What’s really going on in your team?
Get a clear picture of how your team and you work together!
Buy a team code
(valid for 12 responses)
Fill it out & share it
with your team
Get results after 7 days (or sooner)
WHY MANAGERS LOVE IT
Takes less than 10 minutes
No logins, no passwords, no hassle
Honest insights without blame
Results are private unless you choose to share
Works in English and Vietnamese
Helps teams talk about what really matters
One code = full team view
Costs less than a round of bubble tea
Why teams love it
A CHANCE TO SPEAK UP—SAFELY
EVERYONE’S VOICE COUNTS, NOT JUST THE LOUDEST
IT’S QUICK, ANONYMOUS, AND IN YOUR LANGUAGE
YOU CAN INFLUENCE THE WAY YOUR TEAM WORKS
NOBODY GETS BLAMED—JUST BETTER UNDERSTANDING
What is the No-Nonsense Team Scan (in a nutshell)?
Through the No-Nonsense Team Scan you get a chance to have deeper conversations with your team to reflect on the team’s functioning.
The Team Scan provides a visual representation of how the team and the manager feel about the eight factors of being a high-performing team. You then use this chart as a conversation starter with the goal of reaching better team agreements and a stronger and higher performing team.
The Process
Once you submit your email address during payment, you will receive an email with a link to the questionnaire (also check your Spam folder!) This link is only for you and your team. You fill in the questionnaire and forward the email to your team, and ask them to fill it in. When enough team members have filled in the questionnaire, after 7 days, a results-email is sent to you, with a link to the results page. There you can see the chart with the team results.
The fine print
7 days after the first submission, the questionnaire will be blocked. The results will still be visible for at least a year. Only when at least 3 team members and 1 manager answer the questionnaire, the results become visible.
The maximum number of team members is 11 (one football team)
How to read the results
The big spider web shows the eight factors that identify a high performing team. In the spider web you see two partly overlapping fields that represent the manager’s score (purple) and the average of the team’s score (green). Some of the eight factors are highlighted by a bold text and a colorful circle around it. On the left hand you see the button to switch the language and an explanation of the colorful circles.
The colorful circles
A red circle means that the team and the manager gave relatively lower scores to the statements within that factor. A yellow circle means that there was (relatively) a lot of diversity in the scores that everyone gave on the statements within that factor. For example, some people gave a 1, while others gave a 4 to the same statement! A blue circle means there was a relatively large gap between what the average of the team scored on the statements and what the manager scored on the same statements.
Clicking on the category names, will reveal more detail about the statements with their respective scores.
The 8 factors
How to have the conversation with the team
What to keep in mind in general
This might be the first time you are doing such a meeting with the team, so make sure you create a light atmosphere, maybe put some (healthy!) snacks on the table, some music in the background when they come in. Make sure they understand what the goal is. These are examples of wrong goals:
- We need to have higher scores for all the factors. (That is very easy to solve by the team members: just fill in higher scores in the questionnaire and they’re done!)
- Manager and team need to be aligned in their scores. (This defeats the purpose of the scan, and it will make the team fill in the next survey with the answer they think you want to hear.)
Good goals are more centered around:
- “Having a deeper conversation”
- “Reflecting on our team”
- “Looking at where and how we can improve as a team, to become even better”.
Difference between
manager - team
This is the most sensitive area for you as a facilitator. In cultures with a high sense of hierarchy nobody is going to say openly they disagree with the manager’s score. So, it’s super important to show some humility here as a manager. If the average of the team feels something different than you, the team is probably correct.
If the manager’s score is lower than the team’s:
- ask the team for examples of where they have seen the behaviours from that factor and how they have interpreted the statements. Do this in the spirit of curiosity, not to prove them wrong.
- Share how you interpreted the same statements, using very concrete examples.
- Find agreement on what “excellent” looks like on this factor and then move on
If the manager’s score is higher than the team’s:
- Be even more careful to not “prove them wrong” (otherwise they will just score higher next time to avoid the confrontation).
- Let them do a silent brainstorm on post-its, collect issues, group them, and let them create actionable steps.
High variability
If there is a high variability, between the scores, it might be a difference in interpretation of the statements. So, check that first. If it’s not a different interpretation, then look for concrete examples by various team members (high and low).
Emphasize it’s not a competition on who is right, but learning about different perceptions within the team, which is good for the team! Pick some of the examples that were given that more people recognized (nodding heads) and see if you can find solutions as a team for these situations.
If they are examples of non-effective team behaviours, look for solutions. If they are examples of highly effective team behaviours, look for ways to show more of this.
Low scores overall
It is important that you don’t show any disappointment here. In fact, you should be happy that the team cares so much to give lower scores, to give an opportunity for improvement of the team! Take only one factor and dig deeper with the team.
Find out how they interpreted these statements, and ask for concrete examples. Let the group summarize the issue. If the issue is too large, split it into sub-issues. Brainstorm solutions.
Put them all on the wall, group them and let them come up with actionable steps that are owned by team members and that could lead to an improvement in the team.
Again, don’t show any disappointment about the low scores, and also make sure you tell people that you want them to be brutally honest when filling in the statements another time.
Good coaching questions
How have you interpreted this particular statement?
How can we combine more than one solution into one strong solution?
What concrete examples do you have in relation to this statement? Any other ones?
What do we need to put these solutions in place?
What do you (the others) think about these examples?
What are possible blockers to put this solution in place?
What trend/pattern do you see in these examples?
What can we do to deal with these blockers?
What are possible solutions? (silent brainstorm)
When do you think we can start implementing this idea? What is reasonable?
How can we show more of this positive behaviour? (silent brainstorm)
Who wants to own this idea?
Scientific backing for the factors
Common Purpose & Commitment
Common Purpose & Commitment
How it contributes:
Teams that share a strong common purpose and are committed to it have higher levels of cohesion, motivation, and alignment toward goals — key markers of high performance.
Scientific reference:
Katzenbach & Smith (1993) in The Wisdom of Teams emphasized that a common purpose is the foundational element for team performance.
Salas, Sims, & Burke (2005) confirmed through meta-analysis that a clear, compelling team goal is one of the “Big Five” essentials of effective teamwork.
Accountability & Ownership
Accountability & Ownership
How it contributes:
High-performing teams create a culture where individuals feel personally responsible for outcomes — not just for their own tasks but for the success of the team as a whole.
Scientific reference:
Hackman (2002) found that individual and mutual accountability is a hallmark of effective teams, and that when members take ownership, team performance improves.
Frink & Klimoski (2004) empirically linked accountability mechanisms to better team functioning and goal achievement, especially when clear expectations are set.
The Right Mix
The Right Mix
How it contributes:
Teams with the right mix of skills, personalities, experiences, and cognitive diversity are more capable of solving complex problems, innovating, and adapting to change.
Scientific reference:
Bell (2007) conducted a meta-analysis showing that team composition — particularly diversity in personality traits, abilities, and expertise — is strongly associated with team effectiveness.
Horwitz & Horwitz (2007) found that task-related diversity (skills, education, expertise) enhances team performance by providing a broader pool of knowledge and perspectives.
Trust & Mutual Respect
Trust & Mutual Respect
How it contributes:
Trust and mutual respect allow team members to share ideas, admit mistakes, give feedback, and collaborate without fear — critical conditions for psychological safety and innovation.
Scientific reference:
Edmondson (1999) introduced the concept of psychological safety, showing that trust among team members strongly predicts learning behavior and team performance.
Costa (2003) also empirically demonstrated that team trust improves cooperation and overall team effectiveness in knowledge-intensive environments.
Shared & Well-working Processes
Shared & Well-working Processes
How it contributes:
When teams have clear, agreed-upon workflows and routines, they reduce ambiguity, coordinate more efficiently, and free up cognitive resources for higher-level problem solving and innovation.
Scientific reference:
Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson (2008), in their extensive team effectiveness review, emphasized that team structure and process clarity are critical predictors of team success.
Marks et al. (2001) specifically highlighted that transition processes (planning) and action processes (task coordination) are essential for sustained team performance.
Relationship with Other Teams & the Company
Relationship with Other Teams & the Company
How it contributes:
Teams do not operate in isolation — strong relationships with other teams and alignment with broader organizational goals improve resource sharing, reduce intergroup conflict, and foster collaboration, all enhancing performance.
Scientific reference:
Ancona & Caldwell (1992) found that external activities (e.g., boundary spanning, representing the team to outsiders) are critical for high-performing teams, especially in complex environments.
Burke, Stagl, Salas, Pierce, & Kendall (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of team adaptation and effectiveness. They found that teams are more effective when they are aware of and responsive to their external environment, including other teams and organizational structures. They emphasize contextual awareness as a key meta-competency for high-performing teams.
Communication
Communication
How it contributes:
Effective communication enables the clear exchange of information, coordination of actions, conflict resolution, and maintenance of shared mental models — all crucial for team performance.
Scientific reference:
Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro (2001) identified communication as a key “regulatory process” that enhances team adaptation and effectiveness.
Salas et al. (2015) confirmed that information exchange and communication are foundational to team coordination and success across multiple industries.
Continuous Learning & Improving
Continuous Learning & Improving
How it contributes:
High-performing teams regularly reflect on their performance, learn from mistakes, and adapt — these learning behaviors are crucial for maintaining effectiveness in changing environments.
Scientific reference:
Senge (1990), in The Fifth Discipline, introduced the concept of a learning organization, emphasizing that teams that continuously reflect and adapt outperform stagnant ones.
Decuyper, Dochy, & Van den Bossche (2010) proposed a detailed model showing that team learning behaviors (e.g., co-construction, constructive conflict, reflection) directly drive team performance.
English 
Vietnamese