Is your team high performing?
Measure your team across the six dimensions that make teams perform.
Teams do not fail on talent. They fail in the space between people: trust that has not formed, decision rights that are unclear, work that falls through the cracks, and problems no one feels safe to raise.
The Team Assessment reads exactly that. Everyone on the team rates it across six evidence-based dimensions, and you get a full picture of how the team is performing, and you'll see your view compared to everyone else's too.
Set up Team Assessment →
What actually holds a team together is invisible.
A team lives or dies in the space between its people. Trust has formed there, or everyone is covering their backs. Decision rights are clear, or they are murky. Work flows, or it stalls at the handover. And the difficult thing gets said, or it gets swallowed.
You have probably watched it happen. A decision made in the meeting, then remade in the corridor an hour later. A team that looks aligned in the room and scatters the moment the work moves between people.
It turns out that what actually holds a team together is a set of things you cannot see clearly: trust, psychological safety, how information travels, whether people are genuinely chasing the same goal. Those things stay hidden until someone measures them.
The Team Assessment does exactly that. It shows you where you are genuinely together, where you are pulling apart, and where your sense of the team and theirs part company. That last gap is usually where the real work starts.
Six dimensions that make teams perform.
Each one is a place a team quietly comes apart, and each one is grounded in the research on what makes teams work.
Three steps, everyone's view.
No workshop to schedule. Each person rates a set of short, specific statements about how the team works. Twenty-four of them, seven minutes each, answered privately and pooled into one honest picture.
- 1Take it yourselfSeven minutes, on your own, on any device. You see your own view of the team first.
- 2Invite the teamAn email each to everyone on the team. Their answers are pooled and confidential, so people can be honest.
- 3See the pictureThe full report unlocks the moment five of you have answered.
Our team is clear on what it is here to achieve and what winning looks like.
People on this team can admit a mistake without it being held against them.
Handovers between us are clean, so work does not stall when it moves between people.
The team, seen whole.
Once at least five of the team have taken part, the report unlocks.
Your team rates Trust twenty points below Purpose. You are aligned on the what, not yet on how you work together to get there.
Pricing
Team Taster
- Answer the twenty-four statements yourself
- See a full sample report, built from your own results
- A first, private picture of where the team stands
- See where the team's view might be most useful
Team Assessment,
up to 15
- Invite every member by email, in one go
- The whole team's high-performance profile
- A dimension-by-dimension view, and where the team is most divided
- A facilitation guide to debrief with your team
Team Assessment,
up to 50
- Everything in the £295 band
- For one larger team, or a whole department
- Up to fifty people answering, pooled into a single picture
- The report unlocks once at least five have answered
The conversation is where a team actually changes.
Seven minutes each is all the assessment asks. The conversation it sets up is where the return is. A meta-analysis of structured team debriefs found that teams which run them properly perform around a fifth to a quarter better than teams that do not. The evidence comes largely from medicine, aviation and the military, where teams debrief as a matter of routine, and the authors describe it as one of the most economical interventions available to a leader.
Being on the same page turns out to be worth measuring on its own. When researchers separated a team's shared understanding of the work from how well the team simply got along, the shared understanding predicted performance over and above cohesion and smooth process. A team can like each other and still be pulling in different directions, and that gap is what this reads.
Google reached the same conclusion from its own data: what mattered was less who was on the team than how the team worked together, with psychological safety first among the five dynamics it found. It also settled on the same way of acting on it, surveying its teams, giving leaders pooled and anonymised scores to share, and supporting the conversation that followed with a discussion guide.
The individual dimensions hold up too. Specific, shared team goals produce considerably better performance than vague ones, and the research on team building puts role clarity and goal setting top of the list for shifting how a team works. That same research carries a warning worth having: individual targets that pull people toward their own numbers rather than the team's do more harm than no targets at all. Pooling the answers confidentially is how you find that before it costs you.
The things worth checking before you start.
No. Individual answers are pooled and shown as one team picture, never attributed to a person. That is what lets people tell the truth.
The report unlocks once at least five have answered, so the pooled view stays confidential. The more who take part, the truer the picture.
Confidential, pooled answers are exactly what surfaces the honesty a room full of colleagues usually holds back. That gap is the whole point.
No. Everyone answers in their own time, from their own private link. You can bring the results into a session afterwards, with a team coach or on your own, if you want to.