Not a new theory.
The established ones, made measurable.
Developed by Peter Zashev (PhD, Professor of Practice), the HPT Index combines rigorous academic thinking with extensive experience in executive education and leadership development.
It is grounded in the realities faced by business leaders and focuses on the factors that most directly influence team effectiveness and organisational performance. The result is a practical, evidence-based tool that helps leaders identify and address the development gaps that matter most.
The HPT Index doesn't invent a model of team performance. It takes the frameworks that already earned their reputation and turns them into one score you can track.
Forming, storming, norming, performing
Trust, conflict, commitment, accountability, results
What actually makes teams and managers effective
Natural contribution and team balance
What people need before they can perform
Voice, learning behaviour and admitting mistakes
Three things most assessments get wrong.
1 · Averaging hides the problem
Treating every question as equally important means a broken accountability culture can be cancelled out by a good office vibe. In the HPT Index each statement carries its own maximum — psychological safety is worth 18 points, office fun is worth far fewer.
2 · A 1–7 scale isn't linear
The distance between "sometimes" and "usually" is not the same as between "usually" and "always". Each answer maps to a defined point value, so a 6 and a 7 mean genuinely different things instead of one extra unit.
3 · Team dimensions aren't independent
If people don't feel safe, their answer about "we openly challenge each other" is not trustworthy — so the model caps it. If trust is low, accountability scores are capped too. Twelve such interdependency rules run automatically, following the causal chain Lencioni described: trust → conflict → commitment → accountability → results.
Measure it properly.
See exactly where your team stands across all four quarters.