Most executive assessment happens in high-stakes evaluative contexts - performance reviews, board discussions, succession conversations. These tools work differently: self-directed, individually held, and structured around the questions senior leaders actually need to answer about themselves and their organizations.
The diagnostic tools used at the senior leadership level tend to answer different questions than they do further down the organization. Individual contributors use them for career clarity and personal effectiveness. Managers use them to understand their teams. Senior leaders use them to interrogate assumptions - about themselves, about the organization, about whether what they believe is happening is actually happening.
The scenarios below reflect how executives and senior leaders have used these tools when the stakes were high and the honest data was hard to get any other way.
A newly appointed COO joined a regional healthcare system from outside the industry. She had strong operational instincts and a track record in logistics, but she was candid with herself about two things: she did not yet understand the decision-making culture of healthcare organizations, and she had never led at a scale this large before. Her first instinct was to listen. Her second was to get a structured read on where she actually stood before the organization formed its opinions about her.
In her first month she completed the Leadership Capability Maturity Profile, the Decision Quality and Speed Index, and the Strategic Thinking Profile independently. She did not share the results with her board or her direct reports. She used them to build her own development agenda - a list of the specific capability gaps she intended to close in her first year, with the domain scores as the baseline she would measure against.
"The assessment told me two things I already suspected and one I did not. The one I did not expect became my highest development priority for the first six months. I would have missed it entirely if I had relied on my own self-assessment."
At her twelve-month mark she retook all three tools. The domain where she had been surprised at the outset had moved from 2.8 to 3.7. The two she had expected to be gaps had moved less - confirming that awareness of a gap does not automatically produce development. That data shaped how she structured her coaching engagement in year two.
A division president had three senior vice presidents she was quietly evaluating for a future EVP role that would be created when she moved up or out. She had strong impressions of all three. She was also experienced enough to know that her impressions were shaped largely by who she interacted with most, who communicated most confidently in senior forums, and who had been visible during a few high-stakes moments in the past two years.
She asked all three to complete the Leadership Capability Maturity Profile and the Decision Quality and Speed Index. She framed it as part of a broader development initiative - which was also true - so no one understood they were being evaluated for a specific role. She reviewed each set of results before her individual development conversations with each person.
The results changed her read on one of the three significantly. The SVP she had been mentally positioning as the front-runner scored notably lower on the systems thinking and strategic perspective domain than the other two - a gap she had not seen because that SVP was exceptionally effective at execution within a defined scope. The quieter SVP, who had less visibility, scored highest across both tools. The data did not make the decision for her, but it reframed the question she was asking about each person.
"Without the assessment data I would have walked into that succession conversation relying entirely on my own pattern recognition. My pattern recognition was wrong about one of the three people who mattered most."
A senior vice president of product had been in his role for four years and believed he was ready to be considered for a Chief Product Officer position that would open when his current CPO retired in eighteen months. He wanted to initiate that conversation, but he was strategic enough to know that walking in underprepared - or with blind spots the company could see but he could not - would do more damage than waiting.
He completed the Strategic Clarity Index, the Leadership Capability Maturity Profile, and the Strategic Thinking Profile on his own over two weeks. His overall scores were strong. The exception was change leadership, where he scored 2.9. He knew immediately what that reflected: he had spent four years optimizing within a stable product organization and had never led through a significant structural change. That domain was not a theoretical gap. It was a specific experiential gap that a CPO in a company navigating a platform transition would be exposed almost immediately.
He spent the fourteen months before the formal conversation deliberately positioning himself for change leadership opportunities. He volunteered to lead a reorganization of the product operations function. He requested a stretch assignment with the M&A integration team. When he sat down for the succession conversation, he had already addressed the gap the assessment had identified - and he could describe specifically what he had done and why.
An EVP of operations had restructured her division twice in three years, each time with the goal of improving efficiency. Both restructurings had been approved, communicated, and implemented. After the second one, voluntary turnover in two departments increased to 28% in the following year - a number she attributed to market conditions until her HR business partner walked her through the exit interview data.
The feedback was consistent: people were leaving because roles had become unclear, decision authority had been consolidated upward, and the work had become harder to complete without additional coordination overhead that had not existed before the restructures. Employees were spending more time on process navigation than on the work itself.
She completed the Role Clarity and Design Index, the Organizational Alignment Index, and the Execution Effectiveness Index as an organizational assessment - administering them across her division and reviewing the aggregate results. The domain scores for role definition and decision rights were in the low 2s. Execution consistency had dropped to 2.4 from an estimated baseline in the high 3s before the first restructure.
Decisions made at the executive level often look clean on an org chart and expensive in actual execution. The cost shows up in coordination overhead, role ambiguity, turnover, and the quiet workarounds that employees develop when the structure does not match the work. None of those costs are visible from the floor where the decisions are made. Diagnostic data from the frontline is often the only way to see them.
She used the aggregate results to redesign the decision rights framework in her division - not another restructure, but a deliberate clarification of who owned what decisions at each level. She retook the Role Clarity and Design Index twelve months later. The role definition domain had moved to 3.6. Turnover in the two affected departments had dropped to 14%.
A CEO of a professional services firm had built the organization around an explicit values framework - integrity, stewardship, and care for people - that appeared in recruiting materials, client presentations, and annual reports. He believed in these values. He also recognized, after a difficult year that included a key partner departure and a client loss attributed to a cultural mismatch, that believing in values and consistently living them under pressure were different things.
He completed the Virtuous Leadership Profile and asked his direct leadership team to complete the Virtuous Organization Index as an assessment of the firm as a whole. He reviewed both sets of results with his executive team in a structured session that he framed explicitly as a development conversation rather than a performance review.
The Virtuous Organization Index results were revealing. The team scored the firm high on stated purpose and low on purpose in practice - the domain that measures whether the stated reason for existing actually shapes daily decisions. The gap between those two scores was the most honest picture the leadership team had ever had of the distance between their values and their behavior under commercial pressure.
"We said the right things about why we existed and then made resource allocation decisions that contradicted them. The assessment did not tell us anything we did not already know somewhere. It just put a number on it in a way we could not ignore."
The CEO used the results to restructure three operating decisions that had been made on purely financial grounds in ways that conflicted with the firm's stated stakeholder commitments. The partner who had departed cited one of those decisions in their exit conversation. The assessment identified it before the next one happened.
Browse all diagnostic tools and find the one that addresses what you are actually trying to understand.
Browse the ToolkitDeploying these tools across a leadership team or succession cohort? Request licensing and volume options.
Request Licensing