Your Team's TQ
Score Report
Scored. Staged. Interpreted. Delivered with a live debrief.
Where your team stands —
dimension by dimension.
Each dimension reflects a distinct behavioral system measured anonymously across all 21 cabinet members. Scores show what the team does consistently — not on good days, but as a reliable pattern.
57 questions across five dimensions. Each team member responds anonymously — no individual scores are ever surfaced. Results reflect what your team does together, not who any one person is.
Capacity — 6.4
Your team demonstrates genuine structural stability. Members are not operating in chronic overload, and there is enough infrastructure to sustain performance under normal conditions. A real asset — the foundation on which everything else is built.
Alignment — 4.2
This single dimension is most likely responsible for the execution friction your team experiences. The 2.2-point gap between Capacity (6.4) and Alignment (4.2) is not a coincidence — it is the data's most important signal.
A team with a clear performance ceiling
Three of five dimensions cluster between 5.2 and 6.4 — signaling real competence across most behavioral systems. The Alignment outlier at 4.2 explains most of the distance between where this team is and what it is capable of producing.
What a score of 6.4 means
for this team.
The TQ scale maps to four developmental stages — each defined by what a team can consistently do, not just on good days. Your score places you in Stage 3.
Intelligence Fragmentation
Effort without systemPerformance is inconsistent and dependent on individual effort rather than collective systems. Trust, communication, and alignment are fragile. High performers carry disproportionate load. Improvement requires constant maintenance to hold.
Emerging Integration
Progress in pocketsSome dimensions are solidifying but the team is not yet operating as a coherent whole. Progress is possible but inconsistent. Improvement produces results in pockets — not yet reliably across the entire team system.
Systematic Multiplication
"Usually" is the honest answerTrust is established, communication is generally clear, and execution is reliable across most conditions. The team produces more than the sum of its parts — but not yet consistently. Performance requires some favorable conditions to hold.
Your Team Is HereInstitutional Transformation
Inevitable as defaultHigh performance is self-sustaining and self-correcting. Results are durable and persist without external reinforcement. The culture outlasts leadership transitions. This represents the top 10–15% of teams assessed.
Stage 3 teams perform well when conditions cooperate.
Stress, disruption, or leadership change reveals the gaps that good conditions were masking. "Usually" becomes "sometimes" under pressure.
Stage 4 teams perform because the system holds — not because conditions are right.
The behavioral infrastructure is strong enough that results persist regardless of external circumstances. The team is self-correcting.
What the team observes in
leadership's daily behavior.
Scored separately — not blended into the TQ. Seven behaviors most predictive of team performance, measured through the team's anonymous, collective perception of what leadership actually does.
How leadership shows up in the room every day
Anonymous team perception · 7-item index · Scored separately from TQ
Trust is the foundation — and it's holding
Building Trust at 6.8 is the index's highest score. Leadership has established the fundamental relational credibility that makes everything else possible. In the environment educational leaders navigate — the politics, the pace, the pressure — this is not a given. It is a real and earned asset.
Navigating Conflict Productively is the system's lowest score
At 4.8, Navigating Conflict Productively is 2.0 points below Building Trust — and it directly correlates with the team's Alignment gap. When conflict moves underground, apparent agreement replaces actual alignment. This is where leadership behavior and team performance connect most precisely.
The Connection That Matters
Navigating Conflict Productively (4.8) and Alignment (4.2) are this report's two lowest scores. They are not independent findings — they are the same problem viewed from two angles. Address one deliberately and you address both.
What the data is
actually telling you.
What this team's data reveals is a portrait of genuine strength constrained by a specific and identifiable gap — one of the most actionable profiles I encounter, because the capacity to perform is already present.
What this score confirms
A 6.4 TQ places your cabinet in Stage 3 — reached by fewer than half the teams I work with. With 21 respondents at 100% participation, the data carries full statistical confidence. Your team has built real trust, maintained functional communication, and demonstrated structural stability.
Where the data is pointing
Your Alignment score of 4.2 demands attention — two full points below your Capacity score. Your team has the energy to execute, but is not consistently pointed at the same target. Strong individual effort, visible engagement, and still a persistent sense the whole is producing less than it should.
Alignment and leadership behavior
The Conflict Navigation score of 4.8 alongside the Alignment gap is not a coincidence. When conflict is managed around rather than through, apparent agreement replaces actual alignment.
A real foundation — harder to build than it looks
Stage 3 is reached by fewer than half of assessed teams. The trust, communication systems, and organizational capacity your cabinet has developed represent years of consistent effort. The assessment confirms what good teams feel but rarely see quantified.
One gap responsible for most of the distance
The 2.2-point spread between Capacity (6.4) and Alignment (4.2) is the report's most diagnostic finding. Teams at this stage rarely have a performance problem — they have a direction problem. Everyone is working. Not everyone is working on the same thing.
Teams at Stage 3 are often surprised that their path forward isn't about adding more. It's about removing the specific friction that's keeping consistent performance just out of reach. For your team, that friction has a name — and the data has already identified it.
Dr. Joe Hill · Higher Performance GroupThe highest-leverage places
to focus next.
Three areas where focused attention will produce the greatest return — not based on what feels urgent, but on what the data identifies as structurally limiting this team's performance ceiling.
Alignment System
Score: 4.2 · Lowest dimension · 2.2 pts below ceiling
Why It Comes FirstThe single gap most responsible for the distance between Capacity (6.4) and actual output. Until addressed, increasing effort in other dimensions produces diminishing returns. This is the structural constraint on performance.
Productive Conflict
LCI Score: 4.8 · Lowest behavior · Correlated with Alignment gap
Why It Comes SecondConflict that goes underground produces the appearance of alignment without the substance. Building productive conflict as a leadership practice directly addresses the root mechanism behind Priority 1. These are the same problem at different levels of the system.
Communication Precision
Score: 5.2 · LCI Clarity of Direction: 5.2 · Scores match exactly
Why It Comes ThirdThe information flow gap is downstream of leadership communication patterns. The identical Communication and LCI Clarity of Direction scores signal a traceable source. A targeted intervention here produces system-wide lift.
In my experience, teams at Stage 3 are surprised that their path forward isn't about adding more — more initiatives, more structure, more effort. It's about removing the specific friction keeping consistent performance just out of reach. For your team, that friction has a name — and a root cause the data has already identified. The debrief will make that visible in ways that change what your cabinet decides to do next.
Dr. Joe Hill · Higher Performance GroupThe Live Debrief.
60 minutes. Full cabinet. Dr. Hill leads.
This report is the foundation — not the conclusion.
The debrief is where the data becomes a conversation and scores become decisions. Dr. Hill walks your cabinet through what the numbers mean, what the patterns reveal, and what the most specific path forward looks like for this team — not teams in general.
For most cabinets, it's the most candid 60 minutes they've spent together. No pre-work required. No agenda needed from your team. Dr. Hill leads from the data.
