For teams
The team survey: everyone rates everyone, then you talk about it.
Everyone on the team rates everyone else on things they actually saw happen — and rates themselves, and predicts how the others rated them. The gap between those three is usually the most useful number in the whole report, and no self-report tool can produce it.
- 3–12 people
- 25–40 minutes each
- $199 per run
- Results in three pieces
- 60-minute debrief included
Costs nothing to set up. No card. Only you sign in; your team answers from a link.
A run, start to finish
Set up the team
Three to twelve people, each with a personal link by email. Nobody creates an account, sets a password, or sees a dashboard — only the lead or facilitator signs in.Everyone answers, about 25 minutes each on a team of five
Specific observable behaviors over the last three months — never personality — plus questions about the team’s climate, who you actually go to, your own self-rating, and your prediction of how the others rated you.Results come back in three pieces
A team pack everyone sees, a private note for each person, and a facilitator view if your team has named one. Scoring runs once 75% of the team has submitted.You run the debrief
A 60-minute agenda built from your own results, ending in two or three commitments specific enough to check in six weeks.
The number no self-report can produce
Three views of the same person come back from every run: how you rated yourself, how you predicted your teammates would rate you, and how they actually did. Most people’s self-rating sits above the other two; the interesting cases are the ones where the prediction is far from the peers’ view — a person who expects to be seen one way and is seen another.
That is not a verdict. It is the most specific conversation-starter a team can be given, and it is private to the person it is about. Why the gap exists, and what to do with it.
What comes back
The team sees the team
Climate scores with agreement and spread, the network picture of who the team actually goes to, and the meeting agenda. No individual is named or ranked anywhere in it.
You see yourself
What your teammates see you doing well, one thing to work on, and how your self-view compared with theirs. Your note is not sent to your manager and is not readable by your team lead, your workspace owner, or anyone else with an account.
A facilitator, if you name one
A named facilitator sees each person’s note before it is released and can hold it back; if nobody is named, nobody can open that view.
Six weeks on, a two-minute pulse
The commitments the team recorded come back as questions: how far has each one happened, and how do two things feel now. Team counts only, sent to everyone at once, and included in the run.
What a team of three, four, or five-plus receives
| Team size | Team pack + agenda | Individual peer scores | Question-by-question detail | Extended dimensions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Yes | Withheld — with two peers an average is close to a name tag | No | Rotated between raters |
| 4 | Yes | Yes — 3 peers each | No | Rotated between raters |
| 5–12 | Yes | Yes | Yes, from 5 raters | All asked in full |
Thin data is withheld, not padded. The report says when the team is divided instead of averaging the disagreement away. Every row of this table is read from the published instrument, not typed.
The debrief is the point
38%
of measured cases where feedback made performance worse.
Kluger & DeNisi (1996), 12,652 participants
2 in 3
chance a team that runs a debrief outperforms a comparable team that doesn’t.
Tannenbaum & Cerasoli (2013), 2,136 participants
Handing a team its scores and walking away is the version most likely to do damage, and the structured conversation afterwards is the part the evidence supports. So the agenda ships in every run, built from your numbers, and the written packs are constrained on purpose: no trait adjectives, no ranking language, no speculation about why somebody behaves as they do.
The 60-minute agenda
- 10 minHow to read thisThe team's own ratings of the team, averaged; completion; where members disagreed
- 10 minWhat is workingUp to three scales named as strengths, with their means
- 15 minWhere there is most room to improveUp to three scales, and the spread behind each
- 10 minWho we go toThe network picture: help, second opinions, who is central
- 15 minDecideTwo decision slots — commitments with an indicator you can check in six weeks
Who can see what, in one screen
Your manager
The shared team pack, if they are on the team. Never your ratings, never your note.
Your team lead
Completion counts while the run is open; the team pack when it closes. Not your note.
A facilitator your team named
Each person’s note, before release, and only that person.
What it costs
| Item | Price | Includes |
|---|---|---|
| One run | $199 | One team of 3–12, full results, private notes, written coaching pack, the debrief agenda, and the six-week pulse |
| A year of runs | $349 | The same, for up to three teams, for twelve months |
Setting the team up costs nothing and needs no card — the price is at the moment you open the run.
One thing the price never buys: your manager reading individual ratings. They are not readable by any account, so there is nothing to import into a review — whoever is paying.
Questions teams ask before a first run
How many people does a team survey need?
How long does it take?
What questions are asked?
Can our manager read the results?
What happens after the debrief?
Is it anonymous?
Run it with one real team.
Twenty minutes each, one hour together, and two or three commitments you can check in six weeks.
Costs nothing to set up. No card. Only you sign in.