What these assessments do for you
The Manager Readiness Assessment is a free tool that gives you a structured read on how you manage today and where to grow next. This page explains what it measures, how it is built, and how to read your result, so you know exactly what you are getting before you spend six minutes on it.
Six areas of managing a team
The assessment reads six areas that decide whether a frontline manager succeeds: leadership mindset, the shift from doing the work to leading the people who do it; communication and direction, setting clear expectations and keeping people aligned; coaching and development, growing people rather than only assigning work; feedback and accountability, addressing issues early, fairly, and on the record; delegation, getting work done through the team; and time and priorities, protecting the team from thrash and planning ahead.
The result is a profile across these six areas, with a named maturity stage for each and overall. The stage describes how developed your management approach is today, so you can see your starting point and build from it. It leads with your strengths first, then names the two areas where focused attention will move you and your team furthest.
Real situations, mapped to a clear model
Each item is a short, realistic situation a frontline manager faces, with response options anchored to how a strong manager handles it. This is a situational judgment method: it reads the judgment behind your choices, built on a defined competency model and real job content, and reviewed by people who have managed frontline teams. The options are shuffled so the strong answer is never in a fixed place. It is development and self-reflection only, and it is never built or used as a hiring, promotion, or selection instrument. The research basis for the method, with checkable published sources, is in Situational judgment and maturity stages.
Straight about what you get
This is a structured development read built for managers who want a clear picture of how they lead today and where to grow next. It gives you a profile and a development plan grounded in real management situations, with specific next steps you can act on this week. We focus the result on practical reflection and direction rather than a score or a peer ranking, so you walk away with something you can use rather than a number to interpret.
From a read to a plan
Use the result to guide your own growth. The development plan points each area you want to build toward the specific TrueStep HR tools, scripts, and templates that address it, so you leave with a next step rather than a verdict. Talk the result over with someone you trust, a mentor or your own manager, and take it again in a few months to see what has moved.
Two streams, and the gap between them
EQ at Work is built as two separate streams. Three sections are scenario-based: Reading emotions gives you a workplace situation and four emotion options with one keyed answer, scored right or wrong against published appraisal research; Steadying yourself and Handling the moment are situational judgment sections where every response option carries a documented effectiveness weight from the emotion regulation literature, so your result reflects the quality of your choices rather than a self-rating. The fourth section, How you see yourself, is plain self-report, and the report labels it that way: a self-view, never a skill. A test built only on self-rating measures how you see yourself, and self-rated EQ overlaps heavily with established personality traits. Keeping the streams separate is the point.
Results come back as criterion-referenced stages: the bands are documented judgments about what strong looks like, not a curve, so there is no percentile and no comparison to other people. The centerpiece is the gap read. For each emotion management area, the report puts your self-view band next to your scenario stage and names the relationship in plain language: aligned, self-view runs ahead, or the scenarios run ahead. That gap is the insight a single self-report score cannot give you. The scenario sections are keyed to published appraisal and emotion regulation research, not to a validation study of this instrument, and it is development and self-reflection only, never hiring, promotion, or selection. The research basis, with checkable published sources, is in Emotional intelligence at work.
A manager’s read of the team, labeled as exactly that
The Manager View of Team Conditions is built on the published construct: Amy Edmondson’s 1999 definition of team psychological safety as the shared belief that a team is safe for interpersonal risk. Its twenty original items are organized around the behaviors her research instrument tests, raising problems, admitting mistakes, asking for help, and respect for people who differ, plus the pairing her work insists on: safety works only alongside high standards. Four reported areas follow that structure: Speaking Up, Mistakes and Learning, Help and Respect, and Standards With Safety.
The check is manager-answered, and the report says so plainly. Psychological safety is a property of a team, measured in research by surveying the team itself, so a manager’s answers are a structured self-review and a starting point for a team conversation, not a measured team survey and never a verdict on the manager. Results come back as criterion bands, At Risk, Developing, and Established, with no numeric score and no percentile, and the overall read cannot show Established while any area reads At Risk. Not knowing an answer scores low by design, because not knowing how the team handles risk is itself part of the read. It is built for team development only, never hiring, selection, or the evaluation of any individual. The research basis, with checkable published sources, is in Psychological safety at work.
Scenario play scored against the research, beside your self-view
The Conflict at Work Check is built on the published research on conflict handling: the dual-concern model behind the five familiar styles, the interest-based negotiation work of Fisher and Ury, and the de-escalation evidence on pace and paraphrase. Its twenty original scenarios put you in real workplace conflicts and score each response option by effectiveness against that literature, organized into four reported areas: Raising It Early, Staying Steady, Working the Problem, and Repair and Follow-Through.
The check also asks one self-view question per area and reports the gap between how you rate yourself and how you played the scenarios, labeled as directional, because it rests on a single self item per area. That gap is the finding the research predicts: in the reference study, 31% of managers rated themselves skilled at conflict while 22% of their employees agreed. Results come back as criterion bands, Reactive, Developing, and Skilled, with no numeric score and no percentile, and the overall read cannot show Skilled while any area reads Reactive. It is built for personal development only, never hiring, selection, or the evaluation of any individual. The research basis, with checkable published sources, is in Workplace conflict: the research.
Scenario play scored against the healthcare evidence, beside your self-view
The Clinic Manager Assessment is built on the published evidence about frontline management in healthcare: the relational-leadership findings of the nursing leadership literature (Cummings et al. 2018 systematic review), the structured-selection evidence Gallup documents, and the first-year retention window in the 2026 NSI healthcare data, where 29.5% of new hires left inside a year. Its twenty original scenarios put you in real clinic situations, a Monday double call-out, a resignation, provider friction, a rising no-show rate, and score each response option by effectiveness against that evidence, organized into four reported areas: Coverage and Scheduling, Hiring and First-Year Retention, Performance and Conflict, and Running the Numbers.
The assessment also asks one self-view question per area and reports the gap between how you rate yourself and how you played the scenarios, labeled as directional, because it rests on a single self item per area. That gap is the finding the research predicts for this seat: in Gallup’s January 2026 data, 65% of frontline supervisors were placed for individual performance or tenure rather than supervisory skill, the promoted-for-performance pattern that leaves self-assessment calibrated to the old job. Results come back as criterion bands, Reactive, Developing, and Skilled, with no numeric score and no percentile, and the overall read cannot show Skilled while any area reads Reactive. It is built for personal development only, never hiring, selection, or the evaluation of any individual. The research basis, with checkable published sources, is in The clinic manager: the research.
Scenario play scored against the logistics evidence, beside your self-view
The Warehouse Supervisor Assessment is built on the published evidence about frontline supervision in warehousing and distribution: the peer-reviewed finding that warehouse turnover runs more through day-to-day treatment than through pay (Min 2007), the promoted-for-performance findings Gallup documents, and the churn this seat operates in, where BLS JOLTS data for 2025 shows the transportation, warehousing, and utilities grouping separating 4.0% of its workforce per month, about 48% across the year. Its twenty original scenarios put you on a real DC floor, a Monday call-out wave, a points dispute for your best picker, a shortcut under a tight ship window, a new hire going quiet, and score each response option by effectiveness against that evidence, organized into five reported areas: Coverage and the Shift Handoff, Attendance and the Points System, Safety Pace vs Throughput, Performance and Conflict, and First-Year Retention.
The assessment also asks one self-view question per area and reports the gap between how you rate yourself and how you played the scenarios, labeled as directional, because it rests on a single self item per area. That gap is the finding the research predicts for this seat: in Gallup’s January 2026 data, 65% of frontline supervisors were placed for individual performance or tenure rather than supervisory skill, the promoted-for-performance pattern that leaves self-assessment calibrated to the old job. Results come back as criterion bands, Reactive, Developing, and Skilled, with no numeric score and no percentile, and the overall read cannot show Skilled while any area reads Reactive. It is built for personal development only, never hiring, selection, or the evaluation of any individual. The research basis, with checkable published sources, is in The warehouse supervisor: the research.
Scenario play scored against the construction evidence, beside your self-view
The Construction Foreman Assessment is built on the published evidence about running a crew: the peer-reviewed construction turnover literature finding that supportive supervision raises measured retention, not just satisfaction (Construction Management and Economics, 2024, reviewing Chih et al. 2018), the promoted-for-performance findings Gallup documents, and the industry this seat operates in, where BLS JOLTS data for 2025 shows construction separating 4.0% of its workforce per month, about 48% across the year with a deliberately layoff-heavy shape, where the BLS census recorded 1,034 workplace fatalities in 2024, the most of any sector, and where Associated Builders and Contractors estimates 349,000 net new workers are needed in 2026. Its twenty original scenarios put you on a real jobsite, two no-shows on pour morning, a tie-off shortcut with the deadline tomorrow, a failed rough-in with drywall scheduled Friday, a good hand fielding an offer from across town, and score each response option by effectiveness against that evidence, organized into five reported areas: Manpower and the Look-Ahead, Safety Leadership on the Job, Quality and Rework, Performance and Conflict, and Keeping the Crew.
The assessment also asks one self-view question per area and reports the gap between how you rate yourself and how you played the scenarios, labeled as directional, because it rests on a single self item per area. That gap is the finding the research predicts for this seat: in Gallup’s January 2026 data, 65% of frontline supervisors were placed for individual performance or tenure rather than supervisory skill, the promoted-off-the-tools pattern that leaves self-assessment calibrated to the old job. Results come back as criterion bands, Reactive, Developing, and Skilled, with no numeric score and no percentile, and the overall read cannot show Skilled while any area reads Reactive. It is built for personal development only, never hiring, selection, or the evaluation of any individual, and its safety scenarios read supervision behavior, not compliance guidance. The research basis, with checkable published sources, is in The construction foreman: the research.
See how you manage today
Thirty situations, about nine minutes, free. You will get your profile and a development plan you can act on this week. No sign-up to see your result.