Founders want to open new horizons — new countries, new product lines, bold shifts. But the team mix and communication patterns don’t support it. There may be only a few people with true creative/reformist thinking in this domain, while stabilizers and operators end up leading innovation streams. Meanwhile, unresolved communication patterns consume energy that should go to new bets. The result: pilots stall and transformation fatigues the team.
Decisions drag because people “speak different languages.
We give you an interactive Team Map that shows how specific people will interact — with plain‑language commentary for managers on how to talk to each person, what to watch for, and how they prefer to receive and process information. You’ll see the principles of collaboration rendered for every key dyad and group, with practical notes written in the reader’s voice — not academic jargon. Under the surface, we unpack the personality properties that fuel friction: how each person interprets context, makes decisions, and resolves ambiguity. This explains why owners of different decision domains can’t agree — choices that could take 15 minutes stretch into days or months, and the founder is forced to arbitrate repeatedly. The result is lost momentum and leadership fatigue.
How we solve it:
We design a Decision & Authority Map that assigns who decides what based on strengths — people make calls in their natural domains, not where they’re weakest. For each critical relationship we provide Interaction Playbooks: how to brief, when to push/pull, what to delegate, what not to ask for, and where to give freedom so talent shines. The interactive map also lets you simulate future configurations (task forces, new product pods, cross‑functional projects) to see in advance where conflicts may arise and how to prevent them. Conflicts stop consuming executive bandwidth and start resolving themselves by design.
New markets & transformational change
The org is built for “run,” but you need “change.” Energy is trapped; innovators aren’t in the driver’s seat.
We also surface capability sufficiency for each business stream: do you have enough experts to sustain core lines and explore new ones? Where is depth/bench strength thin? Leaders get a clear view of coverage vs. gaps across run and change — so resources aren’t spread too thin and critical bets don’t starve.
Founders want to open new horizons — new countries, new product lines, bold shifts. But the team mix and communication patterns don’t support it. There may be only a few people with true creative/reformist thinking in this domain, while stabilizers and operators end up leading innovation streams. Meanwhile, unresolved communication patterns consume energy that should go to new bets. The result: pilots stall and transformation fatigues the team.
Values/thinking mismatch leads experts to disengage.
Even top experts shut down when their way of thinking and deciding collides with the team’s. A results‑first engineer placed in a consensus‑heavy environment feels unheard; a conceptual strategist forced into constant firefighting stops contributing new insight. When values, decision criteria, and communication styles don’t match, people retreat, ownership drops, and burnout rises. We surface how each person thinks (concrete vs. conceptual, logic‑driven vs. relationship‑centric, speed vs. thoroughness) and what they value. With that clarity, leaders learn to speak each expert’s language and to recognize strengths that were previously invisible or misread — turning resistance into contribution.
How we solve it:
We map value and thinking differences, restore a common vocabulary, and re‑route work to strengths. We re‑onboard key experts with clear mandates where their talent is trusted, and we adjust decision paths so they don’t have to fight the system to be heard. We also assess psychological levels (including burnout) and include per‑person burnout‑reduction recommendations and motivation profiles in the Team DNA Group Report for leaders to act on. The effect is tangible: engagement climbs, people take true ownership of projects, and burnout drops because contribution finally fits their natural advantages.
Different thinking and decision systems, no shared language.
Leaders reason differently: some are outcome‑driven and concrete, others are conceptual and intuitive; some prioritize logical coherence, others emphasize social acceptance and relationships. Without a shared lens, priorities collide and decisions stall — especially when a new leader “speaks a different language” and the team quietly rejects their style.
How we solve it:
We map each leader’s decision patterns, values, and communication needs; align on a shared decision framework; teach leaders how to speak to different types; and forecast conflict pairs where models of thinking clash — turning ambiguity into clear, evidence‑based choices. For hiring, we run a pre‑hire fit simulation against your team’s profile to predict success (or risk) before you make the offer.
Four concrete problems we solve — and how we solve them.