Use cases
Where Groundwork earns its place.
The shape is the same every time. Each person gives their own account, independently. Groundwork shows where they match, where they differ, and what to do about it. Here is what that looks like across the moments it helps most.
Starting something
Get what is outstanding, what is fragile, and who relies on the role written down while the person leaving is still here.
Get you and a new hire meaning the same thing by "doing well", before anything drifts.
Line everyone up on goals, roles, and what "done" means before the work starts.
Agree what they own, who they report to, and what success looks like in the first 90 days. Each check-in then tests what they are doing against what you handed over.
Someone new is sharing the work or taking it over. Each of you says what you expect before those assumptions harden.
Pin down what they will actually contribute, and on what terms, so "available" does not stand in for contributing.
Several people starting the same role at once. Each answers on their own, so you see who is on track and who is stuck.
Setting the target
A team agreeing on what matters most this period, each person's own view, not just the room's consensus, so effort doesn't spread in different directions.
A group making a real choice, each person's honest read before you commit.
Each person builds their own plan and budget, and you see whether it holds up against what is actually available.
Each leader gives their own read before the room debates it, so quiet disagreement shows up now and not after the decision.
A read on live work
A short, repeatable read from each person on what is moving, what is stuck, and what has changed since last time.
Field officers, branch managers, franchisees. Each answers on their own, so you see the pattern rather than the loudest voice.
One honest read from everyone, once. No setup and no target: about five minutes each on what is going well, what is stuck and what has changed.
A decision about one person
The person builds the evidence behind the ask and the decision maker reads the same record, so both start from the same picture.
Both sides give an honest account of how the term actually went and what a fair next one looks like.
Something is off
Deadlines or expectations are slipping. Both of you give your honest account of what's happening, so the conversation starts from the same facts, not one side's version.
What was agreed and what exists no longer match. Get each person's honest read before the group talks.
From working off different priorities to a real rift between partners. Each of you gives your honest read first, so you start from the same picture instead of resentment, and close the gap before it grows.
Something jarring just happened. Get everyone's honest read of where things stand before anyone decides anything.
Whichever one you start, the shape is the same. Everyone gives their own account, privately. Nobody is scored, ranked or watched, and no one sees anyone else's raw answers.