@Sarah Santacroce and @Nadene Canning I will be there, but could you please confirm the time? 6 p.m. CET corresponds to 12 p.m. ET and not 9 a.m. (which would be Pacific Time). Thanks

@Anand Chaturvedi Thank you very much for sharing this tool. I like the idea of creating tools to help people understand where they are at and support organizations that want to identify needs, expectations, and areas of improvement. I took the liberty to go through the entire tool and I took some notes while doing it. I am sharing the notes here because I want to allow a dialogue and critical thinking, so anyone can feel free to comment and edit. Here they are: A few notes: - Some questions are difficult to answer because of the double-target problem: they actually present two or more questions within a single question. For example, question 12. "I analyze organizational issues by recognizing complexity, interconnections, and properties of systems, helping the team understand deeper causes ("both/and" thinking)", has several targets within it: complexity, interconnections, and properties of systems are three different things, and I might be able to do only one of them. Also, helping the team is another action than analyzing organizational issues, and that creates confusion. - On the same note, question 21 is misleading because it talks about the ability to include different perspectives and backgrounds, but then you add dissenters in brackets, which is a different topic. Someone from a different cultural background may be totally in agreement with you and still be voiceless because of the mainstream group attitudes. - Other questions are very difficult to understand (at least for a non-English-as-first-language speaker), for instance: "I habitually ask inquiring and critical questions regarding significant organizational assertions or plans to identify blind spots in beliefs or evidence". First, it is difficult to say Rarely or Always because of the adverb habitually. When I read these questions (many start with adverbs), I would answer Yes or No, as I cannot say that I rarely habitually do something. Also, it would take a great deal of expertise to determine what significant organizational assertions or plans are, which would also be determined by my position/role/title within the organization. Secondly, I think I would be able to identify blind spots in evidence, but I struggle with thinking about identifying blind spots in beliefs. - So, the scale Rarely to Always might not work well for all your questions. Alternatively, you could use a thermometer on which people can freely position themselves (and then tell the system to apply a 0-10 parameter to have a more nuanced result). - For someone, there might be a need for definitions. For instance, Emotional Intelligence should be defined because many people might not know the concept. - More generally, self-reporting questionnaires are highly affected by social desirability bias, and you will likely obtain overestimated judgments when self-reporting and underestimated ones when, let's say, a supervisor reflects on an employee. An alternative that you might consider adding or using instead is the use of stories where you write scenarios in which the IDGs emerge, and you ask people to answer questions about that story and the people there represented (like, what do you think about John's active listening skills? Would you have done something differently if you were John?) - Finally, if people don't get an immediate report on their results (as in your case), they need to know at the end of the survey what you plan to do with their data. This should also be explained very clearly in the introduction, indicating who is responsible, who they can contact with questions, etc.