See your team before it sees itself.
TeamFirst makes working life better for your people. We find what is getting in their way, tell you how to clear it, and make sure the ones doing well find out that they are. A team with nothing in its way does better work. The client feels it, and so does the bottom line.
Conflict, Stress, Misalignment and Resignations are the most expensive things on your payroll.
Not the salary. The hours your people lose to a problem nobody has named yet, the work they redo because of it, and the people on the receiving end who feel it before you do.
It is the same problem the whole way along. It only ever gets bigger.
An irritation
Something is said. Someone is out of their depth and nobody says so. Two people start working around each other instead of with each other.
A quality problem
The work slows and gets worse. Rework goes up. Nobody connects it to the thing that started it, because nobody has named the thing that started it.
A team problem
Now it is visible to everyone on the team, and to whoever the team delivers to. You find out around here. The two people at the centre of it still have not called it a conflict, even to themselves.
A resignation
Somebody leaves. Others start looking, because they watched the whole thing happen and nothing was done about it.
Four prices for one problem, and the only variable is when somebody noticed. We read it between day zero and week two, while it is still the cheapest thing on that row.
The recruitment budget is the cost you can see.
The person who resigns is almost always gone before their replacement arrives. The process they knew, the history with the people they dealt with, the reason something was built the way it was built, the workaround that is not written down anywhere. All of it leaves with them.
The new hire starts from nothing, with no handover from the only person who could have given one, and takes months to reach the output you were already paying for. You carry the salary, the recruiter, the empty seat and the ramp, and none of it appears on the invoice for any of it.
How common it actually is
- 85% deal with conflict at work
- 29% deal with it near constantly
- 25% resign because of it
And what one of them costs to replace
- 6 months of salary for a junior
- 18 months for someone mid-level
- 48 months for a specialist
Prevalence: CPP Global Human Capital Report. Replacement cost: modelled on recruiter fees, the vacant seat and time to full productivity, by seniority.
Two teams. The same bad week.
Two people fall out in cycle one. Nobody announces it, because at this point neither of them would call it a falling out. What happens next is the entire argument for doing this at all.
The dip bottoms out five cycles in. Attention arrives after that. By the time the two of them are back on their feet it is cycle nine, and team sentiment never returns to where it started.
Same event, same two people. The signal fires in cycle two, while they are still going down. Back above expectation by cycle five, and the rest of the team barely registers it.
Deal with it now, or deal with it later when it costs more and takes the rest of the team down with it.
Intervening early is the whole saving.
None of this is about catching people out. It is about reaching the thing while it still costs a conversation, because every week it waits it costs more money and more goodwill than the week before.
Money
Half an hour of somebody's time at week one, against six to forty-eight months of salary at week ten, plus the recruiter, the empty seat and the ramp.
Delivery
The work never gets to the stage where it slows, gets redone, and quietly costs the team its reputation with whoever it delivers to.
Frustration
Nobody spends two months working around something that has no name. The people watching it happen do not start looking for somewhere else to work.
Early is cheap. Late is expensive, and by then it is no longer one person's problem.
More than sixty signals, on every person.
No single rating tells you anything. More than sixty of them, weighted and cross-referenced by our own algorithms, tell you what is actually happening with each person in a team.
How team members are doing
Everyone rates everyone, including themselves, against your values. Notes against a score. What went well and what did not. Deliberately subjective, because how people experience each other is the one thing no system in your company records.
What the team delivers
Your own KPIs, tracked over time against the team rather than any individual. Not our metrics and not a benchmark. Whatever your organisation already uses to decide whether the work is going well.
What team managers see
The read from whoever is responsible for the team, and a single click from whoever is on the receiving end of its work. That is usually where friction shows up first, and it is usually the last place anyone thinks to look.
A team hitting its numbers with a conflict underneath is a completely different problem from a team missing them because two people cannot work together. Telling those two apart, for every person, is what the sixty signals are for.
One team, every person read against every condition at once.
All of it from what your people, your teams and the people they serve deliberately put in. Never from your email, your chat, your calendar or your screen.
Two things come back, and only one of them is about trouble.
A platform that only ever finds fault is one people learn to game. This one has to be worth taking part in.
Clear what is in the way
Find the thing that is costing somebody their best work, name it specifically, and say what to do about it while it is still small.
- Two people quietly marking each other down, before either has said a word
- Somebody carrying more than they can hold
- A person whose read of themselves has drifted from their team's, and in which direction
- An experience gap reading as a personality clash, where the answer is mentoring rather than mediation
Tell people they are valued
The half nobody else bothers with. People doing well find out that they are, in their team's own words, and nobody has to remember to tell them.
- The strengths their team credits them with that they do not credit themselves
- What their colleagues actually appreciate, with no name ever attached
- How to work well with somebody they find difficult
- A way to ask for help that does not mean booking time with their manager
The second loop is why the first one keeps working. People who get something back keep telling the truth, and the truth is what the whole thing runs on.
And then we tell you what to do about it.
Not a score for you to interpret. The same situation, handed to two different people, comes back as two different recommendations, because the two of them do not handle things the same way.
Shaped by the personalities involved and written for the person who has to act on it. A CFO and a CHRO looking at the same team are not given the same paragraph.
Your whole organisation. One screen.
Your real reporting structure, every person in it, showing their strength and their risk at the same time.
-
RDR. DelaneyChief Operating Officer
-
DMD. MahoneyEngineering LeadStress
- LFL. FischerAnalyst
-
MBM. BoydPrincipal EngineerRiskTop
-
CMC. MellorDelivery ManagerContent
- JPJ. PryceEngineerConflict
- AQA. QuintEngineerConflict
-
Colour does the work, and so does position. A delivery manager reporting content with two people in conflict underneath him is exactly what a team average hides. Click any person for the full picture, how they have moved, and the conversation to have. Anyone with broken reporting data surfaces here too, rather than quietly dropping out.
Your best person can be your biggest risk.
Performance and risk are separate axes. A single team score hides exactly the person you most need to see.
Excellence signals firing. Delivery depends on them.
Stress and conflict rising. Self-rating declining. Quietly on the way out.
Same person. Both bands lit.
Red on top with gold underneath is not a contradiction. It is the most useful thing a leader can be shown, and it is the person a team average would have told you was fine.
Named conditions, not a mood score.
Each one is a specific condition with a threshold, a direction and a meaning. We do not stop at raising it. We tell you what is behind it and what to do next.
Personal conflict with other people. Two colleagues quietly marking each other down long before either of them says anything out loud.
Personal stress levels. The person carrying more than they can hold, who has not told anybody yet.
The team sees this person differently to how they see themselves, and the platform knows which way round. Rating yourself above your team's read is a blind spot and a conversation. Rating yourself below it usually means a quiet high performer nobody has told what they are worth.
Risk fires on any of the three.Doing well against the team's own goals and in how colleagues rate each other. Worth knowing so it can be repeated, not just rewarded.
How people are actually feeling. The state to protect rather than the one to chase.
Somebody has written something about this person. Open them up and read it in their own words.
Star is the combination of excellence and contentment.Every conversation has a record behind it.
How each person rated themselves, how their team rated them, and the gap, for every cycle they have been part of. Decisions become tracked actions that only close with a written reason.
Around sixty separate signals run the moment a review closes. A survey tells you how a team feels. This tells you who, why, and what to do about it.
| Team | Date | Self | Peer | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Northwind | 13 Aug 2026 | 4.0 | 3.2 | +0.8 |
| Northwind | 16 Jul 2026 | 4.0 | 3.0 | +1.0 |
| Northwind | 19 Jun 2026 | 4.0 | 2.8 | +1.2 |
| Northwind | 22 May 2026 | 4.0 | 2.5 | +1.5 |
Gap is self minus peer. Positive means the person rates themselves higher than their team does.
Not an HR tool. Not a project tool. Not another survey.
TeamFirst is the layer in the gap between HR and the project office, the part none of them covers.
They hold the records.
Leave, comp, reviews, engagement surveys. They do not see how a team is really functioning, or who is about to leave.
They hold the plan.
Tasks, timelines, who is allocated to what. They do not tell you whether those people will actually work well together.
They hold the mood.
Periodic surveys, reported as themes at team level. We read every cycle, person by person and pair by pair.
We configure your questions, values and team KPIs with you. The same reading works for a call centre, a clinical team, an agency, a sales floor, even a sports team.
Built for a company that has to answer for it.
Your security review will ask these questions. Here are the answers.
Single sign-on
Your people sign in with the identity provider you already run. No separate password to issue, rotate or forget to revoke when somebody leaves.
Role-based access
Permissions follow your organisation structure. People see what their role allows and nothing past it, including the administrators.
What a manager sees, and never sees
A manager sees named conditions and the evidence behind them. They never see an individual rating, or who gave it. Nothing surfaces at all until at least three people have contributed, and that floor is enforced where the data lives rather than by a setting somebody could quietly change.
We read nothing you did not enter
No email. No chat. No calendars. No screen time. There is no integration to misconfigure, because there is nothing to connect.
POPIA and GDPR
Your data stays in your own tenant, is never reused to train or improve anything outside it, and is exported or deleted on request. Hosting region, retention periods and our processor agreement are set out in full on the trust page.
Export and leave
Full data export whenever you ask for it. Nothing is held hostage and nothing about this platform is designed to make leaving hard.
Your people get more out of this than you do.
That is deliberate, and it is why they keep taking part. Before you buy anything, look at the half of the product that belongs to them. It is the fastest way to settle the question of whether this is a tracking tool.
This part is actually yours.
Everyone talks about what tools like this give the manager. Here is what you get, on a page nobody else can open.
You find out what people value about you
Most people never hear it. Here it is written down, with no name attached to any of it.
You find out what you are underrating
Nearly everyone marks themselves down on something their team thinks they are good at. Worth knowing before you turn down the next thing.
You get one suggestion, and you can bin it
One thing worth trying, based on your own scores. Hide it and your lead is never told you did.
You can see whether you are improving
Your own trend over time, in your own words, not a rating handed down once a year.
The discouraging version does not exist.
Not as a promise. As a property of how the thing is built. Six examples.
The scores you see are capped at your own self-rating. It can say your team sees you at least as highly as you see yourself. It cannot say the opposite.
It only shows where your team rated you higher than you rated yourself. That direction is fixed in the platform, not a setting somebody could turn around.
And that floor is enforced by the platform, not asked for by your browser, so it cannot be talked down from outside.
What you read about yourself has no access to conflict, stress or risk data, and no other person's name. It is not filtered out. It is not there.
The panel quoting what colleagues said never retrieves who said it. There is no identity to leak, because it is never fetched.
The read of your own profile deliberately ignores your title, your seniority and who you report to. Sometimes the manager is the problem.
Know how to work with anyone, by Friday.
Look up anyone you share a team with and get a straight read on how the two of you work together. Not a label for them. What to actually do.
New joiners normally spend a quarter working out who responds to what. This hands you the map immediately, and it works the same if you move teams.
What they bring, where you fit well, how to get the best out of working together, and what they may need from you. Swap the two people and it is a different piece of writing.
A bigger shape is not a better shape, and the product says so on the screen. No scale here has a good end or a bad end, for either of you.
Search the person and read it in a minute. Nobody has to book a session, hire a facilitator or sit through an offsite.
Nobody sees your scores. And it leaves you alone.
You should know exactly what happens to everything you type. So here it is.
Your ratings are anonymous
The numbers you give, about yourself and about other people, are seen by no one. Not your manager, not HR. That is exactly why people answer honestly.
Your written feedback is not
What you type in words does go to managers, and you are told that before you write it. No surprises in either direction.
We read nothing you did not type
No email. No chat. No calendars. No screen time. Only what you deliberately enter.
We do not pester you
Notifications start switched off. A check-in can be answered with "I am fine" and nothing goes anywhere. Asking for help is a separate, deliberate button.
Wondering what your manager sees?
Less than you probably think, and you are entitled to know exactly what. The other half of this site is written for whoever runs the people side, and nothing on it is hidden from you.
Take the weight off your people and the work looks after itself.
The friction nobody raised. The conflict nobody named. The weight somebody is quietly carrying. A distracted person writes worse code, misses more, and takes it into the next meeting with whoever depends on them. Take the distraction away and the quality comes back on its own. That is the whole idea.
We point at a situation, not a culprit
Every signal describes something to fix between people. What a manager gets is a conversation to have, not a case to build.
People are allowed to find work hard
Nobody is told they should not feel how they feel. This gives it somewhere to go while it is still fixable, instead of waiting for it to arrive as a resignation.
Found early, almost everything is small
Most conflict starts with something said without any intention to offend. Caught in week two it is one conversation. Caught in week ten it is a recruitment budget.
If what you want is a tool to catch your people out, there are plenty of those. This is not one of them.
We will tell you which of these is actually science.
Eleven frameworks supported. One is built in, takes about ten minutes and costs nothing extra. Each is labelled with what it is founded on.
Built on a personality model that has been published and reviewed by other researchers.
- Big Five · built into TeamFirst
- HEXACO
- Hogan
- SHL OPQ32
Popular and well known, but not built on peer-reviewed psychometric research.
- Caliper
- CliftonStrengths
- Predictive Index
- DISC
Based only on what the person says about themselves, with no independent check of the model behind it.
- Myers-Briggs
- 16 Personalities
- Enneagram
Bring the instrument you already pay for, or use the one built in.
Put one of your teams first and see what comes back.
Half an hour, on a real team of yours. If it does not show you something you did not already know, there is nothing more to talk about.
Get a demo