Give managers a clear story this week — credibility before more announcements.

Two-cluster split on readiness, anxious terms dominant (cautious 23%; confused+tired 26%) — mirror it and pair with a visible stop.

Readiness is mixed and leans wary: 'cautious' leads at 23% (5pp over 'ready' at 18%), with 'confused' (15%) and 'tired' (11%) reinforcing anxiety. Positive energy exists ('ready' 18%, 'energised' 8%), but it's smaller; outright 'resistant' is marginal at 2%. Treat this as a temperature read, not a mandate: acknowledge caution and fatigue, then make one credibility move to shift the mood. Treat as: mirror the ambivalence and name one concrete move that reduces load.

Themes

Anxious caution 33%

May signal credibility debt; a visible leadership action could shift this faster than more messaging.

Evidence

•	cautious — 23% (14/61)
•	sceptical — 8% (5/61)
•	resistant — 2% (1/61)

Confusion / uncertainty 15%

Points to gaps in the 'what changes for me' layer.

Evidence

•

confused — 15% (9/61)

Fatigue / overload 18%

Without stopping work, change-readiness will lag regardless of communications.

Evidence

•	tired — 11% (7/61)
•	overloaded — 7% (4/61)

Readiness / curiosity / energy 34%

There is usable momentum if leadership addresses credibility and clarity in parallel.

Evidence

•	ready — 18% (11/61)
•	energised — 8% (5/61)
•	curious — 5% (3/61)
•	aligned — 3% (2/61)

Audience language to mirror

Suggested follow-ups

• Validate the split back to the org at Thursday’s all-hands; name 'cautious' and 'ready' and announce one stop you will make this week.

Managers-as-bottleneck holds a moderate lead at 31% (7pp over front-line clarity) — commit a 30‑day enablement sprint.

Enablement for managers is the widest gap at 31% (7pp over front-line clarity at 24%), with capacity drag present ('Existing workload has not been reduced' at 19%). Directional signal, not consensus, but strong enough to act; 'Tooling and process not ready yet' is smaller at 9%. Treat as: commit to a 30‑day manager enablement sprint focused on leading this change.

Minority signals worth watching

Tooling and process not ready yet — 9% (5/58) If ignored, tooling gaps will undermine any enablement gains.

Suggested follow-ups

• Draft and approve a 30‑day enablement plan by Monday (owner: L&D lead) covering 'A clear story they can tell their team' and 'Decision rights and where their authority actually starts'.

Near-tie at the top (33% vs 28%) — pick one primary narrative for urgency before rollout.

Two urgency narratives are effectively co-equal: 'Customer outcomes are slipping' at 33% vs 'The current operating model is no longer scaling' at 28% (5pp). Market and talent arguments trail (16% and 14%), and 'It unlocks investment...' is lowest at 9%. Mixed storylines will dilute manager messaging. Treat as: arbitrate the single lead narrative to anchor all comms.

Suggested follow-ups

• Write a two‑sentence urgency narrative (owner: Strategy lead), test with 3 managers tomorrow, and lock it by Friday.

Moderate lead for 'a clear story' at 31%, with 'decision rights' close behind — ship a manager story + rights pack.

Managers first need 'A clear story they can tell their team' at 31% (7pp over 'A way to surface concerns...' at 24%), with 'Decision rights and where their authority actually starts' substantial at 20%. Mechanics trail (tooling 15%, permission to slow 11%), so equip managers before tooling. This aligns with the enablement gap earlier. Treat as: commit to produce and distribute a story + decision-rights pack within 7 days.

Suggested follow-ups

• Publish the manager story and decision‑rights one‑pager by next Wednesday (owner: Comms), then host a 30‑minute Q&A to practice 'A way to surface concerns without escalating drama'.

Visible-stop ask pulls a moderate lead at 22% (6pp over trade‑offs) — make one public cut this week.

'Visibly stop something' leads at 22% (6pp over 'name the trade-offs' at 16%), with calls for substance ('fewer reorg announcements, more details' at 14%) and decision-rights transparency at 12%. Smaller asks like 'cancel a recurring meeting' (4%) and 'a clear no on something' (4%) show appetite for micro-cuts too. The room is asking for credibility through subtraction, then clarity. Treat as: commit to kill one initiative publicly within 7 days and explain the trade-offs.

Themes

Make a visible stop 30%

Credibility of the change hinges on subtracting work, not adding messages.

Evidence

•	visibly stop something — 22% (11/51)
•	a clear no on something — 4% (2/51)
•	cancel a recurring meeting — 4% (2/51)

Decision clarity & rights 28%

After the cut, publish how choices are made and by whom.

Evidence

•	name the trade-offs — 16% (8/51)
•	show the new decision rights — 12% (6/51)

Substance over theatre 28%

Reduce noise, concentrate on concrete details and a single source of truth.

Evidence

•	fewer reorg announcements, more details — 14% (7/51)
•	admit what is uncertain — 6% (3/51)
•	one shared FAQ — 8% (4/51)

Protect managers 16%

Any stop should free manager time and show up at the team level.

Evidence

•	protect manager time — 10% (5/51)
•	visit a delivery team — 6% (3/51)

Audience language to mirror

Suggested follow-ups

• Publish the visible stop in the next exec update (owner: COO) and update the 'one shared FAQ' within 24 hours to reflect the trade-offs and decision rights.