As Global Head of Research & Leadership Advisory at JRG Partners, I give clients this template constantly, so here is the practitioner’s version, ready to adapt. Leadership teams rarely assess how well they actually function, and the dysfunction that results goes undiagnosed until it damages the company. This survey template, with a scoring guide, gives a leadership team a structured way to measure its own effectiveness.
This is the practitioner’s version: the actual tool, structured for real use, with notes on why each element matters and how to apply it. It is written to be adapted and used, not merely read.
What This Tool Is For
This survey template, with a scoring guide, lets a leadership team assess how effectively it functions, trust, decision-making, alignment, conflict, accountability, so it can diagnose and address dysfunction rather than letting it fester. Leadership teams rarely measure their own effectiveness, and this structured survey surfaces the dynamics that determine whether the team performs or underperforms.
Key Takeaways
- Leadership teams rarely assess how well they actually function.
- This survey measures the dynamics that determine team effectiveness.
- Assess trust, decision-making, alignment, conflict, and accountability.
- The scoring guide turns responses into a diagnosis and priorities.
- Use the results to address dysfunction before it damages the company.
Why Measure Leadership Team Effectiveness
A leadership team’s effectiveness, how well it works together, is a major driver of company performance, yet teams rarely measure it, and dysfunction, low trust, poor decision-making, misalignment, unproductive conflict, goes undiagnosed until it damages results. A structured effectiveness survey surfaces these dynamics, giving the team a clear picture of how it actually functions and where it needs to improve. Measuring effectiveness is the first step to improving it, and this survey turns vague sense of dysfunction into specific, addressable findings.
Survey Dimensions (rate each 1–5)
- Trust: Team members trust each other and can be candid and vulnerable.
- Constructive conflict: The team debates issues openly and productively, without personal or destructive conflict.
- Alignment: The team is aligned on goals, priorities, and direction.
- Decision-making: The team makes decisions effectively and commits to them.
- Accountability: Team members hold each other accountable for commitments and performance.
- Collaboration: The team collaborates well across functions rather than operating in silos.
- Results focus: The team is focused on collective results, not just individual functions.
The Scoring Guide
- Average 4–5 (Strong): The dimension is a team strength; maintain it.
- Average 3 (Adequate): Functional but with room to improve; worth attention.
- Average below 3 (Needs work): A dysfunction to address; prioritize the lowest-scoring dimensions.
- Look at the spread, not just the average. Wide disagreement among members on a dimension is itself a signal worth exploring.
The most valuable output is often not the average scores but the spread of responses: when team members rate a dimension very differently, that disagreement reveals a hidden issue, some members experience the team very differently than others, which is itself a finding worth exploring. A dimension scored uniformly low is a shared problem to fix; a dimension scored wildly differently is a source of misalignment to surface and discuss.
How to Use This Template Well
Have each leadership team member complete the survey independently and anonymously, so responses are candid, then compile the results and review both the average scores and the spread of responses. Prioritize the lowest-scoring dimensions and the ones with the widest disagreement, since both signal issues to address. Use the results to facilitate an honest team discussion about how the team functions and what to improve, ideally with skilled facilitation. Repeat the survey periodically to track progress. The survey diagnoses; the value comes from acting on the findings to improve how the team works together.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
The common mistakes are never assessing team effectiveness (leaving dysfunction undiagnosed), running the survey non-anonymously (which suppresses candor), looking only at averages and missing the spread of responses, and surveying without acting on the findings. Avoid these by measuring effectiveness deliberately, ensuring anonymity for candor, examining both averages and disagreement, and using the results to drive an honest discussion and real improvement.
The Bottom Line
A leadership team effectiveness survey with a scoring guide measures trust, conflict, alignment, decision-making, and accountability, surfacing the dynamics that determine whether the team performs, so dysfunction can be diagnosed and addressed rather than left to damage the company. Adapt it to your context, apply it consistently, and it will sharpen the decisions that matter most, because disciplined process is what separates reliable executive hiring from luck.
Related Resources
For employers going deeper, see Leadership Offsite Agenda Template for New Executive Team Integration, Leadership Offsite Agenda Template for New Executive Team Integration, The Two-in-a-Box Model.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Q: What does a leadership team effectiveness survey measure?
- A: The dynamics that determine team effectiveness, trust, constructive conflict, alignment, decision-making, accountability, collaboration, and results focus.
- Q: Why measure team effectiveness?
- A: Because it drives company performance yet is rarely assessed, so dysfunction goes undiagnosed until it damages results; measuring is the first step to improving.
- Q: How does the scoring guide work?
- A: It turns the ratings into a diagnosis, strong (4–5), adequate (3), or needs work (below 3), prioritizing the lowest-scoring dimensions to address.
- Q: Why look at the spread of responses?
- A: Because wide disagreement among members on a dimension reveals a hidden issue, some experience the team very differently, which is a finding worth exploring.
- Q: Should the survey be anonymous?
- A: Yes; anonymity ensures candid responses, without which the survey would surface a sanitized rather than an honest picture of the team.
![](https://www.jrgpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/tanya-gallardo.jpeg")
Tanya Gallardo
Managing Director, Executive Search & AI Talent Strategy
Tanya Gallardo is the Managing Director of Executive Search & AI Talent Strategy at JRG Partners, leading C-suite and Board engagements across key growth sectors including Technology, Financial Services, and Manufacturing.
With over 18 years of experience specializing in disruptive technology leadership, Tanya is recognized as a leading authority on talent architecture for future-focused executive roles, such as the Chief AI Officer (CAIO) and Chief Digital Officer (CDO). Her expertise lies in accurately assessing the cultural fit and technical depth required to ensure a high return on investment (ROI) for critical leadership appointments.
Prior to her role at JRG Partners, Tanya held senior roles directing global talent acquisition strategies at a major publicly-traded technology firm, advising on organizational design and succession planning for emerging executive functions. She is a recognized speaker and contributor to industry events, sharing data-driven insights on executive compensation, leadership development, and the measurable business impact of C-suite talent.
