CANARY

Results dashboard

Impression profile

This is an example report with deliberately varied self and others scores so you can see what a meaningful gap looks like. Aggregate others-impression is based on 7 colleague responses; individual responses are never displayed, and others-impression results are only shown when at least 3 colleagues have responded.

Matched report

Person assessed
Amara Okafor
Self-report
Received
Colleague reports
7 received — above the 3-response release threshold

Reports are matched by the person selected at the start of each form.

Likelihood of critical upward feedback

The overall score predicts how likely people are to “tell the emperor they’ve got no clothes.” Higher scores across Invitation, Permission, Curiosity, Response and Judgement mean colleagues are more willing to share challenging or dissenting information upward.

Self-impression · average 5.7

Likely

People are generally willing to share critical upward feedback, though some situations may still inhibit it.

Others-impression · average 4.2

Somewhat likely

People may sometimes share critical upward feedback, but important information is at risk of being withheld.

Self-impression vs impression of others

A gap to look into

Your self-impression is higher than the impression others have of you. People may not feel as safe or comfortable speaking up as you believe — the gap itself is the place to look. Work through the suggested actions below and consider asking a trusted colleague what they notice.

Show
InvitationPermissionCuriosityResponseJudgement6.43.46.13.16.34.93.75.86.03.6

Construct comparison

ConstructSelfOthers (aggregate)Gap
Invitation6.43.4+3.0self rates higher
Permission6.13.1+3.0self rates higher
Curiosity6.34.9+1.4self rates higher
Response3.75.8-2.1others rate higher
Judgement6.03.6+2.4self rates higher

Understanding the gaps

A significant gap means your view of yourself differs from how colleagues experience you. Where you rate yourself higher, others may not feel the behaviour as strongly as you intend — for example, they may not feel as safe or comfortable speaking up as you believe. Where others rate you higher, they see the behaviour more readily than you recognise.

  • Invitation: You rate yourself higher than others do. Colleagues may not feel as invited into dialogue and decisions as you think.
  • Permission: You rate yourself higher than others do. People may not feel as safe or comfortable speaking up and disagreeing as you believe.
  • Curiosity: You rate yourself higher than others do. Others may not experience your curiosity as openly or as widely as you assume.
  • Response: Others rate you higher than you rate yourself. Colleagues experience this behaviour more strongly than you recognise — notice where that shows up and build on it.
  • Judgement: You rate yourself higher than others do. People may not feel their views are heard fairly or without bias as readily as you intend.

Suggested actions

Shown where the gap between self-impression and aggregate others-impression is 0.8 points or more. Actions are illustrative and should be explored with a coach or facilitator.

Invitation

self rates higher · gap 3.0
  • Ask a trusted colleague to observe one meeting and note who you invite in and who you may overlook.
  • Before closing a discussion, explicitly ask each person present whether anything is unsaid.
  • Track airtime in recurring meetings for two weeks to check whether your intention matches the pattern others experience.

Permission

self rates higher · gap 3.0
  • In your next team meeting, invite disagreement on a live decision and respond slowly — ask two clarifying questions before replying.
  • Ask colleagues privately what happens after someone challenges you, and listen for moments your reaction may have closed the conversation.
  • Share a recent mistake of your own and what you changed as a result, to model the safety you intend to create.

Curiosity

self rates higher · gap 1.4
  • Practise asking one more open question before offering your view, especially when you feel certain.
  • Seek out a perspective at a different level of the organisation each week and summarise it back to check you understood.
  • Invite a colleague to flag moments when you move to judgement quickly, and review the pattern together after a month.

Response

others rate higher · gap 2.1
  • Others see you acting on feedback more than you give yourself credit for — acknowledge this and make your follow-through more visible.
  • Reflect on whether perfectionism is causing you to discount follow-through that colleagues clearly notice.

Judgement

self rates higher · gap 2.4
  • Ask a trusted colleague to flag moments when your reaction suggests you have judged the messenger rather than the message.
  • Practise paraphrasing what you heard before responding, especially with people you don't know well.
  • Notice who you instinctively trust with sensitive topics, and test whether familiarity — rather than behaviour — is driving that choice.
Preview the questionsStart your own assessment