Your Team Intelligence
Profile
Five Lead Measures · Leader Competency Index · Your Stage on the TQ Arc
A TQ Score of 5.6 places this team in Stage 2 — Emerging Integration. The talent is real. The strategic direction is clear. What the data reveals is that intelligence is not yet multiplying across all five dimensions — it is moving through some channels and fragmenting in others. Stage 2 teams are one focused development cycle away from breakthrough performance.
Most behavioral indicators are answered never to sometimes. Dysfunction is systemic — breakdowns in communication, trust, alignment, and execution compound one another.
Sustained performance is not achievable in this state.
- Energy consumed by friction and re-work, not outcomes
- Performance depends on a few individuals, not the system
- Collapses under disruption
The team straddles the midpoint. Some dimensions are functioning; others drag on the whole.
Good work is produced, but not predictably — results depend on circumstances more than reliable systems.
- Individual output regularly outpaces collective output
- Coordination costs are high and output fluctuates
- Team is vulnerable when conditions change
'Often' is the norm. Trust is established, communication is clear, and execution is reliable across changing conditions.
The team produces more than the sum of its parts — performance no longer depends on ideal circumstances.
- Output exceeds the sum of individual parts
- Coordination efficient; disruption absorbed
- Collective intelligence is a real advantage
'Usually' to 'always' is the consistent answer across all five dimensions. Performance is self-sustaining — not managed.
The culture self-corrects; the team identifies and closes its own gaps. This represents the top 10–15% of teams assessed.
- High performance persists without reinforcement
- Results durable across leadership transitions
- Team practices outlast any single leader
Five Lead Measures of Culture
- Information is moving, but not consistently or reliably
- Leaders sometimes learn of key decisions after the fact
- Communication norms are unclear across the team
- External stakeholder cadence needs more attention
- Structure exists — what's missing is protocol discipline
- Trust exists at a surface level but remains fragile
- Psychological safety is limited across the team
- Real challenges are rarely surfaced or challenged openly
- Thin trust turns communication into performance, not candor
- Execution becomes compliance rather than genuine commitment
- Alignment is developing but remains incomplete overall
- Most members understand top priorities at a high level
- Decision-right clarity has meaningful gaps across roles
- Resource allocation doesn't always reflect stated priorities
- Historical patterns still override strategic intent at times
- The team is performing largely through effort, not systems
- Development goals exist informally but lack accountability
- Absorbing new opportunities strains existing commitments
- Sustainable systems — not more effort — close this gap
- Operating below potential due to unaddressed interference
- The team's second-strongest dimension overall
- When decisions are clear, this team follows through reliably
- Gaps remain in sustained focus and discipline on priorities
- Peer-to-peer accountability requires leader intervention
- Strong individual execution hasn't yet become team execution
Leader Competency Index
Developmental sequence note: Competencies build in the order listed above — each creates the foundation for those that follow. Building Trust (7.3) is the team's strongest competency and a legitimate launchpad. Managing Conflict (5.5) — the lowest score — cannot be effectively developed until the foundational competencies above it improve. These gaps are directly linked and should be addressed together.
Diagnostic Summary
Stage 2 Research Benchmarks
Across 1,050 educational leadership teams, Stage 2 produces consistent, measurable patterns. The findings below reflect what teams at this stage typically experience. These are research observations, not projections specific to any single institution.
Institutions with capacity scores below 62% experience enrollment decline 3.2 times faster than institutions that improved — independent of location, reputation, or tuition variables.
Stage 2 teams average 1.2 completed initiatives out of every 7 launched. Each incomplete initiative reduces the next initiative's success probability by 12% — creating compounding skepticism about leadership follow-through.
A leadership team compensated at $1M operating at Stage 2 leaves approximately $400,000 in annual organizational effectiveness on the table. That is not a budget problem. It is an intelligence integration problem.
Research basis: 1,050 educational leadership teams assessed across the HPG ecosystem · Data reflects team-level patterns, not individual institution projections
Individual brilliance is your ceiling. Team Intelligence is your breakthrough.
218-310-7857 · higherperformancegroup.com
