CANARY

Resources

The research behind CANARY

The CANARY Self and Others Impression Assessment has been designed from leadership research into the intersections of individual, relational and organisational conditions that make it possible to give critical upward feedback to leaders — and for that feedback to be heard and acted on.

This work also draws on existing research by Amy Edmondson into psychological safety: the shared belief that a team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking. Psychological safety explains why people weigh the cost of speaking up before they speak — and why leaders who respond well hear more of what they need to know.

The assessment is built around four research questions exploring power, voice and the conditions for candour:

Research question A

How do dynamics of power and/or hierarchy determine who gets heard and who doesn't?

Research question B

How do the dynamics of power influence whether feedback is received constructively and acted on?

Research question C

What conditions enable leaders to hear and accept critical upward feedback?

Research question D

What specific organisational, individual, and relational conditions enable people to provide critical upward feedback?

Power dynamics: what changes as leaders gain power

A consistent finding across the research is that a leader's view of their own openness changes as their power and authority grow — usually without them noticing. Several dynamics drive this:

  • Distance increases. Physical, relational and hierarchical separation limits access to leaders, so candid communication has further to travel — and more chances to be filtered out.
  • Information gets curated. Messages reaching senior leaders are increasingly selected, softened or packaged, leaving leaders with an incomplete picture that feels complete.
  • Leadership becomes isolating. Senior leaders describe being separated from candid relationships and increasingly dependent on filtered information — often without realising how lonely the position has made them.
  • The stakes of speaking rise. The more authority a leader holds over decisions, resources and careers, the greater the anticipated punishment for challenging them — and the more silence they receive.
  • Power becomes invisible to the powerful. Leaders who act as though hierarchy has no effect on an interaction leave the less powerful person to carry all the risk of candour.

This is why the assessment compares self-impression with the aggregate impression of others: the gap between the two is often the first visible sign that power has quietly changed how a leader is experienced.

The five constructs

Each construct captures a condition the research identifies as necessary for critical upward feedback to be given, heard and acted on.

Invitation

People rarely volunteer difficult truths without being asked. Research shows that explicitly inviting candid views — and asking questions that signal genuine interest rather than ritual consultation — is one of the strongest enabling conditions for critical upward feedback. An invitation tells people that challenge, not merely agreement, is wanted.

From the research

  • Inviting people to give feedback: explicitly asking for candid views and making clear that challenge, not merely agreement, is wanted.
  • Asking questions: seeking detail about meaning, evidence, context and impact before evaluating or responding.
  • Raising issues early: surfacing concerns before positions harden or harm escalates.

Permission

Permission is the felt sense that speaking up is safe — that there will be no punishment, exclusion, reputational damage or career cost. This draws directly on Amy Edmondson's research into psychological safety: people take interpersonal risks only when they believe they won't be penalised for them. Where the threat of consequences is real or imagined, candour disappears and leaders are left with silence that feels like agreement.

From the research

  • Creating a safe space: privacy, respect, attentive listening, and protection from negative consequences.
  • Threat of consequences: anticipated punishment, exclusion, or career loss discouraging challenge to authority.
  • Trust in leaders: confidence that leaders are competent, fair, well-intentioned and unlikely to punish candour.

Curiosity

Curiosity is the leader's genuine, visible interest in perspectives beyond their own — especially the voices of people at different levels. Research shows that leaders are often separated from frontline reality and receive an increasingly filtered picture. Curiosity counteracts this: seeking out unfamiliar voices, asking before concluding, and taking time to know people as people rather than roles.

From the research

  • Distance from reality: senior leaders becoming separated from frontline experience and receiving a filtered picture.
  • Connecting on a personal level: building human familiarity beyond formal roles so feedback happens within a relationship.
  • Asking questions before evaluating or responding to feedback.

Response

How a leader responds in the moment determines whether anyone bothers next time. Research shows the response to feedback — acknowledging the message, exploring its meaning, managing one's own reaction, and visibly acting on what is heard — is the single most frequently observed condition in whether critical feedback is given at all. Honest responses matter too: people would rather hear 'I disagree, and here's why' than reassurance without genuine consideration.

From the research

  • Response to feedback: acknowledging the message, exploring its meaning, managing one's reaction, and deciding on action.
  • Visibility of action taken: observable follow-through demonstrating that feedback has influenced decisions.
  • Honest response: responding truthfully rather than offering reassurance without genuine consideration.

Judgement

Judgement is about how fairly voices are treated — listening without judging the person, and without bias or favouritism. Research shows that leaders' judgement of a giver's credibility, and leaders' own biases and assumptions, powerfully shape whose feedback is accepted and whose is dismissed. When people sense their contribution will be judged on who they are rather than what they've said, they stop contributing.

From the research

  • Credibility of the feedback giver: judgements about expertise, motives and track record determining how seriously feedback is taken.
  • Bias of leaders: pre-existing preferences shaping whose views are trusted and which concerns are noticed.
  • Dismissiveness: disregarding a person's contribution in ways that reduce their willingness to offer further feedback.
Preview the questionsStart your own assessment