Thirty days to define a collective problem, test one or two adjustments and report on decisions. This is a proposed work schedule; it does not guarantee an improvement in workplace climate within a month.
Start with a specific work difficulty.
Choose a question the organization can address: conflicting priorities, difficult coordination, missing information or an unclear decision process. Describe an observable situation without framing one person as the problem.
Assign a sponsor who can decide on priorities, an operational owner, time to discuss with the teams involved and a feedback date. If data is insufficient, gather what is needed first and adapt the schedule.
The complete schedule.
Day 1 is the first day of your process. Convert each range into actual dates that fit availability and operational rhythms. Allow stages to run longer if scoping or participation requires it.
| Period | Work to carry out | Deliverable / completion criterion | Owner | Target date | Status | Decision or obstacle |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Days 1–3 | Define the collective scope, sponsor, question to address and confidentiality rules. | Agreed brief; feedback schedule announced. | — | — | Not started | — |
| Days 4–7 | Gather available signals and discuss work situations without identifying individuals. | Summary separating facts, perceptions and hypotheses; data limitations recorded. | — | — | Not started | — |
| Days 8–10 | Share the summary with the teams involved and check the understanding of difficulties. | Two or three work difficulties described in context; disagreements retained. | — | — | Not started | — |
| Days 11–14 | Choose at most two actions and decide on time, resources and activities to postpone. | Each action has an owner, deliverable, deadline and tracking indicator. | — | — | Not started | — |
| Days 15–21 | Test the adjustments within the agreed scope and record obstacles. | Test completed; observations of what helps and what remains difficult. | — | — | Not started | — |
| Days 22–27 | Compare with initial observations and collect team feedback on the test. | Documented review; expected and unintended effects discussed without automatically claiming causation. | — | — | Not started | — |
| Days 28–30 | Decide to continue, adapt or stop; share the decision and plan the next review. | Reasoned decision, owner and next review date shared. | — | — | Not started | — |
Choose one or two feasible actions.
Review proposals with the teams involved. Select a small number of actions whose owners have the means to implement them. Keep a record of proposals not selected and the reasons.
- Usefulness: which work difficulty should the action reduce, and for which collective?
- Feasibility: who has the authority, time and resources to act? What should stop, be reduced or be postponed?
- Observation: what deliverable or change in practice can be observed at the review?
- Effects to watch: could the adjustment shift workload or create a difficulty elsewhere?
- Reversibility: under what conditions should the test change or stop? Agree on these criteria before starting.
The action brief to copy.
Duplicate this brief for each selected action. Use roles in the collective version. Where a name is needed for internal follow-up, adjust recipients and access.
| Field | Information to enter |
|---|---|
| Action / scope | Short title and collective involved |
| Observed difficulty | Factual work situation; source and period |
| Hypothesis | Explanation to check, separate from the finding |
| Adjustment to test | Practical change to a practice, process or resources |
| Owner and sponsor | Role implementing; role deciding on priorities |
| Resources / decision | Reserved time, resources and activity reduced or postponed |
| Deliverable / starting observation | Expected evidence of implementation and initial situation |
| Start / deadline / review | Three agreed dates |
| Criteria to continue or stop | What will support continuing, adapting or stopping |
| Effects and obstacles | Collective observations, limitations and any shifted workload |
| Review decision | Continue / adapt / stop, with reasons |
| Feedback | Recipients, message and date of the next update |
Illustrative example: clarify priorities.
Fictional scenario, with no client result or promised effect. A team reports competing urgent requests and uncertainty about who decides. The hypothesis concerns the decision process, not people’s motivation.
| Element | Illustrative proposal |
|---|---|
| Action | A 15-minute prioritization meeting at the start of each week for two weeks |
| Owner / sponsor | Operational lead / scope director |
| Resources | Replace an existing reporting meeting; postpone an explicitly agreed request |
| Deliverable | Shared list of three priorities and a known process for new requests |
| Observation | Record priority conflicts that remain unresolved at each meeting without identifying people |
| Review | At the end of the test, discuss resolved situations, obstacles and any shifted workload |
| Decision | Continue if the process is usable; adapt if requests remain unanswered; stop if it adds coordination without value |
On day 30, share a review and a decision.
Distinguish implementation from observed effects. A meeting held or document produced shows implementation, not an improvement by itself. Gather feedback, explain limitations and avoid automatically attributing a change to the test.
Feedback template: ‘We selected [difficulty]. We tested [adjustment] with [resources]. We observe [facts and feedback], with [limitations]. We have decided to [continue / adapt / stop]. [Role] owns the next step; the next review will take place on [date].’
Actions needing more time should enter longer-term tracking. Record pending decisions and resources still to be agreed. A passed deadline does not make an action complete.
Prepare feedback that protects people.
Removing names does not guarantee anonymity: a small group, combined categories or a comment may allow someone to be identified. Assess aggregation in your context; no single minimum group size is a guarantee.
Before collecting data, define recipients, access rights, retention periods, comment handling and rules for combining or withholding results. Avoid individual variables and details that do not help the decision. Have your organization’s data protection lead review the arrangements.
Share findings about work and the decisions taken. Do not publish individual rankings, identifying quotations or medical details. These templates support collective organizational steering, not individual psychological assessment.
For background on removing identifiers and anonymization: CNIL guidance on data anonymization (in French).
Download the templates.
The PDF is ready to print; the Excel file lets you complete the tracking fields. CSV contains the 7 stages and Markdown includes the schedule, reusable action brief and example.
CSV: open or import into your spreadsheet (UTF-8, comma delimiter). Markdown: open the text file in your editor and copy the sections you need. Calculations are documented, without automated spreadsheet formulas.
Read and download the French versionMake follow-through part of the process.
An initial 30-day cycle can prepare more sustained steering. The Brainmood pilot helps define useful signals, responsibilities and collective reviews over time.