THE CENTRAL IDEA
The Executive Practices report is a transparent summary of six response dimensions, followed by predefined interpretation and reflection material.
The response-to-score chain
The questionnaire contains 60 original statements arranged across six dimensions. Each dimension has ten statements, including two scored in the reverse direction. Participants choose one of five agreement responses for every statement. A forward response retains its value from one to five. A reverse response becomes six minus the selected value. The keyed answers are then averaged within the dimension and mapped onto a zero-to-one-hundred response index.
The mapping is round((mean minus one) multiplied by twenty-five). A keyed average of three therefore maps to fifty. The result describes endorsement on this questionnaire’s response scale. It is not a percentage of executive competence, a rank among other executives, or a probability of enterprise success. Each dimension is separate, so the six indices do not need to sum to one hundred.
What the report does with those indices
The application uses its own deterministic rules and predefined interpretation text to assemble an eight-page report. No external AI model or assessment-evaluation service decides what a score means. The same answers under the same instrument and report-engine versions produce the same indices and interpretive content. Record details such as the participant name and completion date are separate from that interpretive logic.
The report provides a profile, dimension discussion, contextual questions, and development prompts. A relatively elevated dimension is an emphasis in the submitted answers. It should not become an executive type or a general conclusion about potential. A useful reading asks which examples support the pattern, where it changes, and which interpretation remains uncertain. A tie should remain a tie rather than being converted into a dramatic distinction between people.
A worked interpretation
Consider a fictional participant whose framing responses are more strongly endorsed than coordination responses. One possibility is that the person devotes considerable attention to formulating choices but less to connecting implementation across functions. Another is that their role involves strategy advice while a separate colleague owns cross-functional delivery. The index alone cannot decide between those explanations. The participant can use a recent strategic commitment to identify which account fits the actual work.
Any next step should be proportionate and observable. The participant might clarify ownership and one critical dependency in the next planning conversation, then ask whether the affected teams understood the agreement. This is an optional learning experiment, not a treatment or a proven route to higher performance. A repeat questionnaire could describe another set of answers, but an increase alone would not establish that the practice changed or that the intervention caused an outcome.
Points to carry forward
- Read each index as a description of questionnaire responses.
- Connect an interpretation with a specific decision or practice.
Where the evidence stops
Newly authored questionnaires lack completed empirical performance studies.
The cited literature informs our original framework. Read the current evidence status and intended use alongside this guide.
REFERENCES / FOLLOW THE ORIGINAL EVIDENCE