. It records how people say they would respond to six hypothetical situations.

Their earlier workshop

The DTS team ran their own workshop earlier the same day. 71 items across five sheets, transcribed by hand from photographs. The full transcription is in the session record.

Where it lines up with our data

Their words

“Clear and empowered to make decisions in good time.”

Our data

Consensus lowest at 9.0. The process option chosen in all four Integrity decisions.

Their words

“No fear of judgement.”

Our data

80% chose to log a broken process rather than raise it openly.

Their words

“We value innovation and make time for it.”

Our data

Space for innovation lowest of the five values at 25%.

Their words

“A catalogue of services.” “DTS is approachable to the rest of the org.”

Our data

“They hear no” and “Where do I go?” on the empathy map.

Their words

“A roadmap for induction and onboarding, permanent and contract.”

Our data

One-team culture regardless of employment status: 100% in the survey.

Worth noting