Trouble signing in? Contact the programme administrator.
You are being asked to describe the behaviours you have observed in each member of the leadership team, including yourself, against the L7 'Senior leader' level of the gcWaymakers behavioural framework. This is a baseline, not a judgement: it exists to answer 'what does good look like here?' and to help each of us grow.
How your feedback is handled. Your responses go directly and only to the programme administrator. Results are reported back as anonymised, aggregated patterns; no individual comment is ever attributed to you. Your self-assessment is the one exception: it is compared, privately, with the aggregated view of your colleagues.
Every rating needs at least one specific example. Feedback without a concrete example cannot be accepted, because it cannot be acted on. The 'Guidance and examples' tab shows what a usable example looks like.
Your name is used only to separate your self-assessment from your feedback on colleagues. It never appears in reporting.
A rating on its own tells a colleague almost nothing. A rating with a specific example tells them exactly what to keep doing, or what to do differently. So this portal only accepts a rating when it is backed by at least one concrete example: a real situation, what the person actually did, and what happened as a result. 'Kind, not just nice. Honest, not just polite.'
Situation ('In the March partner meeting…'), behaviour ('…she paused the debate and asked what the client would want…'), result ('…and the group changed its recommendation'). If your example has those three parts, it will be accepted and, more importantly, it will be useful.
Not everyone on this team has worked closely with everyone else, and honesty matters more than coverage. If you have not seen enough of someone to rate a behaviour, use the ‘I am unable to rate this person on this behaviour because…’ option and select every reason that applies. Please do not guess a rating to be polite. An honest ‘I cannot say’ is itself valuable data: it maps how meaningfully integrated this team currently is, and it is reported as such.
Reports show aggregated patterns only, with each pattern's strength stated plainly. If eight of ten respondents describe the same behaviour, that carries materially more weight than a single observation. The tiers used in reporting are:
| Share of respondents | How it is reported |
|---|---|
| 80% or more | A strong, consistent pattern; material weight |
| 50–79% | A clear emerging pattern |
| 25–49% | A pattern worth exploring |
| Below 25% | An isolated observation; treated with caution |
With ten respondents, one voice is 10%. An isolated observation is not discarded, but it is never presented as if it were consensus.
Load the CSV export from Formspree (Forms → Submissions → Export), or paste submission JSON below. All processing happens in this browser; nothing is uploaded anywhere.
Or paste one or more submission JSON objects (from the notification emails):