Shared strength · Clarity
Both people report that priorities are usually clear and that decisions are confirmed.
4.2 / 5
4.0 / 5
Keep doing: confirm owners and next steps at the end of priority-setting conversations.
Paired reflection · developmental use only
Understand the work
between you.
A private check-in for an employee and manager to compare how they experience their working relationship, recognize what is going well, and choose one useful conversation to have next.
Useful feedback. A clearer conversation.
Each person gets individual Big Five work-style feedback and compares it with the other person's profile after both consent. Both also answer 28 questions about recent work, so the pair can see specific shared strengths and differences and agree what to try next.
01 · Answer separatelyIPIP-NEO-60 plus 28 recent-work questions, about 15–20 minutes.
02 · Understand the feedbackRead your personal trait narratives and compare your views of work.
03 · Agree a next stepChoose one practical action, owner, and review date together.
Two kinds of insight
Work style and work experience
The IPIP-NEO-60 gives each person Big Five self-reflection feedback. Separate questions identify how the pair experiences clarity, communication, trust, feedback, disagreement, workload, and growth. Neither diagnoses conflict or rates job performance.
The relationship questions are unvalidated prompts. This overview uses synthetic examples and does not collect or send responses.
01 · Proposed item bank
Same relationship, matched questions
Role-specific wording helps each person answer from their own perspective. The prototype below lets you preview either form. The reference period is the last four working weeks.
IDEmployee formManager form
Answer options: Strongly disagree · Disagree · Neither agree nor disagree · Agree · Strongly agree · Not enough information. The last option is excluded from averages rather than treated as a low score.
02 · Example only
A report that makes room for both
There is no overall compatibility score, ranking, percentile, or pass/fail band. The example values below are fabricated to demonstrate the report shape.
Difference to explore · Speaking up
One person reports more comfort raising concerns than the other experiences.
2.8 / 5
4.1 / 5
1.3 apartConversation prompt
“What would make it easier to raise a concern early, and how can we show that disagreement is welcome?”
Choose a topic to discuss
Pick one topic and start with curiosity. The prototype offers a prompt; the pair decides whether it fits.
Try askingWhat would make it easier to raise a concern early, and how can we show that disagreement is welcome?
Ask before explaining“What does this look like from your side?”
Choose one experimentAgree a small behavior to try for two weeks.
Set a check-in dateReview whether the change helped both people.
Management · permission required
Invite an employee and their manager
Select a customer to see its employee roster, choose an employee, then review their assigned manager from Employee Relationships. Each person receives a separate private link.
Pair outcome and KPIs
Track whether the check-in led somewhere
See the 0–100% completion KPI, invitation delivery, agreed follow-up steps, and participant-requested HR support. The relationship score and item-level insights remain in the report shared by the employee and manager.
A completed check-in is an outcome only when both people can review the shared report and decide on a useful next step.
Working pairs and outcomes
Names and positions come from Employee Master where linked. The percentage measures participation, not job performance or relationship quality.
03 · Optional human support
Give HR a clear, separate route to help
A participant can ask for a facilitated conversation. The request is separate from questionnaire answers and should share only what the requester chooses.
Support request · design preview
What HR would receive
- Requester-selected contact route and topics.
- Short note written for the support request.
- Assigned practitioner and case status.
- No automatic copy of the paired ratings or the other person's free text.
A human practitioner decides how to respond under the organization's existing process. The assessment does not classify fault or determine whether a formal investigation is needed.
Non-submitting mock-up
Prototype only: nothing is submitted or saved.
This check-in is not an emergency, harassment, discrimination, retaliation, or formal grievance reporting channel. A real deployment must display the organization's actual support routes and confidentiality terms before participation.
HR support queue · permission required
Requests participants chose to share
Use this queue to assign a follow-up status and record an internal handling note. Each request includes only what that participant chose to send; check-in answers and the other participant’s private responses are excluded.
Use the organization’s established formal complaint and urgent-safety routes for those matters. This workspace is a separate facilitation request lane, not an emergency or grievance channel.
04 · Product boundaries
Keep insight useful and safe
Any pilot should start with clear consent, low stakes, and a way for participants to decline.
Separate submissions
Neither participant sees the other's in-progress answers. Share profiles and the pair report only after both have received a clear notice and agreed to that sharing.
No employment score
Do not connect profiles or responses to hiring, performance, promotion, compensation, termination, or outcome-learning scores.
Different evidence
The IPIP-NEO-60 offers established individual self-reflection feedback. The relationship prompts are unvalidated and must not be described as a validated relationship test.