Cross-Validated Leadership Diagnostics

Important leadership decisions deserve validated data. Not a single survey.

Seven published instruments checking each other. Peer-rated relational network data, not just self-report. Honesty detection built in. One 35-minute assessment per person, and you know who trusts whom, who will resist, and where alignment actually breaks.

Book a Demo See the Science

GDPR-first. Betriebsvereinbarung templates. Min-5 anonymity.

sync 7 Cross-Validated Instruments hub Peer-Rated Relational Network verified 7 Data Honesty Gates science Published, Peer-Reviewed Science
monitoring Team Diagnostic
57
Team Coherence Trust · Alignment · Communication · Influence
Trust
5.8
Alignment
7.2
Communication
4.1
Influence
6.3
warning Trust CTO→CFO: 8.2 | CFO→CTO: 3.1. Asymmetry detected

The gap between what you see and what is actually happening

check_circle What you see
check_circle

The offsite went well

check_circle

Everyone agreed on the new strategy

check_circle

New hire is fitting in nicely

warning What is actually happening
warning

Two VPs haven't trusted each other since Q2

warning

Alignment was stated, not measured. Priorities diverge 40%.

warning

Influence funnels through one person who is disengaging

You already sense this. Cross-validated data makes it actionable.

What you can't see is already shaping outcomes

Every team has hidden dynamics. The question is whether you discover them before or after they derail your next initiative.

slideshow

Trust asymmetries you can't see in a meeting

Person A trusts Person B. Person B doesn't trust Person A. This invisible one-way gap erodes collaboration, creates bottlenecks, and poisons delegation. No amount of team offsites will surface it.

Trust is rarely mutual
sentiment_dissatisfied

Influence concentrations nobody chose

One person shapes every decision. Not because they're the best, but because the team's influence map funnels through them. When they leave or disengage, the whole structure wobbles.

Hidden influence ≠ formal authority
visibility_off

The alignment that exists only in words

Everyone says they're aligned. But sociometric distance scores tell a different story: priorities diverge, communication is selective, and real commitment varies wildly across pairs.

Stated alignment ≠ measured alignment

One undetected trust asymmetry between two senior leaders costs more in wasted execution than a decade of diagnostics.

What Peritiq measures. And why each matters.

Every team member rates every other member on four relational dimensions, blind and independently. The patterns tell the story.

handshake

Trust

"How much do I trust this person's judgment and intentions?"

Low trust = defensive behavior, information hoarding, CYA culture. Trust is the foundation. Without it, the other three dimensions are noise.

Sample output CTO→CFO: 8.2 | CFO→CTO: 3.1. Asymmetry invisible in meetings

warning Asymmetric trust is the #1 predictor of post-merger failure

center_focus_strong

Alignment

"Are we working toward the same priorities?"

Misalignment = parallel execution, conflicting goals, resources pulled in opposite directions. The most expensive invisible failure mode.

Sample output Strategy clarity: CEO 9.1 | VP Sales 4.7. Stated ≠ measured

warning Every point of alignment gap costs ~3 weeks of wasted execution

forum

Communication

"How effectively do we exchange information?"

Poor communication = decisions on incomplete data, information silos, duplicated effort. The heatmap shows who talks to whom, and who doesn't.

Sample output 73% of info routes through one person. Single point of failure

warning Information bottlenecks correlate with 2.4x longer decision cycles

hub

Influence

"Whose input actually shapes decisions?"

Concentrated influence = fragile teams, single points of failure, exit risk. Healthy teams distribute influence across functions.

Sample output Formal authority: CEO | Actual influence: VP Engineering

warning When the actual influencer leaves, the team loses more than a role

Leadership Intelligence Module

How well does your team actually align?

A structural analysis of shared vision, decision styles, and collaboration dynamics for up to 10 team members. Not a personality quiz. A framework for understanding how your team works together.

pie_chart

Vision alignment map

See where your team shares strategic direction and where perspectives diverge.

diversity_3

Decision style compatibility

Understand how each member approaches decisions and where friction may arise.

swap_horiz

Conflict & synergy radar

Surface potential friction areas and hidden synergies so the team can address them proactively.

auto_awesome

Self-awareness insights

Discover perception gaps: how each member sees themselves vs. how the team experiences them.

grid_view Tension Heatmap
Eliana
Daniel
Team
Vision Alignment
82
68
75
Decision Style Fit
91
84
88
Pressure Compatibility
65
78
72
Commitment Balance
95
100
98
Working Relationship
73
66
70
Self-Awareness
28
34
31
warning Critical 31/100
Self-Awareness Gap

One or more members have a significant gap between how they see themselves and how the team experiences them.

auto_awesome Becomes visible during 360 feedback, retrospectives, or when teammates express frustration the affected member cannot relate to.

This tool is designed for team development and alignment, not for hiring, firing, or performance evaluation decisions.

One assessment per person. 35 minutes. Seven instruments cross-validated. Results within a week.

Your next leadership decision is too important for unchecked data.

See what seven cross-validated instruments reveal about your team.

Book a Demo

GDPR-first. Betriebsvereinbarung templates. Min-5 anonymity.

Seven instruments. One cross-validated answer.

Each instrument measures a different dimension of leadership. What makes the difference: they check each other. A personality self-assessment is validated against peer ratings. Trust scores are validated against the relational network. Contradictions are surfaced, not hidden.

hub

4D Sociometric Mapping

Blind NxN input across trust, alignment, communication, and influence. Every relationship measured independently.

Based on Jacob L. Moreno's sociometry (1934). 90 years of organizational psychology.
grid_view

NxN Asymmetry Heatmaps

Pair-level distance scores reveal asymmetries no meeting ever surfaces. Row and column averages expose isolation patterns.

A trusts B (distance 3), B trusts A (distance 8). The heatmap makes it structural.
radar

Leadership Style Radar

Five-dimension pentagon with baseline vs. under-stress overlay. 10 archetypes from the intersection of Big Five, conflict style, and derailer profile.

Strategic Openness, Execution Discipline, Engagement Style, Confrontation Tolerance, Emotional Steadiness
compare_arrows

Pair Compatibility Matrix

Every pair of leaders scored on five dimensions: Strategic Alignment, Decision Compatibility, Pressure Response, Engagement Parity, and Interpersonal Fit.

Connects sociometric perception data with behavioral profile matching
shield

Dark-Side Risk Map

Five derailer dimensions scored 0–100 per member. Heatmap view reveals team-level behavioral risk concentrations before they surface in a crisis.

Overreach, Volatility, Withdrawal, Suspicion, Micromanagement
science

Execution Simulator New

Upload a strategic initiative. The simulator uses real sociometric and behavioral data to predict friction, passive resistance, coalition risks, and readiness.

Readiness score, coalition prediction, friction mapping. Before you announce.

Not another survey. Cross-validated diagnostic intelligence.

Most tools ask people what they think and report the answer. We do that too, then check whether peer-rated relational data confirms it, whether the responses are honest, and whether different instruments agree. That is cross-validation. That is the difference.

groups
Cross-validated

Blind-input sociometric assessment

Every team member rates every other member independently, before seeing anyone else's input. No anchoring, no conformity, no performance. What surfaces is the real relational map of your team.

Engagement surveys where everyone gives safe answers
analytics
Cross-validated

NxN heatmaps with asymmetry detection New

Full pair-by-pair matrices across trust, alignment, communication, and influence. Color-coded cells reveal where relationships are mutual and where the gap between two people's perceptions signals a real problem.

Aggregate team scores that hide what actually matters
description
Cross-validated

GDPR-compliant and works-council ready

BV template in 5 jurisdictions. Consent gate. Min-5 anonymity for pair data. 24-month auto-deletion. AI processes real names under GDPR-compliant DPA. Your works council will approve this.

Tools that promise privacy but store everything in plain text

Self-report tells you what people believe. Cross-validation tells you what holds up.

All published science. Our innovation is how we connect and validate it.

Every framework we use is peer-reviewed and published. We did not invent new science. What we built: the cross-validation layer that checks each instrument against the others, a peer-rated relational network that goes beyond self-report, and honesty detection that flags when data is unreliable. The combination produces insights no single instrument can generate alone.

checklist
Layer 1

Self-report, checked

Each leader completes a self-assessment across personality, conflict style, resilience, and transformation capacity. But self-report alone has a ceiling: people answer what they believe, or what they want to be true. That is why the next layer exists.

hub
Layer 2

Peer-rated relational data

Every team member rates every other member across trust, alignment, communication, and influence. Blind, independent, directional. This is a fundamentally different type of data from self-report. When the two contradict, you see where the gap between narrative and reality actually sits.

verified
Layer 3

Honesty and contradiction detection

Seven automated quality gates test every response for acquiescence, social desirability, straight-lining, speed anomalies, and cross-instrument contradiction. If someone claims high trust but the peer network shows asymmetry, the system flags it. You never act on a single unchecked number.

Built on published, peer-reviewed science. Our item adaptations, scoring algorithms, and composite indices (Transformation Depth Index, Social Dynamics Index, Network Agent Score) are proprietary. The cross-validation layer that connects them is what makes the data trustworthy enough for serious decisions.

Seven quality gates. Before any number reaches you.

verified Response consistency straighten Straight-line detection timer Completion time checks psychology Impression management filter sentiment_satisfied Social desirability correction sync Cross-instrument coherence analytics Statistical significance

Every response is tested for honesty, consistency, and statistical integrity. If the data is not reliable, you know before you act on it.

What research says about the dynamics you can't see in a meeting

85% of employees withhold concerns from leadership Blind-input sociometric ratings surface the trust and alignment gaps that silence hides. Google Project Aristotle
75% of people conform to the group answer under social pressure Independent distance ratings before group discussion eliminate anchoring and conformity bias. Asch conformity studies, replicated 2022
60% of executive decision time is poorly spent NxN heatmaps and AI analysis pinpoint exactly where the misalignment lives, so you fix the right problem. McKinsey Organizational Health, 2023
2x performance uplift when leadership teams are measurably aligned Repeatable sociometric diagnostics make alignment measurable, not assumed. McKinsey Organizational Health, 2023

Works-council ready. Not as an afterthought.

gavel

BV Templates

Betriebsvereinbarung templates for 5 jurisdictions. Ready to sign.

shield

Consent Gates

Min-5 anonymity. Digital consent. Revocable at any time.

delete_sweep

Data Lifecycle

24-month auto-deletion. EU-hosted. No individual profiling.

Your data, two levels of depth.

Peer-rated relational data is too sensitive and too powerful to deliver without professional context. That is not a limitation. It is how every serious assessment works. Hogan, SHL, CCL, and every validated 360 follow the same principle.

dashboard

What you see directly

Your leadership dashboard with real-time access.

  • check_circle KPI scores across all four dimensions
  • check_circle AI executive summary with key findings
  • check_circle Team-level aggregates and trend tracking
  • check_circle Execution simulation results
  • check_circle Decision Lab and what-if scenarios
psychology

What your consultant unlocks

The full diagnostic, interpreted by a Peritiq-certified professional.

  • lock_open Pair-by-pair relational matrices (NxN)
  • lock_open Individual behavioral profiles and dark-side risks
  • lock_open Detailed sociometric network maps
  • lock_open Cross-validation deep dives per person
  • lock_open Intervention recommendations with named context
shield

Why this matters

A leader seeing raw trust asymmetry data about specific people without professional guidance could cause real damage. The consultant ensures the data drives the right actions, not reactive management, not punishment, not politics.

This is the same standard used by Hogan, SHL, and every serious leadership diagnostic. We built it this way because <strong>the data deserves the same care as the people it describes</strong>.

You measure revenue, retention, and velocity. Leadership dynamics deserve the same rigour.

Seven instruments. Cross-validated. Peer-reviewed science. Works-council ready.

Book a Demo

GDPR-first. Works-council templates. Results within a week.