Personal Leadership Assessment

VP Engineering at a 200-person SaaS company, promoted six months ago from Principal Engineer. CEO brought in coaching because product launches are delayed and the VP is in conflict with the Head of Product. Client believes the problem is that Product keeps changing requirements.

Frame this as a diagnostic before we address the Product relationship. 'Before we strategize about working with other departments, let's map your current leadership foundation.' Expect resistance to the Influence dimension - many technical leaders equate influence with politics and prefer to rely on being right. Name this upfront: 'Influence isn't manipulation. It's getting alignment when being right isn't enough.'

Technical leaders often rate Communication high based on code reviews and technical documentation, missing interpersonal clarity. Watch for thin evidence in Influence - if they can only cite examples within their engineering team, they're conflating authority with influence. Self-Awareness ratings above 3 with no examples of feedback from non-technical stakeholders signal a blind spot.

Start with the dimension they rated highest and ask for evidence from outside their technical domain. Then move to Influence: 'You rated this a 2. What would a 4 look like with the Head of Product specifically?' The question that opens this up: 'When you're right about a technical decision but can't get buy-in, what happens next?'

Director of Operations at a manufacturing company, consistently delivers results but just received 360 feedback citing 'abrasive communication' and 'lack of empathy.' HR suggested coaching. Client is defensive and believes the feedback reflects others' inability to handle direct communication in a results-oriented environment.

Position this as a calibration tool, not a performance improvement plan. 'Your results speak for themselves. This assessment helps us understand if your leadership approach scales as your scope grows.' Expect pushback on Self-Awareness - high performers often resist the idea that impact differs from intent. Frame it as strategic: 'The higher you go, the more your effectiveness depends on others' willingness to engage with you.'

Defensive clients often rush through Self-Awareness with a high rating and minimal evidence, or provide evidence that contradicts their rating without noticing. Watch for Communication evidence that focuses only on clarity, not reception. If they rate Influence high but their evidence is all about getting compliance through pressure, they're confusing force with influence.

Start with their highest-rated dimension and ask: 'Who on your team would rate you the same way?' Then move to the gap between their self-rating and the 360 feedback. The question that typically opens this up: 'When someone pushes back on your direction, what do you make that mean about them?'

Recently promoted from individual contributor to Marketing Manager at a fast-growing startup. Managing a team of five for the first time while still handling some IC work. Feels constantly behind and unsure how to prioritize between team development, individual deliverables, and executive requests.

Frame this as building your leadership foundation while everything is moving fast. 'Before we tackle time management, let's see which leadership muscles you're already using and which ones need development.' New managers often focus only on task management and skip the people leadership dimensions. Set the expectation: 'Managing work and managing people require different skills.'

New managers typically rate themselves low across all dimensions - they're comparing themselves to senior leaders rather than rating their current practice. Watch for Vision and Long-Term Thinking ratings below 2 - this often reflects reactive mode, not lack of capability. If Accountability evidence focuses only on their own deliverables and not team commitments, they haven't made the manager transition yet.

Start with their Development Priority choice - new managers often pick everything. Push for specificity: 'If you could only work on one dimension for the next month, which would free up the most mental energy?' Then explore their Resilience Under Pressure rating. The question that creates movement: 'What would change if you trusted your team to handle more without your oversight?'

VP of Sales with 15 years of leadership experience, recently joined a company with a more collaborative culture. Previous success was built on high-energy, directive leadership. New team seems disengaged and several high performers have left. Client is confused because their approach has always worked before.

Frame this as recalibrating proven strengths for a new context. 'Your track record shows your leadership works. This assessment helps us see which elements translate and which need adjustment for this environment.' Experienced leaders often resist the idea that their style needs changing. Position it as expansion, not replacement: 'Adding tools to your toolkit, not throwing out what works.'

Experienced leaders often rate themselves high based on past success rather than current effectiveness. Watch for evidence that comes from previous roles or companies rather than current context. If their Communication rating is high but team engagement is low, there's likely a mismatch between their style and the culture. Self-Awareness becomes critical here.

Start with the dimensions where their evidence comes from previous roles: 'You rated Communication a 4. What evidence do you have from this team specifically?' Then explore the cultural transition. The question that opens this up: 'What worked in your previous environment that this team responds to differently?'