What Leaders Actually Need From Research
There’s a moment in almost every organizational transformation engagement we’re part of: a leadership team has commissioned a project that involves research. They’ve invested time, money, and trust. The data is in. The slide deck is ready. And then someone (usually a senior leader) asks a deceptively simple question:
“So… what does this mean for us?”
Not, what does the data say?
Not, can you walk us through your methodology? (although Aubree would love to!)
But instead, what does this tell us about our people, our organization, and what we’re actually going to do next?
That question gets at a quiet but persistent gap between traditional research deliverables and what leaders truly need when making decisions under real-world constraints. It’s not that leaders don’t value rigor, evidence, or methodology. They do – deeply! But rigor alone doesn’t drive action.
What leaders need from research is something more human, more interpretive, and more strategic.
The Limits of “Good” Research
Most leaders we work with are already swimming in information. They have dashboards. Survey data (usually, several years’ worth). Benchmarking reports. Institutional data. External studies. Environmental scans. Often, the issue isn’t a lack of data. It’s a lack of clarity.
Traditional research deliverables tend to follow a formula focused on completeness and correctness:
Here are the findings
The themes
The numbers
The comparison
And all of that matters! We work on these types of reports every day. But on its own, this type of deliverable can leave leaders stuck. Knowing what is happening does not automatically tell you what to do, when to do it, or how hard it will be to move people along with you.
We’ve seen more than one beautifully executed research deliverable land with a thud because it stopped there. And we’ve seen far messier data spark real momentum because it helped leaders understand the underlying dynamics shaping their organization.
The difference isn’t the data. It’s the translation.
Leaders Don’t Just Make Decisions. They Manage Reality.
One of the biggest misconceptions about leadership decision-making is that it’s purely rational. If leaders just had better data, the right path forward would be obvious.
In reality, leaders are constantly balancing:
Competing priorities
Limited capacity
Organizational history
Trust and morale
Change fatigue
External pressures
Internal politics
Lofty aspirations
Operational realities
Real-life emotions and life outside of work
Research that ignores these dynamics can feel disconnected from lived experience, even if technically sound. What leaders are often listening for in research isn’t just insight about programs, finances, or structures, but insight about people:
Are staff tired or energized?
Are they thinking strategically or just trying to survive the next six months (or six weeks)?
Do they feel hopeful about change, or skeptical that anything will really shift?
Is the organization aligned or quietly fragmented?
These aren’t always things you can capture in a single metric or a thematic finding. But they show up clearly when research is designed and interpreted with intention.
Data at Face Value versus Data-as-Signal
One way we like to think about this is the difference between data at face value and data-as-signal.
Data at face value tells you what people said. It shows up as scores, rankings, frequencies, and neatly summarized themes. It answers questions like: How satisfied are staff? What rose to the top? Where do we see agreement or disagreement?
That kind of data is very useful, but it’s rarely sufficient on its own. What leaders are often listening for is something deeper. Data-as-signal helps interpret what those responses are really pointing to. It offers clues about how people experience the organization, what they believe is possible, and where energy or resistance may lie beneath the surface.
For example, a low average score on a Likert-scale staff survey question about communication might seem straightforward at first glance. But in practice, that same datapoint can mean very different things depending on context. It could reflect burnout or information overload. It could signal a lack of trust in leadership. It might point to misalignment between units, or simply unclear expectations about roles and decision-making. Without interpretation, leaders are left guessing which response is actually required.
What leaders often need help with is not identifying the problem area, but understanding the nature of the problem and its implications. Is this something that can be addressed with clearer processes, or does it suggest deeper cultural work? Is it localized or systemic? Is it a signal of frustration, fatigue, or something else entirely?
That interpretive work is where research becomes genuinely useful.
Research as a Read on Readiness
One of the most valuable things research can offer leaders is an honest read on organizational readiness.
Most leaders already have a sense of where they want to go. What they’re less certain about is how far their organization can realistically move at this moment in time. Research, when well done, can help answer that question.
Readiness isn’t a simple yes-or-no condition. Organizations can be strategically ready but emotionally exhausted. They can be culturally aligned but financially constrained. They can be eager for change in theory while feeling overwhelmed in day-to-day practice. Research that surfaces these nuances helps leaders calibrate their approach rather than overcorrect or stall unnecessarily.
Often, readiness for change shows up not just in what people say, but in how they say it. Are responses aspirational or cautious? Are people naming big, systemic challenges, or focusing narrowly on day-to-day frustrations? Are they imagining the future, or anchored in what hasn’t worked in the past?
As these patterns emerge in research, they tell leaders something critical: not just what needs to change, but how change is likely to be received.
Lofty Thinking, Tactical Thinking, and the Space Between
Another dynamic that frequently emerges in research is the tension between lofty thinking and tactical thinking.
Different groups within an organization often operate at different altitudes. Senior leaders may be focused on long-term direction and big-picture transformation. Mid-level managers are often translating those ideas into operational reality. Frontline staff are thinking about workload, clarity, and what the change will mean for them on Monday morning.
When research flattens these perspectives into a single list of themes, leaders lose important context. What’s far more helpful is understanding where these differences exist and why. Are people struggling to connect vision to action? Are operational concerns crowding out strategic thinking? Are leaders speaking in aspirational language that doesn’t yet feel tangible to other staff?
Recognizing these important distinctions allows leaders to respond more thoughtfully and strategically. It helps them see where additional translation, pacing, or support is needed, and where alignment already exists but hasn’t been fully leveraged.
Synthesis is Where the Work Really Happens
This is where analytic synthesis becomes essential. Synthesis isn’t just about summarizing everything that was said; it’s about identifying the few patterns that matter most and making sense of how they interact. It’s about naming tensions that won’t be easily resolved and helping leaders decide which ones they need to hold rather than fix.
For leaders, synthesis provides orientation. It helps them understand where to focus their attention, what trade-offs they may need to make, and how to sequence the next steps. Without synthesis, research can feel overwhelming, abstract, or overly academic. With it, research becomes a tool leaders can actually use.
Research as an Ongoing Conversation
Finally, the most effective research doesn’t arrive as a single verdict.
When findings are presented as definitive conclusions, they can unintentionally shut down reflection or create defensiveness, particularly when they touch on culture, leadership, or long-standing challenges. Leaders tend to respond more openly when research invites dialogue and sensemaking.
In these moments, research becomes active and collaborative. It supports leaders in thinking more clearly about their organization and in making decisions that are informed, grounded, and realistic. And ultimately, that’s what we’ve found that leaders are most often looking for.
So, if you’re ready to conduct some research (or take some existing research) that you can turn into insights, implications, and interpretations, you know where to find us. Our team would love the opportunity to help your organization realize the potential of strategic and impactful research.
