Leadership Impact Institute

LEM Organisational Benchmark Diagnostic

A self-orientation tool for the four LEM Accreditation levels.

What this is — and isn't. This diagnostic gives your organisation an indicative starting point against the four LEM Accreditation levels (Foundational → Standard → Commended → Excellence), based on your own description of your evidence. It is not an accreditation outcome, and it creates no accreditation claim of any kind. LEM Accreditation is awarded only through the formal process — desk assessment, structured interviews, and (at Commended/Excellence) a site visit, decided by an independent assessment panel — because organisational self-report, on its own, cannot sustain anything above Foundational level. Use this result to gauge readiness and decide where to start, not as a score to cite.

LEM Accreditation does not certify individuals. This benchmark assesses organisational leadership systems and culture only. It has no bearing on, and creates no pathway toward, LII Individual Certification (CLP–CXL). Note also that the underlying specification, LII-ASM-009, is formally approved and ratified — the scoring thresholds used below reflect the current calibration.

Start here

This indicative benchmark runs entirely in your browser. Contact-detail submission is not configured, so no personal details, answers, or calculated result will be sent to LII. It is best completed by, or with input from, the organisation's Responsible Executive.

You can use the diagnostic without providing personal information. See our Privacy Policy.

Ready to start

For each of the five organisational leadership dimensions below, choose the statement that best matches the evidence your organisation actually has — not your aspiration, and not a single strong example. If evidence in a dimension has been independently corroborated (verified by someone other than your own senior leadership — an assessor, auditor, external stakeholder, or verified metric), check the corroboration box for that dimension.

Answer all five dimensions, then see your indicative benchmark level.

Dimension 1 of 5

Leadership Culture

The organisation's lived norms, modelled behaviour among senior leaders, and its response to leadership behaviour that contradicts stated values.

0We haven't documented or evidenced our leadership norms and values in any structured way. 1We can describe our leadership culture and values, but this is mostly our own characterisation rather than evidence gathered from across the organisation. 2We have real evidence, gathered from more than one organisational level, of how leadership is actually experienced — and it mostly meets what we'd expect of good practice. 3We have strong evidence, including clear examples of how the organisation has responded when leaders' behaviour contradicted our stated values. This evidence has been independently corroborated (not just senior leadership's own account).

Dimension 2 of 5

Developmental Infrastructure

The scope, quality, and integration of leadership development activity connected to authentic practice across the hierarchy.

0We don't have leadership development activity connected to real practice, or can't evidence it. 1We can describe our leadership development activity, but we don't yet have evidence it has changed how people actually lead. 2We have demonstrated evidence, not just participation records, that development has changed practice for people across most of the hierarchy. 3We have strong evidence that leadership development is integrated with authentic practice and has measurably changed how people lead, across the organisation. This evidence has been independently corroborated (not just senior leadership's own account).

Dimension 3 of 5

Enabling Structures

The structural conditions — resourcing, systems, and processes — that make leadership development and practice possible at scale.

0We don't have dedicated resourcing, systems, or processes that enable leadership development or practice at scale. 1We can describe the resourcing and systems that support leadership, but haven't evidenced that they function as intended in practice. 2We have demonstrated evidence that our resourcing, systems, and processes actually enable leadership development and practice at scale. 3We have strong evidence that our enabling structures function effectively and at scale across the whole organisation. This evidence has been independently corroborated (not just senior leadership's own account).

Dimension 4 of 5

Accountability Architecture

The clarity, coherence, and active exercise of leadership accountability mechanisms, including in response to inadequate performance.

0We don't have clear, evidenced leadership accountability mechanisms, or can't show they're actively used. 1We can describe our accountability mechanisms, but haven't evidenced that they're actively and consistently exercised — including in response to poor leadership performance. 2We have demonstrated evidence that our accountability mechanisms are actively exercised, including specific instances of responding to inadequate leadership performance. 3We have strong evidence of clear, coherent, consistently exercised accountability architecture, including robust responses to inadequate performance. This evidence has been independently corroborated (not just senior leadership's own account).

Dimension 5 of 5

Adaptive Capacity

The organisation's structured approach to evaluating and improving its own leadership culture, systems, and governance over time.

0We don't have a structured approach to evaluating or improving our leadership culture, systems, or governance. 1We can describe our approach to reviewing leadership culture and systems, but haven't evidenced a track record of identifying issues and acting on them. 2We have demonstrated evidence of a structured evaluation approach, with a track record of identified issues and remedial action. 3We have strong evidence of a credible, sustained improvement trajectory in leadership culture, systems, and governance over time. This evidence has been independently corroborated (not just senior leadership's own account).

Start the diagnostic above to continue

Indicative benchmark level

—

Your dimension-by-dimension picture

What this means next

This is a readiness gauge, not a result. LEM Accreditation is awarded only against evidence tested through desk assessment, structured interviews, and — at Commended and Excellence — a site visit, by an independent assessment panel.
Every dimension is assessed independently: strength in one does not offset weakness in another. If any one dimension scored notably lower than the rest, that dimension is likely to set your ceiling regardless of your average.
Above Foundational level, described evidence alone is not enough — evidence needs to be demonstrated, and at Commended/Excellence, independently corroborated. If you checked few or no corroboration boxes, focus there before applying.
Speak to LII about which level to target and what evidence to gather before preparing a full application.

LEM Accreditation Overview Talk to the Assessment Team

Leadership Impact Institute — LEM Organisational Benchmark Diagnostic v1.0. Indicative and non-accrediting. Grounded in the five organisational leadership dimensions and 0–3 scoring scale of LII-ASM-009 (Approved), operationalising LII-STD-003.