See your whole team on one map

Everyone takes a short, research-backed assessment. You get one map of how your team thinks, works, and fits together, plus a personal report for every member.

Build your team map, free See a sample report

Free to start · no card About 10 minutes per person Respondents never pay

The working product, not a screenshot

This is the map, live

A sample seven-person team, computed in your browser by the same engine your dashboard runs. Open Manage members to swap people and watch every read recompute. Your own team's map is built exactly this way.

7 of 20 sample respondents

Team Map · The Pioneers

A curious, adaptable team

This team learns fast and leans into change — but no one is a natural stabiliser, so the team can escalate under pressure.

Curious and outward — they push into new territory and rally others to follow. Led by curiosity and adaptability and outward energy — the two dimensions this group covers most strongly. A current pattern in the data, not a fixed label.

7people

A lens on interpersonal style — how people engage (drive) and how they handle others (warmth). It maps 2 of the 5 traits; openness, conscientiousness and emotional steadiness live in Team Shape. Dots sit at each person's percentile against a general adult sample; the dotted cross marks the 50th. This team's styles sit close together — shared strengths and shared blind spots.

Coverage

What this team has — and what it's missing

For each way of working, does anyone here anchor it? A dimension is covered when at least one member is genuinely strong; a gap is where no one is.

Pressure handlingGap · best 52

Influence & energyAnchored by Ethan Wright · best 74

Learning & adaptabilityAnchored by Yuki Tanaka · best 68

Collaboration styleAnchored by Yuki Tanaka · best 66

Execution & disciplineAnchored by Yuki Tanaka · best 76

Collective strengths

A balanced group with no single dominating tendency — versatile, if without an obvious anchor.

Worth watching

Where this composition could bite

Modest, directional patterns from the team-composition research — each framed as something to manage, not a flaw in anyone.

No natural anchor for pressure handling

The strongest here reaches only 52 on pressure handling. Assign it deliberately, add a checkpoint, or make it the priority for the next addition.

A potential subgroup split on extraversion

This group tends to split into two clusters, most visibly on extraversion: Grace Kim, Noah Schmidt, Ethan Wright on one side and Yuki Tanaka, Camila Rossi, Hana Petrova, Rina Gupta on the other. Aligned differences like this can harden into an "us and them" if left alone — worth mixing them across projects and naming it early.

Team shape

The five traits, read the way the research says to read them

Not every trait aggregates the same way. Conscientiousness and agreeableness go by the team's floor (the weakest link); openness and emotional stability by the average; extraversion by the spread.

Openness

the team's average is what predicts the outcome

Team average

0/ 100

Team lowTeam high

This team is a workable mix of curiosity and pragmatism.

Conscientiousness

the least-strong member sets the team's floor here

Weakest-link trait

0/ 100

Team lowTeam high

This team is follow-through varies; the least structured member sets the team's floor on delivery.

Extraversion

the spread matters more than the average here

Team spread

0pts spread

Team lowTeam high

This team is similar social energy across the group — little internal competition for the floor.

Agreeableness

the least-strong member sets the team's floor here

Weakest-link trait

0/ 100

Team lowTeam high

This team is cooperation varies; at least one member will push back rather than accommodate (useful for honesty, worth managing for harmony).

Emotional Stability

the team's average is what predicts the outcome

Team average

0/ 100

Team lowTeam high

This team is average emotional steadiness as a group.

Pair dynamics

Who works easily together — and where to be aware

A few notable pairings, read across the interpersonal circumplex. Complementary pairs fill each other's gaps; similar pairs get fast rapport but share blind spots; friction pairs are worth being aware of, with the channel named. Not compatibility scores, and never a ranking of people.

Grace & Noah · Decision-making

Grace and Noah are both natural drivers — two strong hands on the same wheel. Name who owns the final call up front so the energy pushes the work, not each other.

Grace & Ethan · Decision-making

Grace and Ethan are both natural drivers — two strong hands on the same wheel. Name who owns the final call up front so the energy pushes the work, not each other.

Noah & Ethan · Decision-making

Noah and Ethan are both natural drivers — two strong hands on the same wheel. Name who owns the final call up front so the energy pushes the work, not each other.

Ethan & Hana · Lead / support

Ethan tends to take the lead and Hana to steady and support — a natural lead/support pairing rather than two people competing to drive.

Ethan & Rina · Lead / support

Ethan tends to take the lead and Rina to steady and support — a natural lead/support pairing rather than two people competing to drive.

Yuki & Camila · Similar styles

Yuki and Camila work in a similar register — easy rapport, with one shared blind spot worth watching: they may reinforce the same instincts rather than challenge them.

Role allocation

Who's best placed to own what

Each member's most natural team role, derived from their Big Five and grouped by kind of contribution. Each role carries its evidence tier — how well the trait link actually replicates — because not all of them are equally established.

Action & delivery

Implementer

Yuki

Workable fit · 67

Yuki's discipline and practicality suit turning plans into dependable, executed work.

Moderate support

Completer-Finisher

Camila

Workable fit · 63

Camila pairs conscientious follow-through with a quality-vigilant eye — well placed to catch what others miss before it ships.

Empirical (solid)

Shaper

Noah

Workable fit · 62

Noah tends to challenge and drive the team toward results, pushing past comfortable consensus.

Role-definition based

People & connection

Resource-Investigator

Ethan

Workable fit · 69

Ethan's outward energy suits scouting opportunities, contacts, and ideas beyond the team.

Empirical (solid)

Teamworker

Hana

Workable fit · 63

Hana's cooperative, steady style helps the group hold together and smooths friction before it hardens.

Empirical (solid)

Coordinator

Grace

Workable fit · 57

Grace's blend of warmth and outward energy suits pulling the group together and clarifying shared goals.

Role-definition based

Thinking & ideas

Plant

Rina

Workable fit · 64

Rina's openness and imagination make them the team's likely idea-generator — the one to bring unconventional options.

Empirical (solid)

Thin bench

The team leans heavily on Yuki, who is the strongest fit for 6 of the nine roles. A real strength — but a concentration worth sharing, since several roles thin at once if they're away.

Suggestions for dividing the work you already have — not a ranking of people, and not a hiring verdict. Roles are reassignable, and a person is always more than any one of them.

Your next addition

Your next addition would do most by anchoring pressure handling

No one currently clears 60 here (best is 52). The most complementary next respondent is someone even-keeled who stays calm when the work gets tense — a stabilising presence — not another version of the team's existing strengths.

A complementary suggestion, not an instruction — it fills a gap rather than adding another version of the team’s existing strengths. You decide who joins.

Shared language

The team, in one vocabulary

Each member's working archetype — a shorthand the team can actually reuse when they talk about how they operate.

Yuki TanakaBEOAD

The Teacher

Thoughtful guidance, reliable inspiration

Grace KimBEOAD

The Teacher

Thoughtful guidance, reliable inspiration

Noah SchmidtREOGS

The Champion

Bold ideas, passionate advocacy

Ethan WrightRECGS

The Motivator

Passionate energy, social drive

Camila RossiREOAD

The Mentor

Passionate guidance, disciplined care

Hana PetrovaRIOAD

The Instructor

Principled depth, thoughtful guidance

Rina GuptaRIOAD

The Instructor

Principled depth, thoughtful guidance

How this team should run

Operating norms tuned to this composition

Specific, hedged practices — each triggered by a real pattern in this team's profile, with the stat that prompted it. Directional guidance worth trying, not rules.

Communication

Name the shared driver (Purpose) and appoint someone to voice the motivation the team under-weights.

Most of the group is pulled by the same thing, which aligns effort but can become a shared blind spot; deliberately voicing the under-weighted motivation keeps the team from optimising for only one. (Roccas et al. 2002)

Shared driver: Purpose

Conflict

Cross-staff Grace, Noah & Ethan and Yuki, Camila, Hana & Rina, anchor everyone to one superordinate goal, and name the extraversion difference before it hardens.

Aligned differences can quietly settle into an us-and-them; mixing the subgroups across work and naming the split early tends to keep a fault line from deepening. (Lau & Murnighan 1998)

Subgroup split on extraversion

Agree a de-escalation norm before you need it — "pause and return" — and name pressure as pressure, not conflict.

When the group feels pressure keenly, stress and disagreement can blur together; a pre-agreed pause and a shared name for 'this is pressure' tend to stop one from being mistaken for the other. (De Dreu & Weingart 2003)

Pressure handling gap · best 52

Talk it through

A discussion guide for this team

Questions keyed to what this map surfaced — enough for one working session. The listen-for line is what a facilitator should notice in the answer.

How to run this

One facilitator · 30–45 minutes · keep it about the work, not personalities. The answers are a starting point, not a verdict.

Where do Grace, Noah & Ethan and Yuki, Camila, Hana & Rina see this work differently — and what does each side need from the other?

Listen for a concrete example on extraversion, not a character label — the aim is to name the difference, not to win it.

Who owns pressure handling on this team — and when do we check it?

Listen for a name and a checkpoint, not "we all do" — the gap closes when someone holds it.

Most of us are pulled by purpose — what motivation are we under-weighting as a team, and who could speak for it?

Listen for the driver the group quietly ignores; naming it is the point, not resolving it today.

How do we tell the difference between stress and real disagreement — and what's our signal to pause?

Listen for an agreed de-escalation move the team can reach for before things get heated.

What does this team do genuinely well — and what would put that at risk as we grow or change?

Listen for the strength worth protecting, and an honest threat to it.

Name one operating norm from today we'll adopt this quarter — and who owns making it stick.

Listen for one specific, owned commitment — the session only counts if something changes.

What drives them

The team's motivation mix

Averaged across the group, and whether people are pulled by the same thing or different things.

What energises this team collectively

Purpose — team average 58
Achievement — team average 58

Alignment vs. diversity of motivation

Most of the team is pulled by the same driver (Purpose). That makes for efficient alignment, but is a blind spot if the work stops rewarding it — worth a deliberate check that it still fits.

Purpose

Achievement

Affiliation

Autonomy

Recognition

Security

Team-level reads use trait-appropriate operationalizations from Bell (2007), Barrick et al. (1998) and Peeters et al. (2006); faultlines follow Lau & Murnighan (1998); complementary-fit framing follows Kristof-Brown et al. (2005). Effects are modest and directional — a lens for judgement, not a verdict. Team personality is one input into how a group works — it informs, it doesn’t define.

Sample respondents, no real people. Prefer a guided read first? Walk through this exact team in the team personality map guide.

What you can run

Pick what you want to understand

Eight of the fourteen assessment types you can run on a team. Mix them as you like; every one feeds the map, and every respondent keeps a personal report.

Personality (Big Five)

Know how each person actually works before a deadline teaches you the expensive way.

Working styles (MBTI)

A shared language for why your planner and your improviser keep talking past each other.

Motivation

Find out what actually drives each person, before it shows up as churn.

Strengths

Put people where they are strongest, instead of inferring it from job titles.

Conflict style

Learn how each person handles disagreement, so tension produces decisions instead of damage.

Culture fit

See where someone aligns with how the team really works, and where friction will start.

Leadership

Understand how your leads actually lead, not how the org chart assumes they do.

Resilience

Know who steadies under pressure, and who needs backup before crunch rather than during it.

How it works

Three steps, one map

Create your team assessment

About 2 minutes. Choose what to measure and we build the assessment, the map, and every member's report view.

Share one link with your team

Each person takes it in about 10 minutes, on any device, and gets a personal report of their own the moment they finish.

Watch the map fill in as they finish

The map recomputes with every completion: who anchors what, what nobody covers, and which pairs need a working agreement.

Build your team map, free Free to start. No card. Respondents never pay.

Built on research, careful with people

Research-backed instruments. The map runs on the Big Five, the personality model with the strongest evidence base in workplace research, scored as percentiles against a general adult sample. Framework views like MBTI working styles are labelled as the shorthand they are.
Respondents get their own report. Everyone who takes an assessment keeps a personal report worth reading. Nobody on your team is reduced to a dot on a chart.
You control who sees what. You decide who can view team results, respondents never pay, and no profile ranks anyone. The map shows trade-offs, not a leaderboard: a team with no weakest member, just different shapes.

Your team already has a shape. See it.

One short assessment each, one map for you, a personal report for every member. Free to start, no card, and respondents never pay.

Build your team map, free See a sample report

Research-backed

GDPR ready

256-bit encrypted

See your whole team on one map

This is the map, live

A curious, adaptable team

Overview

What this team has — and what it's missing

Where this composition could bite

Goal Fit

What is this team being asked to do?

Dynamics

The five traits, read the way the research says to read them

Who works easily together — and where to be aware

Roles

Who's best placed to own what

Your next addition would do most by anchoring pressure handling

The team, in one vocabulary

Playbook

Operating norms tuned to this composition

A discussion guide for this team

The team's motivation mix

Pick what you want to understand

Personality (Big Five)

Working styles (MBTI)

Motivation

Strengths

Conflict style

Culture fit

Leadership

Resilience

Three steps, one map

Create your team assessment

Share one link with your team

Watch the map fill in as they finish

Built on research, careful with people

Your team already has a shape. See it.