TEAM REPORT
Team Logistica — Cartiera Levante S.r.l.
SAMPLE DATAThis is the report your team would receive when the window closes. The numbers on this page are invented for demonstration.
Instrument undergoing psychometric validation: read these results as a description to discuss, not as a measurement.
↑ Team Clarity (TCL)Relationship Quality (REL) →
IMPROVEMENT FOCUS
Focus & Prioritize
Relationships are a solid base; clarity on goals, roles and processes is the ground to work on first.
Relationship Quality
5.12
on a 1–7 scale · team mean
Team Clarity
3.68
on a 1–7 scale · team mean
ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT INDICATOR (OCL)
Describes how readable the organizational context is for the team. It sits beside the quadrant, not inside: it is not a third axis nor a total score.
4.21Intermediate context clarityon a 1–7 scale · team mean
low clarity · < 3.5clear · ≥ 4.5
FACET PROFILES
Relationship Quality (REL)
Trust5.34
Psychological safety5.61
Communication & collaboration4.88
Conflict management4.72
Cohesion & belonging5.42
Collective emotional intelligence4.75
Team Clarity (TCL)
Goal clarity3.29
Role clarity3.71
Process clarity4.04
Organizational Context (OCL)
Strategic communication4.42
Decision transparency3.75
Goal alignment4.46
PERCEIVED OUTCOMES (GO)Internal perception · not a performance measure
4.55
on a 1–7 scale · team mean
Goal definition4.38
Goal achievement4.72
3.92
OPTIONAL MODULE · WORD-ACTION COHERENCE
Outside the quadrant and outside the context indicator. Exploratory reading: useful as a discussion topic.
TREND OVER TIME
3 surveys so far, to be read as a direction
The comparison is between team means, not between the same people: who responds changes from one window to the next. It shows a direction, it does not certify progress.
Trajectory in the quadrant
↑ Team Clarity (TCL)Relationship Quality (REL) →
Surveys so far
July 20257/8 respondents first surveyREL 4.42 · TCL 3.15
January 20266/8 respondentsREL 4.81 · TCL 3.42
July 20268/8 respondentsREL 5.12 · TCL 3.68
Next survey suggestedJanuary 2027
What changed, facet by facetCompared with the January 2026 survey.
Indifference zone: any change within ±0.30 is written as “stable”, even when the number moves.
Trust
5.34↑ +0.36up
Psychological safety
5.61→ +0.06stable
Communication & collaboration
4.88↑ +0.44up
Conflict management
4.72→ -0.08stable
Cohesion & belonging
5.42→ +0.22stable
Collective emotional intelligence
4.75→ -0.15stable
Goal clarity
3.29→ +0.24stable
Role clarity
3.71↑ +0.43up
Process clarity
4.04→ +0.10stable
Strategic communication
4.42→ -0.18stable
Decision transparency
3.75↓ -0.45down
Goal alignment
4.46→ +0.11stable
How to read the trend: with 8 respondents, a small difference can come from chance or simply from someone else answering. None of these changes is a statistical test and none proves causation. Treat them as questions to bring into a meeting, not as grades.
Full form. The two questionnaire forms are not comparable with each other: scores from a short survey do not sit next to those from a full one.
How to read: team means on a 1–7 scale, two decimals. No individual answer is visible or reconstructable. Descriptive thresholds: 4.0 on the quadrant axes; OCL bands at 3.5 and 4.5. Scores within ±0.25 of a boundary should be read as “borderline”, not as clear membership.
WHO BUILT THIS INSTRUMENT
The CRF is a free research instrument by Luca Troso, an independent organizational consultant and trainer. If you want to read this report together with your team, or work out what to do with it, write to me.