Everything You Need to Know About the Theory Behind the JTI Profile
Read about the theory behind the JTI profile and gain insight into how it should – and should not – be used.
By Mette Babitzkow Boje, Head of Assessment Tools at CfL. January 2026
Let me begin with an example: Helle is a department manager in a large private knowledge-based company. She is responsible for a team of specialists and has for several years delivered stable results, high quality, and low employee turnover.
Now the conditions are changing. The organization is growing, the pace is increasing, and decisions need to be made more quickly.
The role is no longer just about ensuring operations and professional quality, but also about sharper prioritization, making tough trade-offs, and standing firm in complex decisions. That’s why she has been selected for a leadership development program.
During the program, she speaks enthusiastically about her strengths—being analytical, collaborative, and thorough. These are precisely the competencies that have made her successful up to now.
But it’s only when the conversation moves away from self-descriptions and into concrete situations that development becomes relevant to performance.
This is where the development conversation begins to matter. Leadership potential doesn’t reveal itself in general descriptions of strengths and weaknesses, but in behavior in practice.
So far, so good. Helle has gained greater self-awareness—but it’s still unclear how that insight can be translated into the new demands placed on her.
Most organizations invest significant resources in development—leadership development, talent programs, courses, and assessments. The ambition is clear: more capable employees and leaders should deliver better results.
And yet, the same question keeps resurfacing afterward:
What did it actually mean for performance?
Not because the development lacked value—but because the link between what was learned and what is actually expected to be delivered is often too weak or too unclear.
In many development programs, the focus quickly shifts toward insight and reflection. Participants gain a language for preferences, strengths, and blind spots. This can be both meaningful and motivating.
The challenge arises when learning isn’t clearly connected to the task—when it becomes unclear which decisions, priorities, or actions are expected to change, and how those changes should be reflected in the organization’s results.
The example of Helle illustrates a development process that feels absolutely right—but doesn’t necessarily work.
Let me offer another example:
A leadership team participates in a development program focused on collaboration and communication. The team gains a shared language for differences and preferences. There is more listening, more perspectives come into play, and meetings are experienced as more constructive.
The atmosphere improves. There is a sense of progress.
But six months later, questions begin to surface—from top management, employees, and the leaders themselves:
The questions are difficult to answer—not because the development program lacked value, but because collaboration was never clearly linked to the team’s task, decision-making authority, and performance expectations.
Leadership development risks becoming something that feels effective, but is difficult to document.
The article continues below the box.
“Profiles should play a different role than the one they often do. Rather than primarily serving as a tool for self-insight, they can be used to create a direct link between behavior and results—not by measuring performance in itself, but by making it clear how specific behavioral patterns influence decisions, and thereby the organization’s ability to deliver."
So how do you create a clear baseline and an ongoing link between effort, behavior, and results?
My answer is that profiles should play a different role than they often do.
Rather than primarily serving as a tool for self-insight, they can be used to create a direct connection between behavior and results—not by measuring performance in itself, but by clarifying how specific behavioral patterns influence decisions, and thereby the organization’s ability to deliver.
There are many different profiling tools. At CfL, we work with profiles such as Leadership Focus Profiles and Decision Styles™, which make it possible to work more precisely with questions like:
When these connections become clear, the development conversation shifts from insight to impact.
Let me give an example of how development can successfully be linked to expected action.
An experienced specialist is about to take on greater responsibility as a key professional contributor. Her decision profile shows strong analytical quality, but also a tendency to delay decisions as complexity increases.
In this way, development is targeted toward a concrete next step in the role—not as detached learning, but as an adjustment of behavior with a clear impact on performance.
When development is clearly linked to role, responsibility, and expected impact, it becomes easier to prioritize—both for the individual and for the organization.
Development no longer runs as a parallel track, but becomes an integrated part of the performance perspective. It is aimed at the next step, increased responsibility, or specialization—and tied to the decisions and actions that follow.
When this succeeds, development is no longer something you’ve attended. It’s something you can see:
And it’s often here that the connection between development and performance starts to make sense—not as a calculation, but as a relationship that can be explained, discussed, and followed over time.
If development is to be reflected in results, it’s not enough to talk about insight. The conversation must be linked to the task. These three questions help keep the focus on behavior and performance:
1. What do you need to do differently in practice?
Not in general terms—but concretely. Which decisions, priorities, or actions are expected to change in your role?
2. When does your behavior support performance—and when does it not?
Which aspects of your way of working create quality and momentum? And in which situations do those same patterns become a barrier?
3. How can we tell that the development is working?
What should be different in three or six months—decision speed, clarity, collaboration, or execution?
Read about the theory behind the JTI profile and gain insight into how it should – and should not – be used.
P: +45 53 67 67 91
E: mba@cfl.dk