Sometimes You Need Someone Who Isn't Inside the Problem.
There is a particular disadvantage to being inside an organization:
You know too much.
You know the history.
You know the personalities.
You know why the process exists.
You know what has already been tried.
You know which explanation leadership prefers.
You know which changes will be difficult.
Sometimes, all of that context is useful.
Sometimes, it's part of what makes the problem hard to see.
That's what stopped me about the story of the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD).
The AAD is the government agency responsible for Australia’s Antarctic program. Its work includes supporting scientific research and operating Australia’s Antarctic and sub-Antarctic stations—places where people can live and work together in some of the most remote environments in the world.
And in 2022, the organization brought someone in to take a closer look at its workplace culture.
The problem they knew they had
By 2022, concerns about workplace culture at the Australian Antarctic Division were already public. Employees had reported harassment, discrimination and exclusion.
The department engaged organizational culture consultant Leigh Russell to conduct an independent review. It began in October 2022. About 40% of staff responded to the survey, and others participated through interviews and written submissions.
But here's the part I keep coming back to:
Rather than investigate individual incidents, the review was designed to look across the organization at the culture around them.
Think about the difference.
An organization looking at incidents asks:
What happened here?
An independent review of culture can ask a different question:
What is happening here?
Those are not the same inquiry.
The diagnosis changed the size of the problem.
The numbers told part of the story.
43% of survey respondents did not think raising problems with management was safe.
70% did not agree there was trust between leadership and staff.
The review found an “us versus them” culture. It found little trust in reporting systems. It identified a capability gap in leading people and managing change, and a leadership structure that didn't adequately support People and Culture, HR and Organizational Development.
The incidents were real.
They just weren't the whole problem.
Once the problem was understood differently, the response was different too.
In April 2023, the department accepted the findings—and responded with a commitment to a whopping 63 actions, including creation of a dedicated People and Culture function and bystander training.
But this is where the story gets even more interesting to me.
They came back.
Two years into the response, the department commissioned a progress review.
And the question wasn't simply:
Did we complete the actions?
They asked:
What has changed?
How are people feeling?
Is the change becoming embedded?
That meant looking at psychological safety, inclusion, trust and dignity—and whether leadership behaviors, reporting mechanisms and HR practices were actually sustaining the change.
The follow-up was led by Leigh Russell, the same consultant who conducted the original review. That continuity is worth noting.
But what caught my attention wasn't simply who came back.
It was what the organization went back to examine.
Not whether the recommendations had been accepted.
Not whether the action plan had been created.
Not whether the training had been delivered.
Whether the experience had actually changed.
That's The Experience Check™.
Intent matters. Implementation matters.
But neither tells you what people are actually experiencing on the other side of the decision.
And that's where you find out whether the change is working.
The March 2026 review found meaningful progress in culture, leadership and inclusion.
It also found there was still work to do.
Because completing the action isn't the same as changing the experience.
Sometimes you need someone who isn't inside the problem.
Not because the people inside your organization aren't smart.
Not because an outside advisor arrives with magical answers.
And not because every organizational problem needs a consultant.
Sometimes you need an outside perspective because everyone trying to diagnose the problem is also living inside the system producing it.
Three people resign and everyone says it's compensation.
A department struggles and everyone says it's the manager.
Engagement scores fall and everyone says it's communication.
Turnover rises and someone says, “People just don't want to work anymore.”
Maybe.
But those are explanations.
They aren't diagnoses.
Diagnosis means following the evidence.
From the person.
To the leader.
To the process.
To the policy.
To the incentive.
To the reporting structure.
And sometimes, you discover that the problem you started with isn't quite the problem you have.
This is where my work comes in.
On Tuesday, I reintroduced myself and talked about how I'm increasingly working with organizations: fractional HR leadership, strategic advisory and focused engagements.
There's a common thread underneath all three.
I'm useful when you need another pair of hands.
I'm most useful when you need another set of eyes.
When the pattern keeps repeating.
When leadership has competing explanations.
When the data tells you what is happening but not why.
When you've tried to fix something and it keeps coming back.
When the decision in front of you matters enough to test your assumptions before you make it.
Or when everyone trying to solve the problem is standing inside it.
Not someone to walk in and tell you what you already know.
Someone willing to ask a different question.
Follow the evidence.
Look across the person, the leader and the system.
And sometimes tell you:
The problem you can see isn't always the problem you have.
Before you prescribe, diagnose.
If you're looking at a pattern you can't explain, that's the conversation I'm built for.
Decisions Under the Microscope
Real decisions. Real organizations. A closer look at what happened—and what leaders can learn from it.
