An eight-question scorecard that tests whether your executive team has actually aligned on a decision, or has simply stopped arguing about it.
Score the specific decision your team believes it has agreed. The questions and points are fixed, the result is calculated in your browser, and nothing you answer is stored.
Last reviewed 3 July 2026 · Free and ungated
Your team has settled on a position; the score only measures how hard anyone has pushed against it. Have selected senior operators from the Global Board push harder, confidentially, before it is announced.
Pressure-test this decisionAnswer for the decision your team last discussed together, as honestly as the corridor conversations would.
On these answers, the agreement in the room is thinner than it looked. Each executive is carrying a private version of the decision, and execution will surface the differences at the worst possible time: after budgets are committed and positions are public.
The team agrees on the headline and diverges underneath it: on success measures, on timing, or on who finally decides. Decisions in this band leave the meeting looking approved and then slow down in execution, as each function delivers the version it thought it endorsed.
Most of the foundations of genuine alignment are present, and the gaps that remain are specific: usually an undeclared deal-breaker, or a disagreement about timing that has been politely deferred. Teams in this band can proceed, provided the open items are named rather than left to surface mid-delivery.
The team has done the unglamorous work: a shared definition, agreed measures, dissent aired in the room. What a high score cannot rule out is comfortable convergence, where a team aligns quickly because its members have grown alike in how they read the market.
Executive teams rarely leave a meeting misaligned on purpose. The pattern is more comfortable than that: the meeting closes on a form of words everyone can accept, each function reads its own priorities into that wording, and three months later two departments are executing two different decisions under one name. By the time the divergence shows up in delivery it looks like an execution problem, which is why the alignment failure that caused it is almost never diagnosed.
The most revealing moment is between agreement and announcement: the decision feels made, but nothing external has locked it in yet. Run it again if the team changes, because alignment belongs to the people who built it. A new CFO or divisional head inherits the decision without inheriting the agreement.
Eight questions, three fixed answers each at 0, 5 or 10 points, normalised to 100 and mapped to four bands. Two people scoring the same decision differently is not a flaw in the tool. The gap between their scores is the misalignment, measured.
Separately first, then compare. Scoring together reproduces the meeting dynamics the tool is trying to see past: the same voices carry, and the same silences pass for agreement.
A team that argues openly and scores low is in better shape than one that scores mid-range through politeness. Low scores from honest debate identify real work; comfortable scores from avoided debate hide it.
That is the most common and least discussable case, which is why the written-paragraph test works better than another meeting. It lets disagreement with the most senior person in the room surface as drafting feedback rather than confrontation.