Leadership Team Health Survey Questions: Diagnose Alignment, Trust and Decision Quality

These leadership team health survey questions help you see how your top team really works together: alignment, trust, conflict, decisions. With one structured survey, you get concrete signals for better strategy work, meetings and communication across the whole company.

Survey questions

Standard scale for Q1–Q48 (unless noted otherwise): 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree.

Tagging:

[Self] = internal leadership team self-assessment, [Reports] = direct reports / extended leadership, [Both] = works for both perspectives.

Q1 [Both] Our leadership team shares a common understanding of our current company strategy.
Q2 [Both] Leaders agree on the top 3–5 priorities for the next 12 months.
Q3 [Reports] I see consistent priorities communicated by different members of the leadership team.
Q4 [Self] In leadership meetings we challenge each other until priorities are truly clear.
Q5 [Both] When trade-offs arise, leaders make decisions aligned with our stated strategy.
Q6 [Reports] My leader can explain how our team goals connect to the overall strategy.
Q7 [Self] As a leadership team we make important decisions without unnecessary delay.
Q8 [Both] Once a decision is made, leaders present a unified stance to the organisation.
Q9 [Reports] I understand who owns which major decisions in the company.
Q10 [Self] Leadership decisions are documented and shared in a way people can follow.
Q11 [Both] We follow through on leadership decisions and rarely revisit them without strong reasons.
Q12 [Reports] I rarely see leadership decisions being quietly undone or ignored.
Q13 [Self] I trust other leadership team members to share relevant information with me in time.
Q14 [Reports] I trust the leadership team to act in the long-term interest of the company.
Q15 [Self] I can admit mistakes in the leadership team without fear of negative politics.
Q16 [Reports] People can raise bad news or risks upward without fear of blame.
Q17 [Self] In leadership meetings I feel safe to say what I really think.
Q18 [Reports] The leadership team behaves in a way that supports psychologische Sicherheit.
Q19 [Self] We can disagree openly in leadership meetings without damaging relationships.
Q20 [Both] Conflicts in the leadership team are addressed directly, not via hallway conversations.
Q21 [Reports] I sometimes see unresolved tensions or “hidden fights” between leaders. (reverse-scored)
Q22 [Self] When we have conflict, we resolve it with clear agreements and next steps.
Q23 [Reports] Leaders give each other visible, constructive feedback rather than blame.
Q24 [Both] We have clear “rules of engagement” for difficult discussions at the top.
Q25 [Reports] Different functions (e.g. Sales, Product, Operations) support each other instead of optimising only their own area.
Q26 [Self] As a leadership team we regularly discuss cross-functional dependencies and risks.
Q27 [Reports] Cross-functional projects get timely decisions and sponsorship from the leadership team.
Q28 [Both] Leaders involve relevant functions early enough in major initiatives.
Q29 [Reports] I rarely experience conflicting instructions from different leaders. (reverse-scored)
Q30 [Self] We recognise and address “silo thinking” when it appears in the leadership team.
Q31 [Reports] Company-wide updates from the leadership team are clear and understandable.
Q32 [Reports] Messages from different leaders about key topics are consistent.
Q33 [Both] The leadership team is transparent about risks, trade-offs and uncertainties.
Q34 [Reports] Leaders explain the “why” behind bigger changes, not only the “what”.
Q35 [Self] We check whether our messages are understood across locations, levels and blue- vs white-collar roles.
Q36 [Reports] I feel I get honest information from the leadership team during crises.
Q37 [Reports] The leadership team lives our stated values, even when it is inconvenient.
Q38 [Both] Leaders address behaviour that clearly contradicts our culture or Code of Conduct.
Q39 [Reports] Promotions and key role appointments at leadership level reflect our values.
Q40 [Self] As leaders we are open about our own development areas and ask for feedback.
Q41 [Both] The leadership team actively supports a healthy work-life boundary by its own behaviour.
Q42 [Reports] I see leaders taking responsibility when things go wrong, not just blaming teams.
Q43 [Reports] I have confidence that the leadership team can navigate the company through major challenges.
Q44 [Self] As a leadership team we regularly review our own performance and ways of working.
Q45 [Both] We have the right people in the leadership team for our current strategy.
Q46 [Reports] I see early, coordinated responses from the leadership team when serious issues appear.
Q47 [Self] We have clear succession and backup plans for critical leadership roles.
Q48 [Both] Overall, the leadership team operates as one team, not a group of individuals.

Overall 0–10 questions

Q49 [Reports] How likely are you to recommend working under our current leadership team to a friend or colleague? (0 = Not at all likely, 10 = Extremely likely)
Q50 [Self] On a scale from 0–10, how confident are you that the leadership team can execute the current strategy successfully?

Open-ended questions

O1 [Reports] Where does our leadership team get stuck most often, and what is the impact on your work?
O2 [Both] What is one concrete change in how the leadership team makes decisions that would help you most?
O3 [Self] Which recurring conflict or pattern inside the leadership team do we need to finally address?
O4 [Reports] If you could give one honest piece of feedback to the leadership team as a whole, what would it be?

Decision & action table

Question cluster	Trigger / threshold	Required action	Owner	Timeline
Q1–Q6 Strategy & priorities alignment	Average <3,5 or ≥25 % “disagree”	Run ½‑day strategy alignment workshop; re-define and document top 3–5 priorities.	CEO + Geschäftsführung	Within 30 days after survey
Q7–Q12 Decision-making & execution	Average <3,5 or strong gap Self vs Reports ≥0,7	Map 5–10 typical decisions, clarify owners and decision rules; adjust meeting formats.	CEO + HR/People	Decision map agreed in 21 days
Q13–Q18 Trust & psychological safety	Any item <3,0 or trust NPS (Q49) <7,0	Facilitated offsite on trust, feedback, and ways of working; individual coaching for 1–2 key roles.	CEO + external/HR coach	Offsite held within 45 days
Q19–Q24 Conflict & feedback handling	Average <3,5 or O1/O3 mention same conflict ≥3 times	Define conflict rules, install regular “healthy conflict” slot in leadership meeting; train feedback skills.	HR/People + Leadership Team	Rules agreed in 14 days; training within 60 days
Q25–Q30 Cross-functional collaboration	Average <3,5 or clear differences by function	Launch 2–3 cross-functional “priority flows” with joint KPIs; review blockers monthly.	COO / relevant functional heads	Pilots launched within 30 days
Q31–Q36 Communication to organisation	Average <3,7 or comments about confusion	Design leadership communication plan (channels, cadence, ownership); test messages with sample teams.	CEO + Communications + HR	Plan ready in 21 days; first cycle in 45 days
Q37–Q42 Role modelling values & culture	Any item <3,5 or large country / site gaps	Review 3–5 recent people decisions vs values; adjust promotion/discipline standards; communicate examples.	CHRO / HR Director	Review completed in 30 days
Q43–Q50 Overall confidence & risk signals	Confidence <7,5 or ≥15 % “0–6” on Q49	Hold listening sessions with key groups, agree 2–3 top improvements, publish action summary.	CEO + HR/People	Listening sessions within 30 days; summary within 45 days

Key takeaways

Use one survey to see how your leadership system really works.
Cluster questions by theme to keep actions focused and manageable.
Set clear thresholds so low scores always trigger concrete steps.
Discuss results in the leadership team first, then with key groups.
Repeat the survey regularly to track changes and adjust rituals.

Definition & scope

This survey measures the health of your top leadership team: alignment, collaboration, decision quality, conflict handling and psychological safety. It can be answered by the leadership team itself and by their direct reports or extended leadership. The results support decisions on leadership development, coaching, meeting structures, performance management and wider talent or engagement initiatives.

Why leadership team health deserves its own survey

General engagement surveys rarely show what happens in the Geschäftsführung or C‑level meetings. These leadership team health survey questions zoom in on how your top team thinks, decides and behaves together. That makes it easier to connect improvements to performance, succession and broader performance management work.

For HR, CEOs and CHROs in DACH, this survey becomes a regular “operating system check” at the top. You can integrate results into your employee engagement and retention strategy or connect to your talent development and succession planning processes.

Scoring & thresholds

Use simple, transparent rules so everyone understands how leadership team health survey questions turn into actions. Work with averages, distribution and gaps between groups, not single comments.

Scales:

Q1–Q48: 1–5 Likert from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree”.
Q49–Q50: 0–10 rating scale, like NPS.

Interpretation for 1–5 items:

High: ≥4,0 average and ≥70 % “agree/strongly agree”. Keep and share good practices.
Medium: 3,0–3,9 average. Improvement area; define 1–2 targeted actions.
Low: <3,0 average. Critical; treat as leadership risk that needs active handling.

Interpretation for 0–10 items:

Healthy: Average ≥8,0 and ≥60 % ratings 9–10.
Watch: Average 7,0–7,9 or many 6–7 ratings.
Risk: Average <7,0 or ≥15 % “0–6”.

If Q1–Q6 or Q7–Q12 show low scores, you have a strategy or decision-system problem, not an HR problem. If Q13–Q18 or Q19–Q24 are low, focus on trust, psychologische Sicherheit and conflict rules. Leadership team health survey questions in Q37–Q42 link directly to performance and culture; you can mirror these in your competency framework or leadership development programs.

Follow-up & responsibilities

Results from leadership team health survey questions are sensitive. Define upfront who owns which signals, and how fast you react.

CEO: Owns overall response, communicates key messages and role models vulnerability. Timeline: first reaction within 7 days.
Leadership team: Reviews detailed results, agrees 2–3 priorities, adjusts meeting and decision rituals. Timeline: workshop within 21 days.
HR/People team: Facilitates analysis, prepares summaries (including comments), tracks actions. Timeline: first draft report within 10 days.
Betriebsrat (if present): Informed early on purpose, anonymity rules and how data is used, not used. Timeline: agreement before survey launch.
Communications: Designs company-wide updates and Q&A, aligned with other surveys like engagement or psychologische Sicherheit pulses. Timeline: comms plan within 14 days.

For very critical feedback (e.g. accusations, ethics issues) set a separate path with HR, Legal and, if relevant, Ombudsperson. Make clear this is independent from normal survey follow-up.

Fairness & bias checks

Leadership team health survey questions can uncover unbalanced experiences across sites, functions or levels. You want to see patterns early, but still protect anonymity and trust.

Slice results by function, location, leadership level, tenure and remote vs office, but only where ≥7–10 respondents per slice.
Compare scores from [Self] vs [Reports] questions. Large gaps (>0,7) are strong coaching signals.
Check whether some groups consistently rate much lower on trust, conflict or value role-modelling.

Typical patterns and responses:

Pattern: Sales and Operations rate cross-functional collaboration (Q25–Q30) very differently. Response: run joint workshop on end-to-end customer journey and decision bottlenecks.
Pattern: One country cluster shows much lower trust (Q13–Q18). Response: schedule local listening sessions with that cluster’s leadership and HR, then adjust leadership behaviours or structure.
Pattern: Leadership self-scores are high, but direct reports are neutral on communication and values. Response: use 360‑degree feedback or manager effectiveness surveys to deepen insights.

Examples / use cases

1. Low alignment on strategy & priorities

Ausgangssituation: Q1–Q6 average at 3,1; comments show people hear different “top priorities” from different leaders. Projects compete for the same resources, and teams are confused.

Entscheidung: CEO and CHRO schedule a one-day offsite for the leadership team. They use leadership team health survey questions as entry and define 4 company-wide priorities with clear “non-priorities”. Meeting cadences and OKR processes are updated.

Ergebnis nach 6 Monaten: Fewer conflicting requests, cleaner backlog, and higher clarity scores in the next engagement survey, which you can track alongside your broader talent management metrics.

2. Trust issues between founders and new executives

Ausgangssituation: In a scale-up, founders rate trust (Q13–Q18) high, but new executives and reports give 2,8–3,0. Comments mention politics, side conversations and unclear authority.

Entscheidung: HR organises facilitated sessions on roles and decision rights. Founders commit to a new rule: “one voice outwards” and fewer ad‑hoc changes. Individual coaching for two leaders supports behaviour change.

Ergebnis: Next pulse shows trust scores above 3,8, fewer escalations, and faster decisions in product and GTM forums.

3. Reorg pulse after merging business units

Ausgangssituation: After a major reorg, cross-functional collaboration (Q25–Q30) and communication (Q31–Q36) drop. People feel “organised on paper, but not in reality”.

Entscheidung: CEO and HR run a short pulse just with these question blocks and O1/O2 six weeks after the reorg. They identify two critical handover points and redesign meeting structures and RACI.

Ergebnis: In the next quarterly leadership team self-reflection, Q7–Q12 and Q25–Q30 move above 4,0, and project delays decrease.

Implementation & updates

Start small, then institutionalise leadership team health survey questions as part of your normal performance and talent rhythm. In DACH you also need a clean GDPR and Betriebsrat setup.

Step-by-step implementation

Pilot: Choose one leadership team (e.g. Group or a big Business Unit) and run the full survey once.
Align governance: Clarify anonymity thresholds (e.g. min 7 respondents), data retention (12–24 months) and no collection of health/special-category data.
Rollout: Extend to other leadership teams once you’ve tested questions, reporting formats and follow-up rituals.
Train leaders: Use 60–90 min sessions on how to read survey data, react constructively and connect it to performance and coaching.
Review annually: Adjust 3–5 questions if they no longer fit your strategy, but keep core trend items stable.

Blueprints for leadership team health surveys

Blueprint	Target group	Question scope	Anonymity	Cadence
Annual leadership team health check	Group/BU leadership + direct reports	Q1–Q50 + O1–O4	Anonymous for Reports; named for Self if agreed	1× per year, linked to strategy or performance cycle
Pre/post strategic offsite pulse	Leadership team only	Before: Q1–Q6, Q7–Q12, Q13–Q18, Q44–Q48. After: same + O2, O3.	Named or semi-anonymous; small group	2–3 weeks before and 6–8 weeks after offsite
Reorg / leadership change pulse	Affected leaders + extended leadership	Q7–Q12, Q25–Q30, Q31–Q36, Q43–Q46, Q49; O1, O2.	Anonymous (min 7 responses per slice)	6–8 weeks after change, then again at 6 months
Quarterly self-reflection survey	Leadership team only	Short set: Q1, Q7, Q13, Q19, Q25, Q31, Q37, Q44, Q50.	Named; used for team coaching, not evaluation	Quarterly, tied to leadership meeting or OKR review

A talent platform like Sprad Growth can help automate survey sends, reminders and follow-up tasks and connect this pulse with your review and 1:1 routines.

Suggested KPIs

Participation rate of direct reports / extended leadership (target ≥75 %).
Average scores per cluster and change vs last survey (target +0,3 per year in focus areas).
Number of agreed actions with owner and deadline per cycle (target 2–4, not 15).
Completion rate of actions within agreed timeframe (target ≥80 %).
Correlation to downstream outcomes: e.g. manager-NPS, regretted attrition, project delays.

Scoring & thresholds (detailed)

To keep leadership team health survey questions practical, connect each cluster to clear triggers. You can store these as rules in your survey tool or HR analytics setup.

Cluster	Questions	Low signal	Primary response
Alignment on strategy & priorities	Q1–Q6	Average <3,5 or high variance >1,0	Strategy clarification + translate into concrete company and team goals.
Decision-making & execution	Q7–Q12	Average <3,5 or Self vs Reports gap >0,7	Clarify decision rights, redesign meeting structure, document decisions.
Trust & psychological safety	Q13–Q18, Q49	Any item <3,0 or Q49 <7,0	Trust-building interventions, coaching, review of leadership behaviour.
Conflict & feedback	Q19–Q24	Average <3,5 plus negative comments	Define conflict rules, practice feedback, bring in neutral facilitator.
Values & culture role modelling	Q37–Q42	Any item <3,5	Review promotions, consequences, and values communication from top.

Decide upfront which 2–3 clusters you will act on each cycle. That keeps the survey credible and manageable.

HR prepares a one-page scorecard per cluster with trends and top 3 comments (anonymised).
Leadership team ranks clusters by risk and impact; selects focus areas in 30–45 minutes.
For each cluster in focus, define 1–2 actions with owner, deadline and success metric.
Publish a short “What we heard / What we’ll do” note to direct reports.

Follow-up & responsibilities (detailed)

Without disciplined follow-up, leadership team health survey questions become another “nice slide deck”. Make responsibilities explicit.

Before launch: HR, Legal, Datenschutz and Betriebsrat agree on purpose, legal basis (usually Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR – legitimate interest), data minimisation and retention.
During survey: HR monitors participation, sends neutral reminders, keeps raw data access restricted.
After survey: HR builds initial analysis; CEO leads the first debrief; later, each leader discusses relevant points with their own team.
Ongoing: HR tracks action progress in a simple register (topic, owner, due date, status) and revisits it in leadership meetings.

For DACH, keep storage periods clear (e.g. delete identifiable data after 24 months), and avoid collecting sensitive data (health, religion, political views). If you use comment fields, explain that personal accusations may trigger duty-to-investigate processes.

Fairness & bias checks (detailed)

Even with leadership team health survey questions, bias can slip in: who answers, who comments, how leaders interpret results. Reduce that risk with simple habits.

Monitor response rates by group; if a group is underrepresented, offer an extra reminder and clarify anonymity rules.
In debriefs, focus on patterns and behaviours, not personalities. Replace “Sales is negative” with “We’ve given Sales 3 conflicting priorities.”
Use the same thresholds and interpretation rules for different leadership teams to avoid “favourites”.

You can link this to other instruments, e.g. 360‑degree feedback or manager surveys, so you see consistent patterns instead of overreacting to a single survey. An HR analytics or survey module (or your existing employee survey software) can help maintain this discipline.

Examples / use cases (detailed)

4. New CEO in a traditional Mittelstand company

Ausgangssituation: A new CEO joins a long-tenured Geschäftsführung. Leadership team health survey questions show strong alignment on priorities but very low scores on conflict and psychological safety.

Maßnahme: The CEO uses the survey as neutral language: “We all want better discussions.” They run a series of workshops on decision speed and healthy conflict, bring in 1–2 external board members for sparring, and adjust meeting facilitation.

Ergebnis: Over a year, trust and conflict scores move above 4,0. Managers report fewer “hidden vetoes” and faster investment decisions.

5. Matrix organisation with chronic cross-functional tension

Ausgangssituation: Product, Sales and Operations often blame each other. Q25–Q30 are below 3,2, while other clusters are fine.

Maßnahme: HR and COO map 3 “end-to-end flows” (e.g. from customer request to delivery) and install joint KPIs. They also define escalation rules so conflicts are solved in a specific weekly forum, not by email wars.

Ergebnis: Within two quarters, cross-functional scores climb, and key customer complaints about handovers drop.

Implementation & updates (detailed)

To keep leadership team health survey questions relevant, update them slowly and deliberately.

Year 1: Run full survey once; document decisions and actions; collect feedback on question clarity.
Year 2: Keep ~80 % of items stable to build trends, and adjust 5–10 questions for new strategic topics.
Year 3+: Integrate with broader performance or talent reviews, e.g. review leadership team health before annual calibration or succession meetings.
Tooling: Use your existing survey platform or a talent system with survey features; ensure EU hosting and data processing agreements.

If you already run engagement or psychologische Sicherheit surveys (for example using templates like in your employee survey tools), align timing so you avoid survey fatigue and can compare patterns.

Conclusion

Healthy leadership teams don’t happen by accident. They work on themselves as deliberately as they work on strategy. Leadership team health survey questions give you an honest mirror: where alignment breaks, where trust is fragile, where decisions stall. You spot problems earlier, discuss them with data instead of opinions, and focus coaching or structural changes where they matter most.

Start small. Pick one leadership team, run the survey, and debrief deeply before you scale. Then link what you learn to your performance and talent routines: promotion decisions, succession planning, manager development. Over time you get three big gains: earlier detection of leadership risks, better-quality conversations at the top, and clearer priorities for how you invest in your leaders.

Concrete next steps: choose your first blueprint (annual check or reorg pulse), set up the questions in your survey or talent tool, clarify GDPR and Betriebsrat topics, and schedule a debrief workshop in the leadership team calendar. Once you have one full cycle behind you, you can refine thresholds, add or remove a few items and embed the survey as a stable part of how you run the company.

FAQ

How often should we run a leadership team health survey?

For most organisations, one full survey per year plus 1–2 shorter pulses is enough. A typical pattern: annual deep-dive with all clusters and open questions, then focused pulses before/after a strategy offsite or after big changes. If you change leadership composition or structure frequently, quarterly self-reflections for the team itself work well. Avoid more than one survey per quarter to prevent fatigue.

Who should see the detailed results?

Raw data (including comments) should be restricted to HR/People and, where agreed, the CEO. The leadership team sees aggregated scores, trends and anonymised comment clusters. Direct reports and the broader organisation should see a simple summary: top 3 insights, top 2–3 actions. This balances transparency with privacy. If accusations or compliance issues appear, handle them under your usual whistleblowing or investigation policies.

What if scores are very low and the CEO is part of the problem?

This is where external support helps. Low scores on trust, conflict and values, combined with critical comments, are a strong signal for board or owner involvement. HR should present patterns, not personal attacks: “We see low psychological safety and inconsistent behaviour vs values.” Supervisory boards can then mandate coaching, mediation or leadership changes. According to a McKinsey analysis, top-team behaviour is one of the strongest levers for organisational performance.

How anonymous should answers to leadership team health survey questions be?

For upward feedback from direct reports, use full anonymity with minimum group sizes (e.g. ≥7 respondents). Don’t show breakdowns where numbers are too small. For the leadership team’s own self-assessment, named responses are fine if you use them only for team development, not for individual bonuses. Communicate clearly what is anonymous, what isn’t, how long data is stored, and who can access it.

How do we update the question set over time?

Keep a stable “core” of 20–30 leadership team health survey questions so you can track trends. Once per year, review all items with the CEO, HR and, if needed, the Betriebsrat. Remove 3–5 questions that never lead to actions. Add 3–5 new items aligned with your current strategy, e.g. digitalisation, sustainability or internationalisation. Document changes so you don’t misinterpret trends that are driven by shifting questions.

Jürgen Ulbrich

CEO & Co-Founder of Sprad

Jürgen Ulbrich has more than a decade of experience in developing and leading high-performing teams and companies. As an expert in employee referral programs as well as feedback and performance processes, Jürgen has helped over 100 organizations optimize their talent acquisition and development strategies.