103 Defining and measuring moral craftsmanship elements of moral courage are reflected in items about asking others about the ‘why’ of their acts, or about engaging in conversation when someone else does something you consider to be wrong. Especially when it involves a supervisor/manager, this takes courage. The individual conceptual element of moral action can be seen in the domain ‘taking action’, where we added items to see whether the moral judgments of professionals actually lead to actions. Indirectly this also reflects the elements of ‘moral motivation’ or ‘moral courage’. For example, asking whether an individual sometimes does not act upon something although they believe it would be the right thing to do. Or, e.g., whether one deviates from agreements/protocols when it is felt to be right to do so. Questionnaire items related to team level of conceptual elements In our definition of MCS, we state the importance of always functioning in relation to others. Therefore, this domain is about ‘consulting others’. The items it contains are mostly based on the literature and related questionnaires by Schippers et al. (2005) on ‘team reflexivity, evaluation and learning’, and Kellermans et al. (2008) on ‘constructive confrontation norms’. Moreover, these items reflect dialogical skills and open communication toward all persons around the professional, i.e., immediate colleagues, supervisors and, in the context of DCIA, also in relation to the prisoners. The latter items are also included to check whether it is possible to notice the risk of ‘in-out-groupthinking’ (Vogelaar & Verweij, 2009). By asking others questions, their perspectives are made clear and can therefore be considered by the craftsman. A few such items are also found in the domain of ‘looking back’. Questionnaire items related to leadership elements On the level of the conceptual leadership elements, one domain at the end of the MCSQ is directed only at staff who (also) have a supervising or managerial role in the organization. The four items in that domain ask supervisors how often they explicitly express the importance of ‘good practice’, stimulate staff to handle differences of opinion constructively, discuss difficult situations with staff, and openly communicate with staff about their own moral dilemmas. However, these are not the only items related to moral leadership in the MCSQ. Influenced by items in the ELQ (Yukl et al., 2013), we added items in other domains intended for all staff. For example, we added an item asking staff whether their supervisor acknowledges when they do something wrong. We expected that putting this question to a supervisor carried a high risk of socially desired answers, and we, therefore, directed it at all staff. 4