The problem
ASKING FOR OPINIONS WITH LIKERT SCALES
We nicely translate our objectives into a year planning.
Inflation at the top
Likert often asks "rate yourself 1 to 5". Senior roles consistently anchor near the top of the scale, regardless of objective performance. The data is biased before analysis begins.
Non-comparability
A "4" from a junior and a "4" from an executive describe different realities. Likert cannot tell you which is closer to truth, so the average becomes meaningless.
The safe middle
About 50% of respondents pick "slightly agree", so every organization scores roughly a 7 out of 10. Nothing wrong, right? Wrong, the scale flattens reality and hides the gaps you actually need to see.
The solution
ASKING FOR VERIFIABLE FACTS AND AMBITION
Have team objectives been translated into a year planning?
Under the hood
Each questionnaire is segmented per (sub-)topic and per role. The platform runs a scalability check on every dataset, so unreliable items are flagged and excluded before any insight is generated. The result is comparable, objective, hard data on soft topics.
Ordered by difficulty
Our verifiable answers are ordered by maturity: agreeing with item 3 implies agreeing with items 1 and 2. Self-inflation collapses, because every claim implies harder claims below it.
Now versus ambition
Respondents mark where they are today and where they want to be in the near future. The gap between the two becomes the Praioritization signal, not a flattering self-rating.
Academic foundation