A happy team can produce zero value. A "productive" team can burn through talent.
We measure what actually matters: net value creation.
Traditional HR tools ask "Are you happy?" – but happiness doesn't equal performance.
Illustration
The Country Club
High Happiness, Zero Output
Everyone loves their job, the culture is amazing, and team satisfaction scores are through the roof. But somehow, projects never ship on time, and the team produces nothing of value.
Traditional surveys: "Great team!" ✓
Business reality: "What did they actually deliver?" ✗
Illustration
The Burnout Shop
High Output, High Turnover
The team hits every target and crushes deadlines. But people are exhausted, turnover is 40% annually, and you're spending more on recruiting than the team's entire output is worth.
Traditional surveys: "High performers!" ✓
Business reality: "Net ROI negative." ✗
Traditional analytics measure sentiment. We measure the mechanics—how a team turns its inputs into value, and where that value gets lost.
We treat every team as a micro-enterprise with its own profit & loss statement. Revenue minus costs equals net value.
INPUT
The Assets
- Talent & Skills
- Resources & Budget
- Clarity & Direction
Key Insight: Determines if failure is a resource issue (management) or execution issue (team).
OUTPUT
The Value
- Delivery Quality
- Stakeholder Impact
- Innovation Results
Key Insight: What the outside world actually receives and values from your team.
FRICTION
The Hidden Tax
- Bureaucracy Overhead
- Political Maneuvering
- Rework & Waste
Key Insight: Friction can only tax value that exists—you can only lose what you're creating.
A single team effectiveness score from 0 to 100 that captures the full picture of team value creation: the share of the team's potential that is realised.
Purpose, direction, resources, roles, leadership
How the team works together, ten KPIs
What it delivers and the difference it makes
Energy lost to politics, overhead and rework. Higher is worse.
- Value created
- 69
- of 100 points
- Friction tax
- −12%
- of that value lost
- Team Net Value
- 61
- Good
value = (mean(input, process, output) − 1) / 4 × 100 · tax = ((friction − 1) / 4)² · TNV = value × (1 − tax)
The tax is squared: friction at 3.0 costs a quarter of the value, at 4.0 more than half, at 5.0 all of it. That is why the “busy bees” preset scores low despite good Input and Output.
Value is the average of Input, Process and Output scaled to 0-100. Friction is a tax on that value: none at 1.0, everything at 5.0. Scale: 0-100. Below 40 = needs attention. Above 60 = high performer.
We measure team performance across 18 KPIs drawn from the team-effectiveness literature, grouped into Input, Process, Output and Friction.
INPUT
(5 KPIs)The 18 KPIs at a glance
Each KPI is scored from 1 to 5 from the answers of all team members. Input, Process and Output add value; Friction is the one KPI where a higher score is worse. The full item list and scoring rules are published in the open item bank.
Input5 KPIs
- Purpose & Objectives
- Whether the team shares a clear purpose and knows what it is working towards.[4]
- Values & Vision
- Alignment on long-term direction, shared values and strategic priorities.
- Environment & Resources
- Whether the team has the tools, time, budget and workspace it needs.
- Team Organization
- Clarity of roles, responsibilities and decision rights inside the team.
- Leadership Principles
- How leadership sets direction, removes obstacles and models the behaviour it asks for.
Process10 KPIs
- Innovation & Growth
- Room for experiments, new ideas and learning from what did not work.
- Delivery Methodology
- Whether the way of working is fit for purpose, followed and improved.
- Inner Drive
- The intrinsic motivation and ownership members bring to their work.
- Identification & Engagement
- How strongly members identify with the team and its goals.[5]
- Feedback & Development
- Whether feedback flows regularly and people grow in their roles.
- Motivation & Focus
- Energy and attention directed at the work that matters most.
- Communication Culture
- Open, transparent information sharing and listening across the team.
Output2 KPIs
- Team Output
- The quality, reliability and pace of what the team delivers.
- Organizational Impact
- The difference the team makes beyond its own boundary.
Friction1 KPI
- Friction & Consumption
- Energy lost to bureaucracy, politics, instability and unproductive meetings (higher is worse).
Team Cohesion measures how much your team members agree across all survey questions. Lower variance = higher cohesion.
Your Team Cohesion
Strong Alignment (80%+)
High agreement, shared understanding
Your team members see things similarly across most areas. This high level of agreement suggests shared understanding and aligned perspectives.
Moderate Alignment (40-60%)
Mixed agreement, some variation
Your team shows mixed agreement across different areas. This variation suggests opportunities for better alignment conversations.
Low Alignment (<40%)
Significant disagreement
Your team shows significant variation in perspectives. This suggests important opportunities for alignment and shared understanding.
A score of "3.0" could mean everyone voted 3 (stability)... or half voted 1 and half voted 5 (civil war). Agreement matters as much as score.
- Strength8
- Hidden concern4
- Known challenge3
- Unclear2
| KPI | Score | Spread (σ) | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|
| Purpose & Objectives | 3.9 | 0.7 | Strength |
| Values & Vision | 4.1 | 0.6 | Strength |
| Environment & Resources | 3.6 | 1.1 | Hidden concern |
| Team Organization | 3.8 | 0.8 | Strength |
| Leadership Principles | 3.4 | 1.2 | Unclear |
| Social Cohesion | 4.4 | 0.6 | Strength |
| Innovation & Growth | 3.1 | 0.9 | Known challenge |
| Delivery Methodology | 2.9 | 1.3 | Unclear |
| Inner Drive | 4.2 | 0.5 | Strength |
| Identification & Engagement | 4.3 | 0.7 | Strength |
| Feedback & Development | 3.3 | 0.9 | Known challenge |
| Motivation & Focus | 3.7 | 1.1 | Hidden concern |
| Trust & Safety | 4.5 | 0.5 | Strength |
| Communication Culture | 3.8 | 0.8 | Strength |
| Conflict Navigation | 3.5 | 1.0 | Hidden concern |
| Team Output | 4.3 | 1.2 | Hidden concern |
| Organizational Impact | 3.0 | 0.7 | Known challenge |
The cut is at 3.5: at or above counts as a high score.
answers from one end of the scale to the other. Below σ 1.0 the team counts as agreeing.
The average looks fine, but part of the team disagrees. Ask before you celebrate.
The dots are the example team's 17 value KPIs. Below eight responses the report shows agreement as a hint, not a verdict, because one person can move σ across the cut.
Zone of Truth
High score, high agreement
True strengths. Everyone agrees this works well. Build on these confidently.
Silent Killer
High score, low agreement
Delusion. Leaders think it's great; others don't. These cause the worst surprises.
Known Broken
Low score, high agreement
Shared pain points. Easiest to fix because everyone agrees it needs work.
The Fog
Low score, low agreement
Confusion. The team does not even agree on what is broken. Start with a shared picture before trying to fix anything.
Every team has a way it likes to work.
Twelve questions, four dimensions, sixteen identities. A description, not a grade.
Like a personality type, but for your whole team. Four dimensions create 16 distinct operating styles—each with superpowers and blind spots.
FOCUS
STRUCTURE
INTERACTION
VALUE
Your Team's DNA
Focus
Where does your team direct its attention?
Values culture, harmony, and internal dynamics
Values market, stakeholders, and external impact
Structure
How does your team organize work?
Values process, predictability, and defined goals
Values agility, adaptation, and purpose-driven work
Interaction
How are decisions made?
Values democracy, buy-in, and inclusive decisions
Values speed, directive leadership, and accountability
Value Creation
How does your team create value?
Values efficiency, reliability, and incremental improvement
Values discovery, disruption, and creative solutions
Example Identities
Built on published research, not on a workshop slide.
Every KPI definition and every reference is public. Check the sources yourself.
Our methodology is grounded in the Input-Mediator-Output-Input (IMOI) model—one of the most cited frameworks in team science[1]. The KPIs it organises are drawn from the team-effectiveness literature, built on 20+ years of published team research.
Inputs
Starting conditions: composition, resources, context
Mediators
Emergent states + processes: trust, safety, communication
Outputs
Results: performance, satisfaction, learning
Feedback Loop: Outputs become new inputs, creating continuous learning and adaptation.
The KPIs rest on published work: psychological safety[2], the cohesion–performance link[3], the conditions for effective teams[4], the engagement research behind the Gallup Q12[5] and Google's Project Aristotle[6]. The full list is in the references.
Comprehensive Coverage
We assess structural factors, relational dynamics, AND outcomes.
Focus on What Matters
Mediators are where teams have the most leverage for change.
Continuous Improvement
Track how dynamics evolve and see the impact of changes over time.
Actionable Insights
Target specific factors that will have the biggest impact for YOUR team.
To avoid analysis paralysis, we don't give you 20 fixes. We give you one high-leverage intervention—the single most important thing to focus on right now.
Survival Check (Safety)
IF Psychological Safety < 2.5Intervene on toxic behavior or fear. Nothing else matters until this is fixed.
Clarity Check (Direction)
IF Goal Alignment < 3.0You cannot optimize execution if the target is wrong.
Energy Check (Burnout)
IF Consumption Score > 4.0Cancel meetings, reduce bureaucracy. The team is too tired to innovate.
Process Check (Consensus)
IF Silent Killer detectedThe leader believes X, the team believes Y. Align reality.
Optimization Check
IF All above healthyFocus on external stakeholder value and innovation.
The published work behind the model, the KPIs and the free self-tests. We cite only what we actually use, and we say what each source is used for.
The team model
The published work behind the Team P&L, the 18 KPIs and the One Big Thing ladder.
- [1]
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543.
Used for: The backbone of the Team P&L: inputs, mediators (process), outputs and the feedback loop.
- [2]
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
Used for: The Trust & Safety KPI and the first rung of the One Big Thing ladder.
- [3]
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 989–1004.
Used for: Why Social Cohesion is a Process KPI rather than a nice-to-have.
- [4]
Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances. Harvard Business School Press.
Used for: The Input KPIs: a real team, a compelling direction, an enabling structure and a supportive context.
- [5]
Gallup. The Relationship Between Engagement at Work and Organizational Outcomes: Q12 Meta-Analysis (latest edition). gallup.com
Used for: The engagement and feedback KPIs, and the link between engagement and business outcomes.
- [6]
Google re:Work. Guide: Understand team effectiveness (Project Aristotle). rework.withgoogle.com
Used for: The five dynamics of effective teams, psychological safety first among them.
The free self-tests
Each test in Resources has its own research-basis box; these are the main sources.
- [7]
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229.
Used for: The five traits of the Work Personality Test.
- [8]
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
Used for: The facet structure behind the five work traits.
- [9]
World Health Organization. ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics, QD85 Burn-out. who.int
Used for: The three dimensions of the Burnout Test: exhaustion, mental distance, reduced efficacy.
- [10]
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). Understanding the burnout experience: recent research and its implications for psychiatry. World Psychiatry, 15(2), 103–111.
Used for: The six areas of work life that drive strain in the Burnout Test.
The PEAKTEAMS instrument itself (the 18 KPIs, Team Net Value and the 16 team identities) is an original questionnaire built on this literature. Benchmark data will be published as teams complete the survey. The free self-tests in Resources each carry their own research-basis box and review date.
Get your Team Net Value score, discover your identity, and receive one high-leverage recommendation—about 12 minutes per team member.
100% free • No credit card required • Results in minutes