EQV Conduct Floor Assessment

EQV Framework · Self-Assessment · Phase 1 · Days 1–30

Conduct Floor
Assessment

Identifying the non-negotiable floor of conduct you have already demonstrated under real cost — the values that are genuine, not aspirational

Leader

Date

Practitioner / Coach

◆ Genuine core values have been tested, defended under cost, and demonstrated as the non-negotiable floor of conduct regardless of circumstance. — EQV Framework, Ch. 10

○

Before You Begin

What this assessment is and why the sequence matters

⚑ Developed Tool — extends EQV Framework vocabulary

The EQV Framework's Values Inventory Exercise (Self-Assessment 4.1) surfaces the values you operate by, working backward from decisions, energy, and what you have been willing to risk. That exercise is generative: it tells you what your values are.

This assessment does something different. It asks you to name your conduct floor — the specific behaviors you have already demonstrated you will not abandon, even at real professional cost. Not values you aspire to hold. Values you have already held when holding them was expensive.

The distinction matters because the Compass is built on genuine values. The EQV Framework defines a genuine core value as one that has been "tested, defended under cost, and demonstrated as the non-negotiable floor of conduct regardless of circumstance." This assessment builds that evidence base, floor by floor.

Complete this exercise after the Values Inventory Exercise and before the Compass Worksheet. It is the bridge between the two.

How to Use This Assessment

Complete in writing, in a private setting, without reference to any external framework or inventory
Answer from memory and evidence, not from aspiration — what have you actually done, not what you intend to do
Budget 45–60 minutes for the full exercise; the Floor Inventory section requires the most time
If a question does not yield a clear answer on first pass, that absence is itself diagnostic — return to it
The synthesis section connects directly to the Core Values center of your EQV Compass

The Three-Question Cost Test — Reference

Test 1

Would you defend this under pressure? Not when defending is costless — when it requires accepting a real consequence: a relationship damaged, a conversation made harder, a stakeholder made uncomfortable.

Test 2

Does it cost you something? Genuine core values impose real constraints on conduct. If you have held this value only when it was free to hold, it may be aspirational.

Test 3

Would you hold it even if it were unpopular? The values that survive social resistance and continued organizational pressure are the ones that belong at the center of the Compass.

Discovery Questions

Six behavioral questions to surface your floors from evidence, not aspiration

"What you are willing to lose for a value is a more reliable indicator of its genuine priority than what you say about it."

EQV Framework · Ch. 4 · Values Inventory Exercise · Question 7

Q1 Name a specific moment in the past two years when you refused to do something — or stopped doing something — because it crossed a line you hold, even though the professional cost of that refusal was real. Describe what you refused and what it cost you.

Your response

Floor signal: The line you held in that moment is a candidate for your conduct floor. The cost confirms it is genuine rather than aspirational. Name the floor below in a single phrase.

Q2 What is something you have observed other leaders do — in your industry, your organization, or your peer group — that you would not do regardless of the strategic or financial case for it? Be specific about the behavior, not the category.

Your response

Floor signal: The behavior you named represents a floor you already hold — you have defined it by contrast to others. What conduct standard does that floor protect? Note: a floor is only genuine if you would hold it under the same pressures those leaders were facing, not only in the absence of pressure.

Q3 In the past twelve months, has anyone — a board member, investor, team member, customer, or peer — asked or pressured you to do something you declined? What did you decline, and on what basis?

Your response

Floor signal: The basis on which you declined — not the tactical reason but the principle behind it — is likely a conduct floor. If you found it difficult to articulate the basis at the time, that may indicate the floor is genuine but not yet named clearly enough to deploy consistently under pressure.

Q4 If your closest professional colleague — someone who has watched you lead under genuine pressure — were asked what you would never do regardless of the stakes, what would they say? Now ask honestly: is their answer consistent with your answer to the previous questions?

Your response

Floor signal: The divergence between what a close observer would name and what you would name is itself informative. If they would name something different from what you named above, either your floors are not as visible as you believe, or the observer has identified a floor you have not yet articulated. Both are worth examining.

Q5 Describe a time when you were genuinely tempted to cross a line — when the pressure, the incentive, or the rationalization was strong enough that the crossing felt justifiable — and you held the line anyway. What made you hold it?

Your response

Floor signal: A floor that has been tested under genuine temptation and held is more reliable than one that has only been held when temptation was absent. The internal mechanism that held you — the specific thing that felt non-negotiable — is worth naming precisely. Vague answers here (e.g., "I just knew it was wrong") may signal that the floor is held intuitively but not yet articulated clearly enough to be defensible under future pressure.

Q6 What would have to be true — what level of financial or strategic pressure, what organizational circumstance, what personal cost — for you to cross the lines you identified in the questions above? Answer honestly. If the honest answer includes a realistic scenario, that line is not a floor. It is a preference.

Your response

Floor signal: This is the most important question in the assessment. The EQV Framework distinguishes between a genuine conduct floor — held regardless of circumstance — and a strong preference that yields under sufficient pressure. A preference is not a floor. A preference can become a floor through deliberate commitment and accountability architecture, but naming it accurately is the first step. Any line that has a realistic crossing condition belongs in the "preference under development" column of the synthesis, not the floor inventory.

Floor Inventory

Name each floor, apply the three-question cost test, and record the pressure history

A conduct floor is a specific behavior you will not engage in, or a standard you will not fall below, regardless of the pressure applied. It is defined by what you have already demonstrated — not by what you intend. Each floor entered here should be traceable to a specific decision or refusal in your actual leadership history.

Developed tool — extends EQV Ch. 10 core values identification and Ch. 4 Values Inventory vocabulary

Floor Statement (specific behavior)	Value It Protects	Evidence (when held at cost)	Cost Test?	Last Pressure Test	Held?

Preferences under development — lines you hold strongly but cannot yet confirm as floors (from Question 6)

Pressure Simulation

Three scenarios designed to test whether named floors hold under realistic organizational pressure

"Leaders model values under pressure, not under ideal conditions. The team watches what the leader does when holding the value is genuinely costly, not when it is free."

EQV Framework · Ch. 5 · Organizational Culture · Pillar 1

For each scenario below: read the pressure condition, identify which of your named floors it tests, and write your honest response — what you would do and on what basis. Then note whether your answer reveals the floor as solid, conditional, or untested in this type of context.

Scenario A Your lead investor calls two weeks before a board meeting and asks you to present your retention numbers using a definition that excludes a recent cohort of churned accounts — one that would bring the figure from 87% to 94%. "Everyone does this," they say. "It's presentation, not deception." The board meeting is the fundraising conversation your next eighteen months depend on.

Which floor(s) does this test?

What would you do, and on what basis?

What does your answer reveal about the floor?

Floor status after this scenario

— Tap to assess

Scenario B A senior team member brings you evidence that a colleague — a high performer, critical to a major initiative — has been misrepresenting their progress to you and the board for four months. The initiative launches in six weeks. Replacing this person now would likely derail the launch and cost you a major client relationship. Three other team members know about the misrepresentation.

Which floor(s) does this test?

What would you do, and on what basis?

What does your answer reveal about the floor?

Floor status after this scenario

— Tap to assess

Scenario C — Your Own Write a pressure scenario specific to your current organizational context — one that would test your floors in the most realistic and uncomfortable way. Use the pattern from Scenarios A and B: name the specific pressure, the specific stakeholder, and the specific stakes.

Your pressure scenario

Which floor(s) does it test?

What would you do, and on what basis?

What does your answer reveal?

Floor status after this scenario

— Tap to assess

Synthesis — Your Confirmed Conduct Floors

The floors that passed the cost test and the pressure simulation — ready for the Compass

"The EQV Framework recommends identifying three genuine core values and no more. Three is the number because it is small enough to be genuinely prioritized and large enough to capture the full texture of authentic leadership."

EQV Framework · Ch. 10 · Core Values: Identifying Your True North

From your Floor Inventory and Pressure Simulation, identify the floors that passed the three-question cost test AND held under scenario pressure. These are your confirmed conduct floors — the evidence base for the genuine core values at the center of your Compass.

Confirmed Floor 1

Floor Statement

Value It Confirms

Evidence (brief)

Confirmed Floor 2

Floor Statement

Value It Confirms

Evidence (brief)

Confirmed Floor 3

Floor Statement

Value It Confirms

Evidence (brief)

Preferences Under Development

Lines that have a realistic crossing condition

Compass connection — next step

The confirmed floors above are the evidentiary foundation for the Core Values center of your EQV Compass. Each confirmed floor names a value that has already been demonstrated as genuine. Take these directly into the Compass Worksheet, apply the Three-Question Test to confirm, then complete the Values-to-Behavior Translation Map for each.

Leader

Date completed

Next step

—

Floors Inventoried

—

Passed Cost Test

—

Held Under Pressure

—

Confirmed Floors