Case studies
Case studies.
Three engagements, described plainly. Client identities are withheld or anonymised for confidentiality.
Some of this work predates the current SLF™ branding. It is presented as work that contributed to, or demonstrates, the analytical foundations now incorporated into SLF™.
Case Study 1
The organisation chart showed the hierarchy. The network showed how the organisation really worked.
Australian research organisation
Challenge
The organisation was experiencing communication difficulties that affected the execution of initiatives. The formal organisational structure did not adequately explain how information and influence were actually moving between employees.
What we did
ShazInnovation mapped the organisation’s working relationships using social-capital network analysis. Instead of looking only at reporting lines, the analysis examined the actual connections through which employees communicated, sought support and influenced one another.
What we found
The organisation depended on a relatively small network backbone connecting only a limited number of employees. A small number of individuals therefore occupied disproportionately important positions in the flow of information and in shaping opinions and workplace culture. This gave management a clearer view of the organisation behind the formal organisation chart.
Why it matters for SLF™
SLF™ extends this type of structural analysis by examining not only who communicates with whom, but also how language, trust, evaluation and framing affect the quality and consequences of those relationships.
Case Study 2
When the schedule showed the problem, the network helped explain why it was happening.
Complex project team (client identity withheld)
Challenge
A project was behind schedule and management was dealing with problematic internal behaviours. Conventional project-management information showed the delay, but provided much less visibility into the relationships underlying the problem.
What we did
ShazInnovation analysed the informal network within the project team to identify clusters, cliques and critical actors.
What we found
The analysis identified important sub-groups and individuals occupying critical positions within the project’s relationship network. This gave project management additional evidence with which to understand internal dynamics and make more data-driven decisions about how the project should be reorganised.
Why it matters for SLF™
Organisational problems that appear operational may also contain a relational and communicative layer. SLF™ provides a way of examining how relationships, perceptions, language and agency combine to reinforce cooperation, resistance or fragmentation.
Case Study 3
The message matters. But so does who delivers it, how they are perceived, and whether the relationship carries trust.
Malaysian engineering talent-development programme (anonymised)
Challenge
Participants displayed significant differences in communication, disclosure, help-seeking and responsiveness to support. Some participants responded to particular advisers while ignoring others, even where the formal support structure suggested they should behave differently.
What we did
The diagnostic went beyond conventional competency assessment by analysing the participants’ support networks and the relational factors influencing them. It examined ability, benevolence and integrity as dimensions of trustworthiness; reliance and disclosure as trust behaviours; and connections to experts, external contacts and line managers.
What we found
For one of the more challenging participant groups, the perceived technical ability of the person providing support was particularly important. Being supportive or benevolent alone was not necessarily enough to create a productive learning relationship. The programme subsequently incorporated a structured mentorship model, including trained mentors assigned at approximately a 1:4 ratio and recurring mentoring and evaluation cycles.
Why it matters for SLF™
The case illustrates a central SLF™ principle: communication effectiveness depends not simply on the words being spoken, but also on who is speaking, how that person is perceived, the existing relationship, and how the message is interpreted.