Woosah Teams
Every team has friction. Most of it has a reason.
Everyone answers the same questions about how they like to work. Then you see where the answers line up, where they collide, and what to try when they do. The two people who always clash usually turn out to want opposite things nobody said out loud.
- Strong overlapSix of seven want written context first
- Watch thisSplit on how much notice before a change
- Friction pointTwo opposite ends on giving feedback
What it is
A structured way to ask what nobody asks
Teams rarely discuss how they work, only what they are working on. So preferences stay invisible until they collide, and then it looks like a personality clash. This asks everyone the same questions, puts the answers side by side, and turns a vague tension into something specific enough to fix.
See how it runs- Where the team already agreesOverlap
- Where it splits down the middleSpread
- One thing to try for each splitAction
How it runs
Answer, compare, talk, revisit.
The assessment is the short part. The conversation it starts is the part that changes anything.
Everyone answers
The same set of questions about how each person likes to work: how they want feedback, how they make decisions, how much notice they need before a change. It takes about fifteen minutes.
You see the overlap
Where the team agrees, where it splits, and where two people sit at opposite ends of the same question. The splits are usually the interesting part.
You get the specifics
For each friction point, what it tends to look like day to day and one concrete thing to try. Not "communicate better." Something you could do on Monday.
You run it again when the team changes
New hire, new manager, new structure. The map is only useful while it matches the room, so re-running it is included.
What it's for
Three moments this earns its keep.
Not an annual ritual. It's worth running when the shape of the team changes or when the same argument keeps coming back.
Onboarding stops being a guess
A new person sees how the team already works and the team sees what the new person needs. Both usually take a quarter to learn by trial. This takes an afternoon.
The recurring argument gets a name
Most teams have one friction that resurfaces every project. Often it is two reasonable preferences colliding, not a person being difficult. Naming it takes most of the heat out.
Managers get something specific to do
Generic advice does not survive contact with a real team. Every friction point comes with the actual behaviour to try, and how to tell whether it helped.
Being clear
What this isn't.
This category is full of tools that overclaim, and a few that get used for things they should never touch. Here is where our line is.
Not a hiring or firing tool
This is built for teams that already work together. We will not help you screen candidates or build a case about an employee with it, and the results are not designed to support either.
Not a personality type
Nobody gets a label, a letter, or a colour. People answer about preferences, and preferences shift with the job, the manager, and the week. The report says "tends to," never "is."
Not a clinical instrument
It is not a psychological assessment and it does not diagnose anything. It is a structured way to ask a team questions they would not otherwise ask each other out loud.
Not a verdict
The output is a conversation starter. It works when the team reads it together and argues with it. It does nothing sitting in a manager’s folder.
Taking part should be a choice
Answers are shared with the team, because the comparison is the point. Tell people that before they start, and let anyone who would rather not take part sit it out without it being a thing. A team map built on answers someone felt pressured into is worse than no map.
Questions
Including the ones we answer with a no.
What do people actually answer?
Questions about how they prefer to work: how much context they want before a decision, whether they think best out loud or on paper, how they want to hear that something is wrong, how much warning they need before priorities change. Around fifteen minutes, and nothing about their personal life.
Is this scientifically validated?
No, and we are not going to claim it is. It is not a psychometric instrument and we do not publish validity statistics, because we do not have them. What it does is ask everyone the same questions and show you where the answers disagree. The value is in the comparison and the conversation, not in a score.
Who sees my answers?
Your team sees the team view: the overlap, the spread, and where the splits are. Individual answers are shared with the team as part of that, so everyone should know going in that this is a group exercise, not a private survey. If someone does not want to take part, they should not have to.
Can I use this to decide who to promote?
No. It measures preference, not performance or capability, and using it that way would be both wrong and legally risky. If someone tells you a work-style questionnaire can rank your people, walk away from them.
What if the results just confirm what we already knew?
That happens, and it is still useful. There is a difference between everyone privately suspecting a friction and the team naming it in the same room. The second one is what makes it fixable.
How big does the team need to be?
It works from about three people up to around thirty. Below three there is not much to compare. Above thirty you are looking at several teams, and we would run it per team rather than as one blob.
How much is it?
Priced per team, quoted after a short call about how many people and how often you want to re-run it. We are early with this one, so ask and we will give you a straight number.
Tell us about the team.
How many people, what keeps coming up, and what you have already tried. We'll tell you whether this would help or whether you have a different problem.
- Fifteen minutes per person, once.
- The team reads the results together.
- Never used for hiring, ranking, or performance reviews.
Prefer email? Reach us athello@woosahlabs.com.