Email me

Let's connect

Book a Call

logologo

  • Home
  • About us
  • Our Solutions
    • Coaching
    • Facilitating Change
    • Career Decisions & Transitions
    • Character
    • Mental Health & Wellbeing
    • Working Mothers
    • Mentoring & Supervision
  • Events & Training
  • Reflections & Insights
  • Get in Touch
  • Home
  • About us
  • Our Solutions
    • Coaching
    • Facilitating Change
    • Career Decisions & Transitions
    • Character
    • Mental Health & Wellbeing
    • Working Mothers
    • Mentoring & Supervision
  • Events & Training
  • Reflections & Insights
  • Get in Touch
  • Home
  • About us
  • Our Solutions
    • Coaching
    • Facilitating Change
    • Career Decisions & Transitions
    • Character
    • Mental Health & Wellbeing
    • Working Mothers
    • Mentoring & Supervision
  • Events & Training
  • Reflections & Insights
  • Get in Touch

Eleven Years

by Bonita LumeSeptember 30, 2026 Leadership0 comments
On the space between “something is not right” and getting help

I have been sitting with a number for a while now, and I find I cannot quite put it down.

Eleven years.

That is the average time, according to figures compiled by the National Alliance on Mental Illness in the United States, between the first symptoms of a mental illness appearing and a person receiving their first treatment. The delay varies depending on what someone is experiencing, and for anxiety it tends to sit at around eleven years. But even the shorter delays are measured in years, not weeks.

Eleven years is a child moving from primary school to the end of high school. It is a career being built, a relationship, perhaps a family. And somewhere inside all of that ordinary life, someone is carrying something heavy, often without the words for it, and often without anyone around them quite knowing how to help.

Awareness worked. That is why there is a next question.

I want to be clear about something before I go any further. The change in how we talk about mental health over the past two decades is one of the most important cultural shifts of our generation. Stigma has been challenged, and it is more acceptable than it has ever been to say “I am not okay.” That was hard-won, it has changed lives, and it deserves to continue.

But every meaningful movement eventually reaches another question. Not because the first chapter was wrong, but because it worked.

The first chapter asked whether we could create a world where people feel safe enough to say “I’m struggling.” My sense is that the next chapter asks something different. Once someone says it, do we know how to respond?

Those are not the same capability, and the evidence suggests we have built the first far more than the other.

Fewer than half of managers have been trained to have a conversation about mental health. In the UK, more than 40% of teachers say they do not feel confident helping a student with their mental health, even though most secondary teachers report seeing anxiety and depression rising among their pupils.

Glenn Close described what we are facing as a “crisis of care” in her 2023 TEDWomen talk. Her focus is largely the formal system: enough providers, within reach, without penalty for having sought help. That matters enormously. But I think there is a second gap alongside it, one that occurs earlier.

Where distress actually shows up

Specialist care is indispensable, and nothing I am saying here is meant to diminish or replace it. But I have come to believe that mental wellbeing cannot become the responsibility of specialists alone.

Distress does not wait for an appointment. It shows up at the kitchen table, in a team meeting, in a message that feels slightly off, in the teenager who says “I’m fine” a little too quickly. Long before anyone books time with a professional, and often instead of it, the first person to encounter someone’s struggle is a friend, a partner, a parent, a manager or a teacher.

Most of those people care. They notice something. And then they hesitate, worried about saying the wrong thing, doing too little, doing too much, overstepping. Not because they lack compassion. Because they lack confidence. Most of us were simply never taught this.

There is often something else underneath the hesitation too. Being with someone else’s pain stirs up our own discomfort, and many of our instinctive responses (reassuring, fixing, changing the subject) quietly serve our need to make that discomfort go away. To be present with another person’s difficult emotion, we need some capacity to be with our own.

What strikes me is how directly this connects back to those eleven years. Research on psychological safety suggests that whether people speak up depends partly on what they expect will happen when they do. If the people closest to us seem unsure, uncomfortable or quick to move on, it makes sense that many of us wait. We have spent years encouraging people to speak. As World Mental Health Day reminded us earlier this month, real voices only lead to real change when someone is ready to hear them.

What it actually takes

The person who sits beside someone in difficulty does not need to diagnose them, treat them or fix their life. There is good evidence that human presence itself matters. In one well-known study, simply holding the hand of a trusted partner reduced the brain’s response to threat. Support does not always have to remove the problem in order to change what it is like to carry it.

But presence is not enough on its own either. Not every struggle is an illness, and that does not mean every struggle is insignificant. Grief, fear, disappointment and strain are part of being human and taking them seriously does not require treating them as pathology. At the same time, some distress does need specialist care, and the sooner it gets there the better. The ability to tell these apart, and to respond to what this person actually needs right now, is a skill. I think of it as discernment, and it runs through everything else.

Good support also leaves people with their own agency intact. The aim is not to take over, but to help someone feel less alone while preserving their capacity to navigate what comes next.

The shift I think we need

This is my own thinking rather than something the research has yet proven. But my instinct is that if more of the people already present in someone’s life could notice earlier, respond well and gently help that person towards support, we could potentially narrow that eleven-year gap. It is simply easier, in the early and uncertain stages, to talk to someone you trust than to seek out a clinician alone.

That is what Mental Health First Response is about. It does not replace awareness; it builds capability on top of it. It is not about turning people into therapists. It is about building the confidence and capability to notice when something has changed, respond in a way that opens the door rather than closing it, stay present without rushing to fix, and connect someone to capable help when that is what they need. For the person who needs specialist care, a capable friend or colleague can be the bridge that gets them there sooner. For the many more whose distress does not need clinical intervention, that same presence may be an important part of what enables them to move through it.

Healthy communities have always relied on ordinary people who know how to carry one another through difficult times. Perhaps we have forgotten how to do it well. Perhaps we were never intentionally taught.

The question is no longer only whether people are willing to ask for help. It is whether we know how to show up well when they do.

 

For anyone who would like to begin building this capability, ShareTree offers a free introductory course on

Mental Health First Response, a first step towards their full accredited programme.

 

Start the free course
Learn More

Are Culture Surveys Still Worth It?

by Bonita LumeJuly 27, 2026 Leadership0 comments
CULTURE SURVEY SERIES: PART 6 of 6

When I started this series, I posed a simple question: Are culture and engagement surveys still worth it?

By now, the answer should feel clearer.
Yes – they are worth it.

But not automatically.
Not mechanically.
Not as ritual.

Culture surveys are not valuable because they produce data.
They are valuable because they create clarity.
And clarity, when handled responsibly, creates movement.

Over the past few posts, we’ve unpacked:

  • Why surveys sometimes fail to translate into change
  • How acting (or not acting) shapes trust
  • The subtle mistakes that undermine insight
  • The importance of thoughtful design — whether custom or structured
  • And how layered, psychologically grounded models sharpen understanding

What becomes evident is this:
A culture survey is never neutral.

It signals intent.
It invites honesty.
It raises expectation.

When done well, it strengthens ownership and alignment.
When done carelessly, it quietly erodes credibility.
The difference lies not in the tool, but in the maturity with which it is used.

Culture is not an annual event.
It is not an HR project.
It is not a score to be managed.
It is the lived experience of your people — shaped daily by leadership behaviour, organisational systems, and collective responsibility.

A survey can help you see that experience more clearly.
But seeing is only the beginning.

The real work begins in what follows:

  • The conversations.
  • The prioritisation.
  • The shared accountability.
  • The willingness to adjust behaviour — not just measure sentiment.

If you are passionate about culture.
If you care about engagement beyond the metric.
If you want your surveys to become catalysts rather than compliance rituals.
Then it’s worth doing them well.

And if you’re unsure whether your current approach is creating real movement, or simply measurement, I’d welcome the conversation.

As a seasoned Industrial Psychologist, I support organisations in designing, positioning and translating culture surveys into intentional action, whether through custom design or structured, research-based models.

Because culture deserves more than measurement.
It deserves commitment.

Learn More

A Layered View of Engagement: The ShareTree Model

by Bonita LumeJune 8, 2026 Leadership0 comments
CULTURE SURVEY SERIES: PART 5 of 6

What drew me to The ShareTree Character & Culture Model (www.sharetree.org) is not that it measures engagement. Many surveys do that.

What sets it apart for me is the combination of simplicity and depth. It presents results in a way that makes immediate sense for business, while the underlying model has a level of psychological rigour that captures the essence of culture and engagement in a way I have not seen any other framework do.

Culture Is Layered
The ShareTree model recognises that engagement is not a mood, it is the result of layered human needs being met at work.

It measures workplace experience across seven progressive layers, moving from aspirational experience down to foundational needs:

  • Feeling Meaningful
  • Feeling Evolved
  • Feeling Free
  • Feeling Valued
  • Feeling Accomplished
  • Feeling Supported
  • Feeling Safe

Foundational needs (safety and support) enable higher-level drivers (autonomy, growth and purpose). If the foundation is unstable, higher engagement becomes fragile.

This layered structure prevents organisations from reacting only at the surface. It helps identify where pressure truly sits.

Culture Is Influenced
Beyond measuring experience, the model identifies five organisational levers that actively shape those layers:

A – Self perspective
C – Communication
E – Ecosystem
D – Organisational Systems
B – Leadership

These levers help move the conversation from “What are people experiencing?” to “What is influencing that experience  and where do we have the most leverage to shift it?”

 

The Heat Map: Clarity with Precision

The results are presented in a structured heat map, cross-referencing the seven layers with the five levers.

This visual output does something powerful.

It shows:

  • Where strengths live
  • Where foundational gaps exist
  • Which lever is influencing which layer
  • Whether the challenge is behavioural, structural or systemic

 

It replaces general statements like “engagement is low” with precise insight.
And precision changes the quality of action.

Engagement Is Not a Single Score
Most organisations measure engagement with a single question, often on a sliding scale (1 – 5 / 1-10).

The ShareTree model goes further.

Engagement is defined as the cumulative experience across all seven layers, and assessed across two core dimensions:
• Commitment / Satisfaction
• Advocacy / Energy

These dimensions form four engagement quadrants:

  • Highly Engaged (committed and advocating)
  • Engaged but Detached (committed but low energy)
  • Disengaged (low commitment and low advocacy)
  • Actively Disengaged (low commitment with negative influence)

 

This distinction matters.

Because not all “engaged” employees are energised ambassadors. And not all disengagement looks the same.

When you understand where people sit, action towards creating shifts becomes targeted.

In One Sentence
The ShareTree Model explains engagement as the result of meeting layered human needs at work, influenced by five organisational levers that leaders can intentionally strengthen.

It does not reduce culture to sentiment.
It makes it diagnosable.
And when culture becomes diagnosable, it becomes buildable.

Learn More

Custom or Standardised Culture Surveys: Which Is Better?

by Bonita LumeApril 28, 2026 Leadership0 comments
CULTURE SURVEY SERIES: PART 4 of 6

It’s a question I’m asked often.

Should we design a fully customised culture survey?
Or should we use a structured, standardised model?

The honest answer is: it depends.

And the more important answer is: neither approach is automatically superior.

Both can be powerful.
Both can fail.

The difference lies not in the format, but in the alignment, discipline and follow-through surrounding it.

The Case for Custom Design
A custom-designed survey allows you to align measurement directly to your strategy, your language and your lived organisational reality.

It gives you flexibility.

You can explore:

  • Specific tensions that have surfaced internally
  • Strategic shifts currently underway
  • Leadership behaviours that require deeper insight
  • Engagement nuances that generic models may not capture
  • Perceptions of initiatives that have been run or recently implemented

It allows you to design with the end in mind.

Custom surveys are particularly powerful when the organisation is navigating change, when trust dynamics are complex, or when previous survey cycles have left unresolved themes that require deeper exploration.

But custom design comes with responsibility.

Without psychological expertise and strong methodological discipline, custom surveys can quickly become vague, overloaded or structurally weak. Questions may feel relevant, but produce unreliable data.

Flexibility without rigour becomes noise.

The Case for a Standardised Model
A structured, standardised model offers something different.

It provides:

  • A tested, research-informed architecture
  • A psychologically grounded theoretical foundation
  • Clear and defined cultural dimensions
  • External benchmarking potential
  • Consistency and comparability over time

When built on sound theory, a strong model does more than gather opinions. It reflects an underlying understanding of human motivation, behaviour and cultural dynamics.

It reduces ambiguity.
It strengthens interpretability.
It enables organisations to see patterns beyond isolated data points.

But not all standardised surveys are equal.

Every model is built on assumptions about how people function, what drives engagement and how culture develops. If you choose to work with a structured framework, it is essential that you understand, and genuinely align with, the theory behind it.

If you do not believe in the model’s foundation, the insights will feel mechanical rather than meaningful.

A standardised model provides a ready-made structure, and that is its strength. But that same strength can become a weakness if the framework replaces critical thinking. The model should support interpretation, not substitute it.

The Real Question Is Not “Which Model?”
The real question is: What will you do differently because of the insight?

Custom surveys offer contextual precision and nuance.
Standardised surveys offer theoretical grounding and comparability.

Both have strengths.
Both have limitations.

The right choice depends on:

  • Organisational size
  • Cultural maturity
  • Survey history
  • Strategic complexity
  • Budget realities
  • Leadership readiness

The methodology should serve the organisation, not the other way around.

In the next post, I’ll share more about the structured culture model I personally value and why its theoretical foundation and layered design create a different kind of clarity.

Because when measurement is aligned to sound theory and intentional execution, it becomes far more than a score.

It becomes a lever for intentional cultural shift.

Learn More

Three Common Mistakes That Quietly Undermine Culture Surveys

by Bonita LumeMarch 9, 2026 Leadership0 comments
CULTURE SURVEY SERIES: PART 3 of 6

By now, we’ve established two things:

Culture surveys can be powerful, and
They can also quietly erode trust if nothing follows.
But there’s another layer to this conversation.

Over the years, I’ve noticed three common mistakes that consistently undermine culture surveys, even in organisations with good intent and capable leadership.

They’re not dramatic failures.
They’re subtle missteps.
And they matter.

1. We Treat Data as the Deliverable
The first mistake is operational, and it’s surprisingly common.

  • We invest heavily in the mechanics of the survey
  • We design the questions
  • We drive participation rates
  • We analyse the data
  • We produce beautiful dashboards
  • We present polished slides
  • And then — the energy drops.
Not because people don’t care, but because the next phase requires a different kind of discipline. The work shifts from measurement to change and many organisations don’t have a clear “handover” process for that transition.

This is where momentum is lost:

  • Themes aren’t translated into priorities (they remain a long list)
  • Priorities aren’t translated into behavioural commitments (they stay as slogans)
  • Leaders aren’t equipped to facilitate real conversations (results are simply presented)
  • Ownership remains too centralised (often sitting with HR)
  • Action plans remain broad and aspirational, rather than specific and accountable

When that translation step is missing, the survey becomes the event, not the starting point.

And culture does not shift because we gained insight.
It shifts because behaviour changes.

2. We Frame It as “Tell Us What’s Wrong and We’ll Fix It”

The second mistake is relational.

Many surveys are positioned, intentionally or not, as: “Tell us what’s wrong and we’ll fix it.”

It sounds inclusive. It feels responsible.
But it quietly creates passivity.

Employees criticise.
Leadership absorbs.
Everyone waits.

Healthy cultures are not built through outsourced responsibility.
They are co-created.

When engagement is positioned as something HR or senior leadership must “solve,” ownership weakens at every other level. Teams wait for direction instead of reflecting on their own contribution to the lived culture.

A survey should not be a complaint mechanism.
It should be an invitation to shared responsibility.

3. We Ask the Wrong Questions

The third mistake is structural and often invisible.

When survey items are ambiguous, double-barrelled, copied from generic templates or pulled from AI-generated question banks without contextual refinement, the data becomes unreliable.

Not because employees are dishonest, but because interpretation varies. And when interpretation varies, organisations respond to noise.

I have seen organisations invest heavily in interventions to fix “low engagement” scores, only to discover later that the issue was not the culture, it was how the question was interpreted.

If a survey item is unclear, the data is unclear.
And when the data is unclear, the action becomes misdirected.

Measurement is powerful.
But only when it is precise.

Culture surveys don’t fail because culture is unimportant.
They fail because the process lacks rigour in design, in positioning and in follow-through.

And discipline, not intent, is what ultimately determines whether insight becomes impact.

Learn More

If You’re Not Prepared to Act, Stop Running Culture Surveys

by Bonita LumeMarch 9, 2026 Leadership0 comments
CULTURE SURVEY SERIES: PART 2 of 6

Let me be direct.

If you are not prepared to do something meaningful with the results, stop running culture and engagement surveys.

Not because they don’t matter.
But because they matter too much.

In the previous post, I asked whether culture surveys are still worth it. The answer is yes — but only if we understand what we are stepping into when we launch one.

A survey is not just a measurement tool.
It is a signal.

When an organisation invites employees to share their experience, it communicates something powerful:
“We want to understand.”

And when employees respond, they are not simply selecting ratings on a scale.
They are investing something.

  • Time
  • Energy
  • Honesty
  • Often — hope.
They are saying:
“This is what it feels like to work here.”
“This is what matters.”
“This is where we are strong.”
“This is where we are struggling.”

Embedded in that participation is an expectation that the input will lead somewhere.

Not to perfection.
Not to immediate fixes.
But to movement.

When nothing visible follows, the impact is rarely dramatic.
It is subtle.

People adjust their expectations.
They participate more cautiously next time.
They give less of themselves.

And over time, the survey becomes something else entirely. Not a catalyst for progress, but an annual ritual that confirms nothing really shifts.

Running a culture survey without intentional, structured follow-through is like conducting a blood pressure check and deciding the results are inconvenient.

The data does not disappear.
The underlying issues do not disappear.
The risk simply compounds.

To be clear: acting does not mean responding to every comment or launching multiple new initiatives.

  • It means translating insight into focused priorities.
  • It means communicating what will — and will not — change.
  • It means creating ownership at leadership, team and individual level.
  • It means demonstrating that input matters.

Because culture is shaped not only by what we measure.

It is shaped by what we respond to.
If you are prepared to act: measure.
If you are not: pause until you are.

Learn More

Are Culture Surveys Still Worth It?

by Bonita LumeMarch 9, 2026 Leadership0 comments
CULTURE SURVEY SERIES: PART 1 of 6

Culture and engagement surveys have become almost standard practice in many organisations.

We run them annually.
We benchmark.
We compare.
We track trends.

But beneath that rhythm, a question quietly surfaces: Are they actually worth it?

When new clients reach out, the conversation often begins here. Not with scepticism about culture (most leaders deeply believe in its importance) but with uncertainty about impact.

“We’ve been measuring for years… and yet very little really seems to shift despite significant investment and effort in these surveys.”

Sometimes scores move marginally. Sometimes they remain flat. Occasionally they decline. And that’s when doubt creeps in.

Are we measuring the right things?
Are the results telling us something useful?

Or have surveys become an organisational ritual rather than a strategic lever?

To be clear, I have seen culture surveys create significant shifts, not only in metrics, but in alignment, ownership and leadership behaviour. But those shifts don’t happen automatically.

They happen when surveys are designed with the end in mind.
When they are positioned carefully.
When they are followed through with discipline.

A survey, in itself, does not change culture.
It simply creates clarity.
And clarity is only valuable if it leads to action.

Over the next few weeks, I want to unpack what separates culture surveys that drive movement from those that quietly stall.

We’ll explore:

  • Why surveys sometimes fail to translate into change
  • The most common mistakes organisations make
  • Why engagement is more nuanced than a simple “engaged vs disengaged” line
  • How layered culture models sharpen insight
  • And what disciplined follow-through actually requires

Culture surveys are not inherently ineffective.

But how we use them determines whether they become catalysts or just another data point.

Learn More

© 2024 Landman Consulting. All Rights Reserved.