Leadership Diagnostic Tool
The Team
Reality Check
A structured diagnostic to identify the conditions limiting your team's performance — and decide where to act first.
✏ Critique — Cover / Introduction
The title is strong and clear. The subtitle, however, is doing double duty — consider splitting it into a one-line hook and a one-line description. Also consider adding a brief author/consultant byline for credibility before the document begins.
"A bad system will beat a good person every time."
— W. Edwards Deming
✏ Critique — Opening Quote
Excellent choice. Deming immediately positions this as a systemic argument, not a people-blaming one — which is exactly the frame the whole document builds on. No changes needed here.
If your team isn't performing as it should, the problem is rarely effort, attitude or talent. Something else is getting in the way.
Take a moment to think about your team. Which of the following resonate?
- We spend more time discussing than deciding
- Meetings feel busy but not productive
- The same issues keep resurfacing
- When we meet, most time is spent on individual updates
- Decisions drift or stall
- Priorities compete instead of align
✏ Critique — Symptom List
This list is effective. It creates immediate recognition — readers will mentally check off items. Suggestion: consider bolding one or two of the sharpest phrases (e.g. "Decisions drift or stall") to give the list more visual rhythm and ensure the most impactful points land. Also, the list could be slightly reordered to build from mild to severe.
When confronting these familiar issues, thoughts often turn to familiar solutions: give feedback, clarify accountability, arrange training, address behaviours. And often this leads to personality profiles, communication workshops — or the occasional afternoon of bowling, balloons, and forced fun.
Sometimes these help. More often they don't.
✏ Critique — "Bowling, balloons, and forced fun"
This is genuinely good writing — specific, vivid, and slightly funny. It will resonate with any senior leader who has sat through a team-building afternoon they didn't believe in. Keep it. It humanises the document and signals confidence.
The real problem is rarely behaviour, relationships, or personality. The real problem is the way the team is set up to work.
✏ Critique — Part 1 Title
"The Brutal Truth" is punchy — though it sets an expectation that what follows should feel revelatory. Make sure the content in this section genuinely delivers that. Right now, Part 1 covers ground that was already introduced in the opening. Consider trimming the repetition between the introduction and Part 1. The "What leaders usually fix" section partially rehashes the bullet list above.
Why do teams struggle?
Most team leaders assume performance problems are caused by capability, motivation, relationships, or communication. These are visible, easy to talk about and feel actionable — but they are rarely the root cause.
What leaders usually fix (the wrong things)
- Improving communication
- Running team building workshops
- Personality diagnostics to understand why we don't get on
- Resetting expectations
- Addressing behaviours
- Reorganising people
Sometimes these help, but often they don't — because the underlying conditions remain unchanged.
What actually drives performance
High-performing teams are not just lucky. Nor are they always made up of extraordinary individuals. Their winning formula is that they operate in the right conditions — and those conditions can be designed.
The 6 Team Conditions framework shifts focus away from personality, trust, or communication as the starting point — and onto structural conditions that leaders can actually design. Research shows these six conditions can predict up to 80% of team effectiveness.
✏ Critique — The 80% Claim
This is your most powerful data point. But it appears somewhat buried. Consider giving it more visual weight — a pull quote, a large number callout, or a dedicated visual treatment. It's the kind of stat a sceptical executive will remember. Also: briefly cite the research source (Hackman, 2002 or similar) to add credibility — even a footnote reference helps.
For each condition, rate your team from 1 to 5. Don't overthink it — just go with your first instinct. This is a snapshot, not a full diagnosis.
1Not
true
2Rarely
true
3Sometimes
true
4Mostly
true
5Consistently
true
✏ Critique — The Snapshot / Rating Section
The diagnostic questions under each condition are strong and behaviorally grounded. One gap: the document describes what to score but doesn't tell the reader how to interpret their total or profile. Consider adding a simple scoring guide — e.g. "3 or below on any condition signals a meaningful constraint." Without this, leaders are left with numbers but no frame for action. Also, the checkbox symbol (☐) that appears under Right People appears to be a formatting artifact — remove it.
1. Real Team
Are we truly operating as a team — or as a group of individuals working in parallel?
- Clear membership — everyone knows who is on the team
- Stability — people stay together long enough to learn to work together
- Genuine interdependence — success depends on working together
Score: ___
4. Sound Structure
Is the way we work helping us succeed — or slowing us down?
- Work that genuinely makes sense to be done as a team
- The right number of people for the work
- Clear norms for how we work together
Score: ___
2. Compelling Purpose
Are we united around a purpose — or simply busy doing the work?
- Clear — we know what success looks like
- Challenging — it stretches our capability
- Consequential — it matters to others
Score: ___
5. Supportive Context
Is the organisation helping this team succeed — or quietly holding it back?
- Incentives that reward team success
- Access to information we need, in a form we can use
- Access to expertise, resources or training when needed
Score: ___
3. Right People
Do we have the capability we need — or are we just coping?
- The right skills to deliver our priorities
- The right mix of perspectives and experience
- The teamwork skills to succeed together
Score: ___
6. Team Coaching
Are we intentionally improving how we work — or simply pushing forward?
- Someone responsible for improving how the team works
- Regular reflection on performance at a team level
- Timely intervention when problems arise
Score: ___
Focus matters more than effort. Most teams try to fix everything at once and end up fixing nothing. Look for small, meaningful actions with the biggest positive impact on team effectiveness.
Step 1 — Choose your priorities
| Biggest Risk |
Which condition is most likely to limit performance if left unchanged? |
Condition: _____________ |
| Quickest Win |
Which condition could improve performance quickly? |
Condition: _____________ |
| Strategic Priority |
Which condition matters most for long-term success? |
Condition: _____________ |
✏ Critique — Part 3: Prioritise Action
This is one of the strongest sections — the three-lens framework (Risk / Win / Strategy) is practical and memorable. One suggestion: "Step 2 — Narrow your focus / Fix these two first" feels abrupt and underdeveloped. Either expand the guidance on how to choose which two, or integrate it into the table above as a fourth row. Step 3 (Decide on Meaningful Action) is also light — it tells readers to act but doesn't give them enough to go on before they reach Part 4.
Step 2 — Narrow your focus
From your three priorities, identify the two conditions you will focus on first. You don't need to fix everything — you just need to start somewhere.
Step 3 — Decide on meaningful action
For each priority condition, choose one action to test out. Just a small, deliberate change. The next section provides practical moves to help you get started.
Use the ideas below as starting points. Test one or two, observe what happens and adjust. Small structural changes often create the biggest performance shifts.
✏ Critique — Part 4 Overall
The practical moves are the strongest section of the document — specific, actionable, and well-organised. The reflection question at the end of each condition is particularly effective. Suggestions: (1) The instructional text preceding each condition could be trimmed — some of it restates what's already been said. Get to the moves faster. (2) Consider adding a "quick win" indicator to flag which move is the lowest-effort / highest-impact within each condition, as leaders often want a single starting point.
Many leadership teams are teams in name, but not in practice. Performance improves when people know exactly who is on the team and what they are accountable for together.
Five practical moves
- Identify one enterprise problem that cannot be solved by any single function — customer experience, cost efficiency, growth, or transformation delivery. This becomes the team's shared work.
- Replace update meetings with decision meetings. If the agenda is mostly reporting, the team is not operating as a team.
- Define where interdependence is required. Be explicit about which outcomes require collaboration — and which can be handled independently.
- Hold leaders accountable for enterprise outcomes, not just functional results. Teams become real when success depends on collective performance.
- Use project teams deliberately when the work demands it — with clear purpose, timeline, and authority.
If this team stopped meeting tomorrow, what work would fail?
A team may go through the motions of meeting, reviewing progress, and solving problems — yet the bigger reason for the team's existence is vague, too small, or disconnected from the bigger picture.
Five practical moves
- Ask each team member to write the team's purpose in one sentence. Compare responses. Where are you aligned? Where are you different? As a team, agree one shared description.
- Have a team discussion about the impact of your work. Who benefits if we succeed? What changes because of our work? What happens if we get this wrong?
- Identify the 3–5 priorities that genuinely require the team — enterprise priorities that depend on working together.
- Raise the level of ambition deliberately. Ask whether the purpose stretches capability — or simply describes routine work.
- Review your team purpose regularly — at least once each quarter. Is it still the right purpose? Still demanding enough?
If this team achieved everything it planned this year — would anyone outside the team notice?
Most teams are formed around roles, history, or availability — not around the demands of the work. Performance improves when the team has the right mix of skills, diverse perspectives, and experience.
Five practical moves
- Identify one capability the team does not currently have. Ask: "What skill, experience, or perspective would make this team more effective right now?"
- Invite a "wildcard" voice into key discussions — a junior talent, a customer-facing employee, or a colleague from another function.
- Clarify what each team member is expected to contribute. Go beyond job titles.
- Develop capability inside the team before looking outside. Coaching, mentoring, or short-term support can close gaps faster than restructuring.
- Review whether the team has the perspective needed for challenges ahead. Future work often requires different thinking than past work.
What capability or perspective would make this team noticeably more effective in the next six months?
Many teams work hard but struggle to make progress. Meetings feel crowded. Decisions take longer than they should. The problem is rarely effort — it is often structure.
Five practical moves
- Be explicit about which work makes sense to be done by the team. Is the team aligned on which work is collective vs individual?
- Review whether the team is the right size to achieve its purpose. If coordination is slow or meetings feel crowded, the team may simply be too large.
- Clarify decision rights for the team's most important work. Who decides, who contributes, who executes?
- Agree clear ground rules for how the team works together — participation, decision-making, and follow-through. Apply them consistently.
- Stop doing work that doesn't require a team. Refocus on work that genuinely requires collaboration.
Does the work we bring to this team genuinely require us to think and act together — or are we mostly coordinating individual tasks?
Many teams know what needs to be done — but struggle to get the support they need. The problem is rarely capability — it is often the support system around the team.
Five practical moves
- Ensure the team is rewarded for collective results — not just individual performance. If incentives focus only on individual success, teamwork will always come second.
- Check whether the team receives the information it needs in a usable form. Data that arrives late, incomplete, or overly complex slows decision-making.
- Make it easy for the team to access expertise when new challenges arise.
- Protect the time and resources required to deliver the team's priorities. Teams cannot succeed if critical work is constantly under-resourced.
- Remove organisational barriers that repeatedly slow progress. When the same obstacles appear again and again, the issue is systemic — not individual.
What in our organisation makes teamwork harder than it needs to be?
Most teams review results. Fewer teams review how they achieved them. Problems repeat. Meetings drift. The issue is rarely capability — it is often the absence of deliberate attention to team effectiveness.
Five practical moves
- Assign clear responsibility for team effectiveness. Someone should hold accountability for how the team works, not just what it delivers.
- Build short reflection into regular meetings. What worked well? What slowed us down? What should we do differently?
- Intervene early when patterns start to repeat. Small problems become bigger when ignored.
- Make it safe for team members to challenge how the team is operating. Strong teams allow anyone to raise concerns about process, decisions, or behaviour.
- Treat team coaching as a routine practice — not a crisis response. Teams perform best when improvement is continuous.
Who is paying attention to how this team works? Do they have the skill and authority to act when something needs to change?
✏ Critique — Part 5: What Next
This is the commercial section — it's doing real work. The pivot from "helpful tool" to "here's what else we offer" is handled reasonably, but it could feel more natural. Suggestions: (1) The "Benefits of Deeper Insight" bullet list is strong but long — consider trimming to 4 bullets maximum. (2) "The Team Diagnostic Survey" section reads more like a brochure than part of the diagnostic. That's fine — just be intentional about the shift in register. (3) The three-step journey (Reality Check → TDS → Workshop) is excellent. Give it more visual prominence — it's your clearest articulation of the commercial pathway.
This Team Reality Check gives you a quick, practical snapshot — a chance to step back and look more objectively at how your team is functioning. It helps you spot friction, sense where priorities may be unclear, and take one or two practical moves to improve effectiveness.
It is a useful starting point. But it is still only a starting point — not a full diagnosis.
The Benefits of Deeper Insight
This snapshot reflects a limited perspective — typically the team leader's. That perspective is valuable, but not sufficient on its own. Teams rarely struggle because of what one person sees. They struggle because of what the team experiences collectively.
Imagine being able to see clearly and objectively:
- Whether people are united in a clear, meaningful, and consequential purpose
- Whether people feel safe to speak up, challenge ideas, or admit mistakes
- Whether the team is learning — or repeating the same conversations
- Whether the team's structure supports performance or slows it down
- Whether organisational systems reinforce teamwork or undermine it
This is the kind of clarity that moves conversations from intuition to evidence — and from discussion to action.
The Next Step — Team Diagnostic Survey (TDS)
For teams that want to go further, the TDS gathers input from all team members and provides a structured, shared view of how the team is actually functioning — a comprehensive picture of the Six Conditions that research shows account for up to 80% of team effectiveness.
The survey results in a rich diagnostic report — typically 25–30 pages — highlighting strengths to protect, risks to address, patterns to understand, and priorities for improvement. Because the data comes from the whole team, responsibility shifts from the leader to the team.
The journey
1
Team Reality Check
A quick snapshot to surface early signals
2
Team Diagnostic Survey
An evidence-based picture of how the team is functioning
3
Effectiveness Workshop
A focused session to interpret findings and agree next moves
Sessions can be delivered virtually or face to face, with intact leadership teams or project teams, as a short diagnostic conversation or a structured programme.
Want to explore this with your team?
Start with a short conversation to discuss what you're seeing, clarify where the biggest opportunities may be, and decide whether a deeper diagnostic would be useful. No preparation required. No commitment expected.
✏ Critique — Contact / CTA Block
Using a Gmail address for a professional consulting document undermines credibility. Strongly recommend switching to a branded email (e.g. dustin@yourfirm.com). Also consider adding a website URL. The overall CTA copy is warm and low-pressure — that tone is appropriate and well-judged. Well done.