SWOT Analysis Questionnaire — Organizational Development

To run a SWOT that produces a decision rather than four lists, use this worksheet. It enforces the discipline that most SWOT exercises skip: evidence, comparison points, forced ranking, and the TOWS pairing step.

Rate confidence in each item from 1 (assertion) to 5 (evidenced).

See swot-analysis.

Evidence: Very weak. There is no evidence that SWOT improves decision quality, and reason to think unranked lists harm it. The TOWS step in Step 5 is the only part that produces a decision; if you skip it, skip the exercise.

Ground rules

Maximum five items per quadrant, forced-ranked. If you have twelve strengths you have not chosen.
Every item needs evidence and a comparison point. "Great culture" is not a strength. "Voluntary turnover at 7% against a sector median of 18%, three years running" is.
Internal vs. external is a hard line. "The market is growing" is not a strength; "we hold 40% share of a growing market" is.
Time-stamp it. A SWOT is valid for a quarter at most.

Scope of this analysis: _______________________________________

Date: _______________ Review by: _______________

Step 1: Strengths (internal, helpful)

For each: what is it, what is the evidence, and compared to whom?

Rank	Strength	Evidence	Compared to	Confidence (1–5)
1				[ ]
2				[ ]
3				[ ]
4				[ ]
5				[ ]

Question: For each item, would a competitor or peer organization agree this is distinctive about us? If not, it is table stakes, not a strength. [ ]

Step 2: Weaknesses (internal, harmful)

Rank	Weakness	Evidence	Cost of it	Fixable? (Y/N)	Confidence (1–5)
1					[ ]
2					[ ]
3					[ ]
4					[ ]
5					[ ]

Question: Which of these would a candid frontline employee list that leadership has not? Ask three of them before finalizing. [ ]

Step 3: Opportunities (external, helpful)

Rank	Opportunity	Evidence it is real	Window	Can we act?	Confidence (1–5)
1					[ ]
2					[ ]
3					[ ]
4					[ ]
5					[ ]

Question: For each, is this genuinely external, or is it something we could do at any time and simply have not? The latter belongs in Step 2. [ ]

Step 4: Threats (external, harmful)

Rank	Threat	Evidence	Horizon	Impact if it lands	Confidence (1–5)
1					[ ]
2					[ ]
3					[ ]
4					[ ]
5					[ ]

Question: Which threat would, if it materialized, invalidate our current strategy entirely? Name it explicitly. [ ]

Step 5: TOWS pairing — the part that produces decisions

Pair quadrants to generate named strategic options. Each option needs an owner.

S + O — Attack. How do we use a strength to seize an opportunity?

Option	Uses strength	Seizes opportunity	Owner	Priority (1–5)
				[ ]
				[ ]

S + T — Defend. How do we use a strength to neutralize a threat?

Option	Uses strength	Neutralizes threat	Owner	Priority (1–5)
				[ ]
				[ ]

W + O — Build. What weakness must we fix to take this opportunity?

Option	Fixes weakness	Enables opportunity	Owner	Priority (1–5)
				[ ]
				[ ]

W + T — Avoid. Where are we exposed and weak? What do we exit or mitigate?

Option	Weakness	Threat	Owner	Priority (1–5)
				[ ]
				[ ]

Step 6: Analysis

The deliverable is the Step 5 options list, not the four quadrants. If the session ends at Step 4, nothing has been decided and the exercise was theater.
Low confidence scores are the finding. A grid full of 2s means the organization is running on assertion. The action is to go and find out, not to proceed with the strategy.
Check for the classic errors. Items with no comparison point; items mixing magnitudes ("world-class clinicians" beside "the printer is broken"); external factors filed as internal; and consensus lists that hide real disagreement.
Disagreement is more useful than the grid. Have people fill it in individually before combining. Where two leaders disagree about whether something is a strength, that disagreement is the most valuable output of the day.
This produces no causal analysis. For external analysis, follow with pestle-analysis-questionnaire or Porter's five forces. For internal alignment, follow with mckinsey-7s-framework-questionnaire.