Sample Team Readiness Report
Where we start: cutting decision time on architecture trade-offs from six weeks to two.
How confident are we that we'll reach this goal?
Your confidence and the team's differ. A gap like this is common at the start of an engagement, and it shows where to begin.
Shaded: the range of team answers, lowest to highest. Shown once five or more team members respond. Individual answers are never shown.
Which challenge matters most?
You and your coach listed the challenges you see. Each team member chose the one most important to overcome. The team's top choice and yours differ.
Bars show team members' choices. Your choice is marked and not counted in the bars.
You and the team want the same thing. You'd get there differently.
What you share with the team
Everyone should be heard before a call is made. Seeking consensus is a core value for all nine of you, and 8 of 9 share Seeking input from others.
How you're different
The team decides together: it sits in Collaborate. You decide from expertise: you sit in Competence, the opposite corner.
Why this matters for the goal
You see the six weeks as a process problem: too many sign-offs. The team sees a permission problem: no one is allowed to end a discussion. Cutting sign-offs won't fix that. The first step is agreeing who can close which kinds of decisions.
A starting hypothesis to test together, not a verdict on anyone.
Moving faster will feel like losing your voice. Seeking consensus and Seeking input from others are core values here, at 9-of-9 and 8-of-9 agreement, and so is Harmony. Name a decision owner without framing it and the team may read it as being cut out. Scoped to a class of decisions instead of a person, the same change lands differently.
The gap to the goal is short and runs sideways. The team stays in its own quadrant; it just stops needing the whole group to close.
This is the starting point.
The team answers the same two questions again as the work goes on. Each report shows what moved.
- Week 1 · This reportTeam Readiness Report
Decision time 6 weeks. Team confidence 43%.
- Every eight weeksTeam Progress Report
A two-minute pulse and the same two questions.
- Week 16Team Results Report
Before and after, against the goal.
The team still decides together. Now it decides faster.
| What moved | Week 1 | Week 16 | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Decision time on architecture trade-offs | 6 weeks | 3 weeks | Target is 2 |
| Team confidence in the goal | 43% | 64% | Gap with the lead: 37 → 16 pts |
| "No one is allowed to end a discussion" as the top challenge | 5 of 8 | 2 of 8 | The team's top choice at kickoff |
| The lead and the team name the same top challenge | No | Yes | |
| How the team is wired | Collaborate | Collaborate | Command share 13% → 16% |
Partway there, on purpose. Real change is incremental. The team kept its instinct and added a way to close.
Three moves to start with
Each one is tied to the team's top challenge, and to a number your Team Progress Report will show.
-
Agree who can close which decisions.
List the kinds of architecture trade-off the team makes, and name who closes each one once everyone has been heard.
-
Run the next trade-off to a two-week deadline.
Name the person who will close it before the discussion starts, and hold the date.
-
Keep every voice heard, not every voice deciding.
Open a 48-hour input window on each trade-off. When it closes, the named person decides and says what they heard.
Illustrative sample using a composite team. Individual responses are never shown to managers or leadership. Team-level reporting begins at five responses — below that, results are shared openly with the team and the coach, and everyone is told before they answer.