Team JQ Leadership Assessment

Assess your team’s collective leadership capacity for sound, balanced judgment under pressure.

When would you like to do this?

This short assessment shows where your team’s judgment is strong and where it is fragile under pressure.

Note: Your email is used to aggregate results. It will not be shared.

Team JQ^® Results

Scoring Guide (per section):

For a deeper review of this assessment, please schedule a brief zoom call with Krishna.

Statement	1	2	3	4	5
The team slows down rather than speeds up under pressure.
Members feel safe acknowledging stress or uncertainty.
Urgency does not routinely override reflection.
After mistakes, the team recovers emotional balance quickly.

Statement	1	2	3	4	5
Dissenting viewpoints are welcomed and explored.
Disagreement is treated as a resource rather than a threat.
Important decisions reflect multiple perspectives.
Blind spots are intentionally surfaced before commitments are made.

Statement	1	2	3	4	5
Anyone can respectfully challenge ideas without fear of backlash.
Quiet or minority voices meaningfully influence decisions.
Changing one’s mind is viewed as maturity, not weakness.
Emotional triggers and conflicts are handled constructively.

Statement	1	2	3	4	5
Decision criteria are clarified before debates begin.
Facts are separated from interpretations and emotions.
We regularly review how we decided, not just what we decided.
Reversible vs. irreversible decisions are consciously distinguished.

Statement	1	2	3	4	5
Past decisions are revisited to examine our reasoning patterns.
Judgment strengths and gaps are identified and discussed.
Lessons learned are documented and reused in future decisions.
Feedback is viewed primarily as developmental, not judgmental.

Statement	1	2	3	4	5
Decisions remain aligned with stated values, even when costly.
Short-term pressure does not routinely override long-term wisdom.
Ethical ambiguity is resolved collaboratively, not unilaterally.
Behavior under stress reflects the culture the team aspires to create.