Independent team check-ins

No bias. No influence. Just a clearer picture.

Run independent, conversational check-ins to build on solid ground, and see where work stands and how to move forward well.

How it works

01
Groundwork asks each person separately. A real conversation, not a form. It follows up, asks what would show it, and lets people say what they actually think. Nobody is describing anybody else.
02
It compares the accounts. Where they stop matching, what moved since last time, and what nothing has evidence for.
03
Everyone gets the same picture. One shared report, released to everybody at the same moment. It never says who said what about whom.

What a report looks like

Every pipeline review said the quarter was on track.

Eight people on the same sales team gave their own account, separately. Here is what came back.

New business, this quarter · shared report8 accounts · check-in 3 of 6

Nine of the twelve live deals are with somebody who cannot sign, at a tenth of the size the quarter was planned on.

Surfaced at check-in 3 of 6. The next time it would have come up on its own is the end-of-quarter number, when the meeting count will still look healthy.
Aligned?
2 open
differences between accounts
Moving?
+14
across targets this session
Stuck?
1 blocked
waiting on someone else
Solid?
good
64% document-backed
Show what each of the eight said they did

Each person's own account of their own work. Nobody is describing anybody else.

AdaClosed Microdot Inc. First deal over a hundred thousand, and the reference call is booked.
DanEleven first meetings, four second meetings, two proposals out. Six of the eleven were with Halden, who has not put anyone in the room who can sign.
RachelSix first meetings and three pilots agreed. All three start next month.
NaomiRenewed Vanta at a higher tier and lost nothing this quarter. Most of three weeks went on renewal paperwork and contract admin. Two customer conversations in total.
TomWrote the objection sheet the rest of the team is now using on calls.
YusufNineteen first meetings. No second meetings yet.
KofiNew CRM shipped in week two. Team is on it.
EllieNothing specific named yet across three check-ins.
The new CRM went live in week two. The team is on it.Kofi, sales operations

Still working in the old sheet and entering everything twice. Three of them describe it as the reason their admin has doubled.

Dan, Rachel, Naomi and Yusuf
Both accounts are on record and neither person knew about the other. Nothing here decides who is right, and the report will not: it is a conversation that was otherwise going to happen at the end of the quarter.
The one thing to settle first

Which buyer can actually sign, and who owns turning a finished pilot into a paid contract?

If you are one of the people in it, this is your report too. Same report, same moment.

Day 62 of a 90 day handover.

A new chief executive, the outgoing one, the board chair and a programme lead each gave their own account, separately.

Nomsa, first 90 days · shared report4 accounts · check-in 4 of 6

Two of the three things you started apart on have closed. The third is about money and has not moved.

Both closed in the session after they surfaced. Neither was raised in a meeting first.
Aligned?
1 open
down from three
Moving?
+7
across targets this session
Stuck?
clear
nothing hard-blocked
Solid?
good
83% document-backed
The one thing to settle first

What exactly does the grant require each month, per site rather than across the network, and who is accountable for the two sites that have filed nothing?

If you are one of the people in it, this is your report too. Same report, same moment.

Fourteen people started the same job in the same month.

Fourteen field officers in fourteen districts, who have never met, each gave their own account.

Field officer intake, week 5 · shared report14 accounts · check-in 2 of 4

Nine of the fourteen described the escalation rule the same wrong way. That is the induction, not the people.

Fourteen accounts given separately, in fourteen districts, by people who have never met. One briefing produced all nine.
Aligned?
2 open
differences between accounts
Moving?
+11
across targets this session
Stuck?
3 blocked
all waiting on the same thing
Solid?
thin
29% document-backed
The one thing to settle first

What does a stock-out require, in one sentence every officer can repeat, and who do they call? The three districts out of kits are waiting on that answer.

If you are one of the people in it, this is your report too. Same report, same moment.

Week seven of a ninety day probation.

Tobi joined as a delivery lead. His manager, a colleague who works alongside him, and Tobi each gave their own account, separately.

Tobi, first 90 days · shared report3 accounts · check-in 7 of 12

He is hitting the only target anybody gave him, and it is not the one he is being judged against.

Week seven of twelve. Nothing in the record has pointed at the ninety-day goal yet, and nothing has told him to.
Aligned?
1 open
differences between accounts
Moving?
+18
across targets this session
Stuck?
clear
nothing hard-blocked
Solid?
good
76% document-backed
The one thing to settle first

Which of the two is he being measured on for the rest of the ninety days, and what changes in his week if the answer is judgement rather than the queue?

If you are one of the people in it, this is your report too. Same report, same moment.

An extract from a shared report, as the person running it sees it. The people in it read this same shared picture. It quotes what people said about their own work, and it never says who said what about whom.

Nobody was hiding anything.

Nobody had the whole picture.

Why leaders miss problems

Every update you get has been through someone else first.

As the company grows you stop seeing the work yourself. You rely on meetings, written updates, chat, and the managers between you and the people doing it. Each of those is someone's summary, and every summary leaves something out.

Some people dominate meetings. Some avoid conflict. Some do not feel safe challenging a decision. So the account you get is shaped by who is confident, who was in the room, and what they think you want to hear. Someone explains it brilliantly and delivers poorly. Someone else quietly does excellent work nobody records. Most people are simply trying to do a good job.

The result is not a shortage of information. It is that everyone believes they are talking about the same thing, and nobody has checked.

If you are the one being checked in on

Everyone is asked the same way, at the same time.

Your account carries the same weight whether or not you were in the room, and whether or not you got to anybody first.

Fairness here is not a value on a wall. It is how the questions get asked, and a team that trusts how it is asked argues about the work instead of about who said what.

Youyour own check-in
Themtheir own check-in
One shared picturereleased to everybody at the same moment

Your answers do not go sideways.

What you say about your own work can appear, in your own words. What you say about anybody else never does, and the report never says who said what about whom. That is why people tell the truth in it, and why the reports are worth reading.

Nobody can speak for you. Your check-in is read and synthesized by a language model, not by a person: not by us, and not by whoever brought your team here. Leaders get the report. They cannot request an individual's check-in, and there is no screen anywhere that shows one, including ours.

Start with something that matters.

Your first 10 check-ins are free, for teams of 5 or fewer. Each takes about ten minutes.