Weisbord Six-Box Model Questionnaire

To run a Weisbord six-box diagnostic, use this questionnaire. It evaluates the six boxes plus the environment ring, scoring each from 1 (badly broken) to 5 (working well).

The distinctive move in this model is that each box is scored twice: once for the formal system (what the documents, policies, and org charts say) and once for the informal system (what actually happens). The gap between the two scores is the diagnosis, not the scores themselves.

See weisbord-six-box-model.

Evidence: Weak. The model has never been validated as a measurement instrument. Treat the scores as a structured way to surface disagreement in a group, not as measurement.

How to run it

• Ninety minutes, mixed-level group of 8–12 people.
• Everyone scores silently and individually first, then reveals. This prevents the most senior or the loudest voice anchoring the group.
• Discuss the items where the group's scores diverge most widely. Divergence is more informative than the average.

Step 1: Purpose

1. Formal

• Question: Is our purpose clearly documented, and does it say what business we are actually in?
  • Rating (1–5): [ ]

2. Informal

• Question: If you asked ten people here why this organization exists, would you get the same answer? Does that agreement hold when resources are tight?
  • Rating (1–5): [ ]

Step 2: Structure

1. Formal

• Question: Does the documented structure — reporting lines, teams, role definitions — fit the purpose and the work we actually do?
  • Rating (1–5): [ ]

2. Informal

• Question: Does work actually flow the way the structure implies, or do people route around it to get things done?
  • Rating (1–5): [ ]

Step 3: Relationships

1. Formal

• Question: Do we have defined mechanisms for handling conflict between people, between units, and between people and their technology?
  • Rating (1–5): [ ]

2. Informal

• Question: When two people or two teams genuinely disagree, does it get resolved, or does it go underground and stay there?
  • Rating (1–5): [ ]

Step 4: Rewards

1. Formal

• Question: Do our documented incentives, recognition, and progression criteria cover all the work that genuinely needs doing?
  • Rating (1–5): [ ]

2. Informal

• Question: What actually gets someone praised, promoted, or protected here? Is it the same as what the formal system says?
  • Rating (1–5): [ ]

Step 5: Leadership

1. Formal

• Question: Is it clear who is accountable for keeping the other five boxes in balance and for holding the purpose visible?
  • Rating (1–5): [ ]

2. Informal

• Question: Does anyone actually do that work? When the boxes fall out of balance, does someone notice and act?
  • Rating (1–5): [ ]

Step 6: Helpful mechanisms

1. Formal

• Question: Do we have adequate coordinating technologies — planning, budgeting, measurement, information systems, meetings?
  • Rating (1–5): [ ]

2. Informal

• Question: Do those mechanisms help people do the work, or have they become overhead that people work around or quietly ignore?
  • Rating (1–5): [ ]

Step 7: Environment

1. External demands

• Question: What do outside forces — funders, regulators, customers, patients, competitors, technology — demand of us, and do we know?
  • Rating (1–5): [ ]

2. Fit with environment

• Question: Can we currently meet those demands with what we have?
  • Rating (1–5): [ ]

3. Fit with individuals

• Question: Do people find it satisfying to work here, or do they comply because they must?
  • Rating (1–5): [ ]

Step 8: Analysis

• Compute the gap. For each of the six boxes, subtract the informal score from the formal score. The box with the largest gap is where the organization says one thing and does another, and it is usually the highest-value place to intervene.

• A large positive gap (formal high, informal low) means the design is fine on paper and is not being lived. Look for why the informal behavior is rational: it usually is.

• A large negative gap (informal high, formal low) means people have invented something that works despite the documented system. Do not standardize it reflexively — first understand what makes it work.

• Low scores everywhere on Purpose mean stop. Nothing downstream can be fixed while the group disagrees about what it is for.

• Rewards is the box most often overlooked and most often the real constraint. If the informal Rewards score is low, expect every other intervention to be quietly defeated.

• The model gives no causal ordering. It tells you where friction is, not what to fix first. If you need cause and effect, follow up with burke-litwin-causal-model-questionnaire.