Team Trust Score

SHARE YOUR RESULT

Share with your network

Let others know what you discovered about your leadership style.

SHARE ON

COMMUNICATION & PRESENCE

A team member makes a significant error in front of the wider team — something visible, something that has consequences, something others are aware of. The most honest version of what typically happens next in your team is:

The person manages it privately — they address the consequences quietly and the wider team does not discuss it openly The team rallies to help — the response focuses on fixing the problem and the person is supported without much examination of what went wrong The person names it themselves — they acknowledge the mistake directly, the team works through it together, and the conversation produces something useful for how the team operates The leader addresses it — you acknowledge what happened, manage the response, and ensure the team moves forward without prolonged focus on the individual

COMMUNICATION & PRESENCE

When you think about the last time you admitted to your team that you did not know the answer to something, that you had made a mistake, or that you were uncertain about a direction — the most honest version of how recently and how openly that happened is:

Recently and specifically — you model vulnerability deliberately because you know it creates permission for the team to do the same Occasionally — you are open about uncertainty when pressed but it is not something you do deliberately or systematically Rarely — you believe your team needs you to project confidence and you manage your own uncertainty privately In some situations — you are more open with some team members than others, and in some contexts than others

COMMUNICATION & PRESENCE

When there is a genuine difference of view in your team — a real disagreement about direction, approach, or priority that different team members feel strongly about — the most honest version of how your team typically handles it is:

It resolves through deference — the person with the most authority or the strongest view tends to prevail, and others adjust without the disagreement being fully worked through It surfaces and gets worked through — the team is willing to disagree openly, examine different positions carefully, and arrive at a decision that everyone understands even if not everyone preferred it It resolves through process — you have mechanisms for making decisions that allow the team to move forward without requiring everyone to fully agree It goes underground — the formal conversation reaches a conclusion but the underlying disagreement continues in side conversations

COMMUNICATION & PRESENCE

You are in a team meeting. A team member proposes an approach that you believe is wrong — not catastrophically, but meaningfully. Other team members seem to be nodding along. The most honest version of what happens next is:

You redirect — you shift the conversation toward what you think is the right approach without directly naming the disagreement You wait — you let the meeting progress and raise your concern with the team member privately afterwards You name it directly — you say what you think, invite the team member to push back, and let the disagreement be visible and productive in the room You say nothing — the team is in agreement and you do not want to disrupt the momentum by raising a concern you are not certain about

COMMUNICATION & PRESENCE

You believe that team trust is built over time — that the longer people work together, the more they learn to rely on each other, and that the primary ingredient in a high-trust team is shared experience and mutual familiarity. You:

Know that shared experience creates familiarity, not necessarily trust — that what distinguishes a high-trust team from a familiar one is whether people are willing to be genuinely vulnerable with each other, and that vulnerability requires deliberate cultivation rather than simply time Consider this essentially right — teams that have worked together for a long time generally have higher trust than newer teams, and the investment in shared experience is one of the most reliable trust-builders available Know this is part of it but that time alone is not sufficient — high-trust teams require deliberate practices that create conditions for vulnerability and honest disagreement, not just accumulated shared history Know this is true in general but that the pace of trust development can be accelerated by specific leadership behaviours — and that some long-standing teams have very low trust because the shared experience has reinforced avoidance rather than honesty

COMMUNICATION & PRESENCE

When you think about the quality of disagreement in your team meetings — whether the team challenges each other's ideas, surfaces real concerns, and uses conflict productively — the most honest version of what that looks like is:

Conflict is present but not always productive — disagreements happen but they tend to personalise or repeat rather than producing clearer thinking Conflict is present and productive — the team has the ability to disagree sharply without it affecting the relationships, and the disagreements tend to produce better outcomes than the positions that preceded them Conflict is largely absent — the team tends to reach consensus without significant challenge and meetings are generally smooth Conflict happens offline more than in the room — real disagreements tend to emerge in side conversations rather than in the meeting itself

COMMUNICATION & PRESENCE

When you think about the last time a team member came to you or another team member to say they were struggling — with a piece of work, with a relationship in the team, with their own capacity or confidence — the most honest version of how often that happens and what it looks like when it does is:

It happens occasionally and is treated as exceptional — when someone does admit they are struggling it is handled carefully and with appreciation, but it is rare enough to feel notable It happens regularly and naturally — asking for help and naming struggles is a normal part of how the team operates, not a sign of weakness or a performance of courage It happens in one-to-ones more than in the team — people are willing to be vulnerable with you individually but less so with the wider team

COMMUNICATION & PRESENCE

Your team gets along well. Meetings are productive, relationships are positive, and there is very little open conflict. You have built something that most leaders struggle to build — a functional, pleasant, apparently high-performing team environment. And you are sitting with a recognition you have been half-aware of for a while: that the pleasantness has a quality of performance to it. That the things people say to your face and the things they say in side conversations are not quite the same. That the absence of conflict is not the same as the presence of trust. That the team is working and that the team is not quite whole. The most honest version of what you do with that recognition is:

Dismiss it — the team is performing well and the absence of visible conflict is a reasonable indicator of a healthy team dynamic File it — you note the recognition and resolve to pay closer attention, without changing anything specific about how the team operates Examine it — you look for the specific gap between what the team shows publicly and what it actually experiences, and you identify the specific condition that is making the honesty feel unsafe Act on it deliberately — you create a specific, low-stakes opportunity for the team to surface what is actually true for them, and you model the vulnerability that the conversation requires

COMMUNICATION & PRESENCE

You believe that the primary sign of a high-trust team is that team members genuinely enjoy working together — that they have built real relationships, look out for each other personally, and would describe their team as one of the best they have ever been part of. You:

Know that genuine enjoyment and positive relationships are valuable features of a high-performing team — and that the specific form of trust that produces the best outcomes is not primarily relational warmth but the willingness to be genuinely honest with each other, including when that honesty is uncomfortable Know this is partially right but that it conflates cohesion with trust — teams can genuinely enjoy working together while systematically avoiding the honest conversations that high-trust teams are willing to have Consider this essentially right — teams whose members have genuine personal regard for each other are better able to navigate difficulty, give honest feedback, and sustain performance through hard periods Know this is a valuable indicator but not a sufficient one — some of the most pleasant teams produce the least honest feedback and the lowest-quality decisions, precisely because the relationships are too warm to risk with genuine disagreement

COMMUNICATION & PRESENCE

You want to build more genuine trust in your team. The highest-leverage thing you can invest in is:

Team-building activities — shared experiences outside work build the relational foundation that trust requires Clearer expectations and accountability structures — teams that are clear on what is expected and consistently hold each other to it develop trust through the reliability that clarity creates A team values and working norms conversation — getting explicit alignment on how the team will operate creates the shared framework that trust requires Creating a specific moment of genuine vulnerability — modelling the quality of honesty you want the team to practise, in a real situation with real stakes, and observing what becomes possible in the team once you have

COMMUNICATION & PRESENCE

When a team member raises a concern about how something is working in the team — a process, a dynamic, a pattern of behaviour — the most honest version of what typically happens is:

The concern is heard and validated but not always acted on — team members feel listened to but sometimes wonder whether surfacing concerns actually changes anything The concern is welcomed and examined — the team treats it as information rather than complaint, works through what it reveals, and closes the loop on what changed as a result The concern is managed carefully — you acknowledge it, address the individual's experience, and decide privately what to do about it Concerns are rarely raised directly — the team norm is to handle things quietly rather than surface them as team-level issues

COMMUNICATION & PRESENCE

When you think about how well team members understand each other's actual workload, challenges, and constraints — not just their formal responsibilities but what they are actually carrying and what is genuinely hard for them — the most honest account of that understanding is:

Well — the team has enough genuine visibility into each other's actual work that they can offer real help, calibrate their expectations of each other, and share load when it is needed Partially — team members know what each other is formally responsible for but have limited insight into what each person is actually experiencing in their work Minimally — team members work independently enough that there is limited mutual visibility into each other's actual experience of their work Reasonably — the team has a general sense of each other's workload but the specific texture of what is challenging tends not to be shared

COMMUNICATION & PRESENCE

When you think about the quality of conversations in your team — the degree to which people say what they actually think rather than what they believe is expected or safe — the most honest version of where the gap is:

The gap is significant — the conversations in the room and the conversations outside it are materially different, and the team knows it The gap is minimal — what people say in team conversations is largely what they actually think, and the side conversations tend to refine rather than contradict what was said in the meeting The gap exists but varies — some conversations are genuinely honest and others have a more performed quality, and you could name which topics tend to produce each The gap is moderate — there are things the team discusses openly and things that tend to be managed rather than named, and the difference is visible to anyone paying attention

COMMUNICATION & PRESENCE

The most honest version of your team's relationship with accountability to each other — not to you as the leader, but to each other — is:

Accountability flows primarily through you — team members are accountable to you for their commitments but less so to each other directly Accountability is present but selective — team members do hold each other accountable in some contexts and avoid it in others, and the avoidance is more comfortable than the holding Accountability is inconsistent — it happens in some relationships on the team and not in others, based more on personal dynamics than team norms Accountability is a team norm — team members hold each other to commitments directly and comfortably, without it requiring your involvement or feeling like a significant act of courage

1 of 14

Free Newsletter

Get Weekly Leadership Insights

Join thousands of leaders who get free tips on executive presence, career growth, and leadership psychology every week.

Weekly tips

New quizzes first

Free resources

No spam ever

Email(Required)

We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe anytime.

Related Quizzes You Should Take Next

Psychological Safety Creator

Team trust and psychological safety describe the same underlying condition from different angles. This quiz assesses your specific leadership practices — the things you do or do not do in every team interaction — that are building or eroding the psychological safety conditions that team trust requires.

Difficult Conversations Readiness

The most important indicator of genuine team trust is whether difficult conversations happen when they need to happen. This quiz assesses how ready you are to have the specific conversations that trust requires — and what is getting in the way of having them more consistently

Conflict Resolution Style Quiz

Productive conflict is the practical expression of team trust. This quiz identifies your natural approach to conflict and whether it is creating conditions for the team to use disagreement as a source of better thinking, or whether it is systematically resolving conflict in ways that suppress the honesty the team needs.

Emotional Intelligence at Work

Building and maintaining team trust requires a specific quality of emotional attunement — the ability to read what the team is actually experiencing, to manage your own reactions in ways that create safety rather than close it down, and to respond to vulnerability in others in ways that make the next act of vulnerability more likely. This quiz assesses the specific emotional intelligence dimensions most directly connected to trust leadership.

Share with your network

A team member makes a significant error in front of the wider team — something visible, something that has consequences, something others are aware of. The most honest version of what typically happens next in your team is:

When you think about the last time you admitted to your team that you did not know the answer to something, that you had made a mistake, or that you were uncertain about a direction — the most honest version of how recently and how openly that happened is:

When there is a genuine difference of view in your team — a real disagreement about direction, approach, or priority that different team members feel strongly about — the most honest version of how your team typically handles it is:

You are in a team meeting. A team member proposes an approach that you believe is wrong — not catastrophically, but meaningfully. Other team members seem to be nodding along. The most honest version of what happens next is:

You believe that team trust is built over time — that the longer people work together, the more they learn to rely on each other, and that the primary ingredient in a high-trust team is shared experience and mutual familiarity. You:

When you think about the quality of disagreement in your team meetings — whether the team challenges each other's ideas, surfaces real concerns, and uses conflict productively — the most honest version of what that looks like is:

You believe that the primary sign of a high-trust team is that team members genuinely enjoy working together — that they have built real relationships, look out for each other personally, and would describe their team as one of the best they have ever been part of. You:

You want to build more genuine trust in your team. The highest-leverage thing you can invest in is:

When a team member raises a concern about how something is working in the team — a process, a dynamic, a pattern of behaviour — the most honest version of what typically happens is:

When you think about how well team members understand each other's actual workload, challenges, and constraints — not just their formal responsibilities but what they are actually carrying and what is genuinely hard for them — the most honest account of that understanding is:

When you think about the quality of conversations in your team — the degree to which people say what they actually think rather than what they believe is expected or safe — the most honest version of where the gap is:

The most honest version of your team's relationship with accountability to each other — not to you as the leader, but to each other — is:

Get Weekly Leadership Insights

Get Weekly Leadership Insights

© 2025 LeadershipQuizHub — Created by Devika Das