Each bar shows the team’s range; dots are individual leaders, the bronze line is the team average. Highlighted rows exceed the divergence threshold.
| Metric | Team avg | Range | Distribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Builder Index thin in 5 of 5 | 71 | 55–82 | |
| Executive Attention Index thin in 5 of 5 | 4.1 | 3.9–4.2 | |
| Alignment Coherence | 3.9 | 3.8–4.0 | |
| Authority Distribution | 3.6 | 2.8–4.1 | |
| Decision Velocity | 3.7 | 3.0–4.2 | |
| Execution Friction Divergence | 2.3 | 1.6–3.4 | |
| Leadership Load | 2.2 | 1.7–3.0 | |
| AI Readiness Indicator | 80 | 72–85 | |
| Risk Judgment Divergence | 3.6 | 2.5–4.4 | |
| Transformation Readiness | 4.1 | 3.9–4.3 |
Where a metric is marked thin, that many leaders produced it from a condition measured by fewer questions than the rest. The reading stands, but some of the spread on that row may be measurement rather than disagreement, and those are different conversations.
Your leadership team shows significant divergence on Execution Friction (range: 1.6–3.4). This level of disagreement on a single metric is itself an alignment problem - and a diagnostic priority.
Your leadership team shows significant divergence on Risk Judgment (range: 2.5–4.4). This level of disagreement on a single metric is itself an alignment problem - and a diagnostic priority.
This level of divergence across your leadership team suggests a structured facilitated session would produce more value than individual advisory reviews. Book the Leadership Team Diagnostic and Executive Debrief with Dan Flynn.
These are selective handoffs into the separate Risk practice. They do not change the diagnostic scores and do not constitute a Risk maturity assessment.
The team is not using one risk language
Risk Judgment ranges from 2.5 to 4.4. The disagreement is the signal; the average should not conceal it.
Next step: Compare likelihood language, confidence ranges, escalation thresholds, and what evidence would change each leader’s view.