Profilia lets you run the six leadership styles test with an entire team for free and without sign-up. You open a session in one click, you share a link or a QR code, and each person answers from their phone, whenever they like or all together in live workshop mode. You watch the spread of six styles build up live, inspired by those described by Daniel Goleman: Directive, Visionary, Collaborative, Participative, Coach and Pacesetter. First names are optional, the breakdown only appears once 3 participants have taken part, and first names and answers are deleted after 30 days by default.
How it works
1. You open the session. One click from the test page, no form at all. You land straight on the session screen, with the link and the QR code ready to share. No account is needed, neither for you nor for the participants.
2. Everyone answers when they want. One link for everyone, ready to drop into a Slack or Teams channel, into an email, or onto a screen in the room. The session is open straight away: each person answers as soon as they get the link, and the counter goes up as answers come in. To have everyone start together, tick "Live workshop" when you create the session: participants wait in a lobby and you start the test once the group is there.
3. You read the breakdown. It refreshes by itself as answers come in. Each participant keeps their own full result, with their six scores.
What each person gets
Each participant takes the full test exactly as if they were doing it alone: 24 team work situations, one answer per situation. They land on the same complete result page, with no account to create and no email address to leave: their six scores, which combine, and the description of their dominant style. They can download a PDF version, built in their own browser (nothing is sent or stored), or save the image of their result to share it.
They then see the group's collective breakdown, with no names at all, with pointers for each style present and questions to start the discussion. Their first name, if they entered one, is visible only to you.
What you have for the debrief
- The group breakdown, which updates by itself and can be put on screen as it is.
- For each style present in the group, pointers to discuss, as hypotheses.
- Up to four questions to start the discussion, chosen from the group's actual makeup: one majority style, two styles tied, one style that is rare in the split, one style absent from the room.
- The "first name and profile" list, visible only to you, for the people who entered a first name (the others appear as "Anonymous").
- A PDF printout of the breakdown from the browser, without first names, with the date.
- A printable team report, for the host only: the breakdown, a few sentences reading the group's makeup as hypotheses to discuss, one card per style present drawn from the test's own content, the same discussion questions and, as an option, the "first name and profile" list (unticked by default, so absent from the printout).
- A button to rerun the same test with another group, without starting from scratch.
- An optional "live workshop" mode: participants wait in a lobby and you start the test once the group is complete.
You can also take the test yourself, and your result counts in the breakdown.
What Profilia does not do: there is no spreadsheet export and no individual report sent by email. You prepare the debrief on the breakdown on screen or on the printed report, with you as the interpreter.
Reading your team's breakdown
The breakdown places each person on their dominant style, the one that stands out most in their own answers. It says neither who leads well nor what your team is worth: it shows how each person says they prefer to go about it when leading a group, today. Each reading below is therefore a hypothesis to put to the group, not a finding.
With six styles, a small group quickly ends up with one or two people per box, and the breakdown tells you less. The larger the group, the easier it is to read: a team of managers, a training cohort, a seminar of executives. The wording of the questions and the wish to look good can also push a breakdown towards one style, not only the group itself.
A breakdown where Directive dominates. Many people described themselves as quick to decide and to set the direction. A useful question: how does the group make sure today that everyone has been able to give their view before the decision?
A breakdown with no Coach. Nobody described themselves first through a taste for helping others grow. That does not mean nobody does it: everyone has six scores, and many people's second style stays invisible here. The question to ask: when does the group take the time to give someone feedback, and is that enough?
A breakdown where Participative and Directive are both common. Two ways of deciding sit side by side, one after hearing everyone, the other faster. How does the group choose today between consulting and deciding?
A very uniform breakdown, whatever the style, is often the most interesting one to discuss. A useful question: what would someone who goes about it differently notice about the way we do things?
For every style present, the breakdown also offers pointers drawn from the test, as hypotheses. They are pointers to discuss with the people who recognize themselves in them, not a way to guess a colleague's style.
Debrief plan, 60 to 90 minutes
A group result without facilitation is just one more picture. Here is a plan that fits in an hour, with a variant for a longer session.
Minutes 0 to 10, the framing. State the aim: talk about how we lead a group, not rank each other. Remind everyone that no style suits every situation and that each has its limits, that the result is a starting point and that first names are optional. Share the link or the QR code.
Minutes 10 to 25, taking the test and reading alone. Everyone answers on their own, then reads their own result page in silence. Ask each person to note one sentence that sounds like them and one that does not: disagreeing with the result is useful to say out loud.
Minutes 25 to 40, the breakdown. Put it on screen and first ask people what they see in it, before any interpretation. Then ask the questions from the previous section, as hypotheses to check together: dominant style, missing style, styles common at the same time.
Minutes 40 to 55, the discussion. Go back to the questions suggested under the breakdown. Add this one: "In which recent situation did we notice that we were leading the group differently, and what did we make of it?"
Minutes 55 to 60, the commitment. One concrete step for the month, chosen by the group based on the discussion: for example, saying before a meeting whether you are there to consult or to decide, then talking about it again.
90-minute variant. Between minute 40 and minute 70, work in subgroups of three or four on a real situation (a recent decision, a project running late, a newcomer joining the team): which styles did each person draw on, and which could have helped? Each subgroup reports back in one sentence, then you keep twenty minutes for the commitment.
To avoid: naming out loud who has which style if the person has not said so, and using the breakdown to assess, promote, recruit or choose who will manage whom. The first names you see on your screen are not meant to be read out loud.
When to use it
In management training, to give a cohort a shared vocabulary before working on real situations.
At a seminar for managers or executives, to open a discussion on how each person leads their team, and on what the others do differently.
When a manager takes up a new post, with their team, to talk about what each person expects from the way decisions are made and feedback is given.
Anonymity and data
The breakdown only appears once 3 participants have taken part. Below that, a distribution would give too much away about each person: in a group of two, the spread names everybody.
The first name is optional. If one is entered, only the host sees it, next to that person's style. Participants only see the collective breakdown, with no names. A nickname works just as well. Without one, the result still counts in the breakdown. Nobody has to identify themselves to take part.
No account is needed, for you or for the participants. Sessions and any first names given are deleted after 30 days, automatically, unless you sign in and choose to keep the group for 12 months: participants are told before they answer. There is no advertising on Profilia, and your data is not sold to anyone.
What the test measures, and its limits
The test describes stated preferences: how each person says they would react in group work situations. It draws on the six styles that Daniel Goleman described in 2000 in the Harvard Business Review, about senior executives. Most of the names are our own: Goleman speaks of coercive, authoritative, affiliative and democratic styles where we say Directive, Visionary, Collaborative and Participative; Pacesetter and Coach follow his pacesetting and coaching styles. This is not an official Daniel Goleman instrument, and he is neither associated nor affiliated with Profilia.
Goleman presented them based on a study by the consulting firm Hay/McBer, whose data, to our knowledge, has not been published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal, only in a management magazine article. Our questionnaire has not been scientifically validated either. It measures neither competence, nor a manager's effectiveness, nor what their team thinks of them.
The practical consequence: a team breakdown is material for a conversation, never a verdict. It should not be used to hire, to appraise, or to choose a manager. The detail of the six styles is in our article on the 6 leadership styles, and the guide on situational leadership goes further into the idea of adapting your style to the context.
Frequently asked questions
Is the leadership style test for teams really free? Yes, the leadership style group test on Profilia is entirely free, with no cap on the number of sessions, no paid tier and no advertising. There is no limited trial and no feature held back behind an upgrade.
Do you need an account to run the test with your team? No. Neither the facilitator nor the participants need an account. You create the session and share a link; each person answers directly, with no sign-up and no email address.
Are the team's answers anonymous? Between participants, yes: they only see the collective breakdown, never who has which style, and it only appears once 3 participants have answered. The host, however, sees each person's style next to their first name, if they entered one. The first name is optional and a nickname works.
How many participants are needed, at minimum and at maximum? You need 3 participants for the breakdown to appear, and a session accepts up to 300 people, so the host can share the same link with a small team or a whole seminar. With six styles, the larger the group, the easier the breakdown is to read: below about ten people (a rule of thumb of ours, not a statistical threshold), boxes with one or two people do not show a trend.
How long is the data kept? A group session and its results are deleted automatically 30 days after it was created, first names included, or 12 months after if you chose to keep it (account required, participants told before they answer). If the group is linked to your account and the breakdown was shown, only an anonymous summary then stays in your account, for 12 months after the group closes: how many people per style, with no names or answers.
Do you need to be a manager to take part? No. Most situations involve managing a team, others are about leading a project or a meeting, which happens to everyone. Someone who manages nobody answers according to what they do, or would do, if it were up to them to lead.
Is the leadership style test scientifically validated? No. Goleman's six styles rest on a consulting firm's study whose data, to our knowledge, has not been published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal, and our questionnaire has not been validated. It remains useful as a prompt for discussing how to lead a group.
Can this test be used to hire or choose a manager? No. It describes stated preferences, not competence, and it has no established predictive validity. Using it to screen candidates or pick a manager exposes you to unfair decisions. Keep it for dialogue inside a group that already exists.