EQV Communication Effectiveness Assessment
EQV Framework  ·  Diagnostic Instrument

Communication
Effectiveness Assessment

Multi-Rater Assessment  |  20 Items  |  Four Channels
Esse Quam Videri — To Be Rather Than to Seem
Progress
0%
About This Assessment

Most Organizational Dysfunction Is a Communication Problem Wearing a Strategy Costume

Brilliant strategy, strong talent, and real potential can all fail when the communication system cannot carry them. The EQV Communication Effectiveness Assessment diagnoses the exact breakdowns creating drag in your organization — and produces a Communication Health Profile showing precisely where clarity breaks down and what it is costing you.

Rate each statement based on what you actually observe — how communication works in practice, not how it is intended to work. Your candid response produces the most accurate and actionable results. All data is confidential and reported in aggregate only.

01Leadership Communication
02Cross-Functional Communication
03Feedback Communication
04Crisis Communication
Rating Scale
1Strongly
Disagree
2Disagree
3Neutral
4Agree
5Strongly
Agree
Rate what you observe, not what you wish.
Channel 01
Leadership Communication
Evaluates how effectively vision, strategy, and expectations flow from leadership into the organization. Messages that land with distorted meaning, arrive incomplete, or reach the wrong people too late are the defining symptom of a broken leadership communication channel.
1
Leadership communicates a clear and consistent vision that team members understand and can connect to their daily work.
2
Strategic decisions are communicated with enough context for team members to understand the reasoning, not just the outcome.
3
Important information from leadership reaches the people who need it before it becomes critical, not after.
4
Expectations from leadership are specific and measurable — not vague or open to multiple interpretations.
5
Leadership actively listens to input and feedback from the organization — communication flows both up and down, not only top-down.
Channel 02
Cross-Functional Communication
Measures how well information moves between teams, departments, and functions. Handoff failures, siloed information, and teams operating on assumptions instead of clarity are the primary symptoms of a broken cross-functional communication channel.
6
When work passes between teams or departments, the handoff is clear — the receiving team understands what they need and why.
7
Teams and departments proactively share information that other teams need, rather than waiting to be asked.
8
Cross-functional projects rarely stall because one team was not informed about a decision, change, or dependency.
9
There are clear, shared norms for how teams communicate with each other across functions — not left to individual improvisation.
10
When I need information from another team to do my job, I can reliably get it without friction or delays.
Channel 03
Feedback Communication
Assesses whether feedback in the organization is specific, timely, and genuinely developmental — or vague, delayed, and occasionally devastating. A broken feedback channel means people either receive no signal about their performance or receive it too late and without actionable direction.
11
Feedback in this organization is given in a timely manner — close to the event or behavior it addresses, not weeks or months later.
12
Feedback I receive is specific enough that I know exactly what to change or continue — not generic or vague.
13
Leaders in this organization give feedback regularly — it is not reserved only for formal review cycles.
14
Feedback flows in multiple directions in this organization — peers give each other feedback, and team members can give honest feedback upward.
15
Feedback in this organization is framed in a way that helps people grow — it is developmental, not punitive or demoralizing.
Channel 04
Crisis Communication
Examines how the organization communicates when things go wrong. Retreating into damage control, delaying information, or going silent during difficulty are the defining failures of this channel — and among the fastest ways to permanently erode organizational trust.
16
When something goes wrong in this organization, leadership communicates about it quickly — rather than going silent or delaying.
17
Crisis and difficult communications from leadership feel honest and direct — not carefully managed to minimize discomfort.
18
When problems arise, team members know who is responsible for communicating and what to expect — there is no confusion about the process.
19
After a crisis or significant difficulty, leadership communicates what happened, what was learned, and what will change — not just that it has been resolved.
20
I trust that if a significant crisis or difficult situation arose, this organization would communicate with transparency rather than retreat into silence or spin.
Qualitative Reflection

Open Response

Optional but strongly encouraged. Context that scores alone cannot capture.

1. Which communication channel — leadership, cross-functional, feedback, or crisis — creates the most friction in your day-to-day work, and what does that friction look like?

2. Describe a specific communication breakdown you have witnessed or experienced in this organization and what it cost — in time, trust, or results.

3. What is one change to how this organization communicates that would most improve your ability to do your best work?

Your Scores

Scores update as you complete each channel. Submit when all 20 items are answered.

Leadership Communication—
Cross-Functional—
Feedback Communication—
Crisis Communication—
Communication Health Score—

Assessment Submitted

Thank you. Your responses will be compiled into your EQV Communication Health Profile.
Your facilitator will deliver the full report and action plan.

eqvframework.com
EQV Framework  ·  Esse Quam Videri  ·  eqvframework.com