Group report · 7 profiles · 11 July 2026Meridian Project Team
Team centre of gravity: Influence
This group runs on energy, optimism and relationships. It will sell the vision brilliantly — check who is guarding the plan, the calendar and the fine print.
Dominance53group average · 2 primary
Influence58group average · 2 primary
Steadiness50group average · 3 primary
Conscientiousness40group average · 0 primary
The three graphs — team averages
One team, three views. Where the team's graphs differ from each other, that difference is a culture signal, not a rounding error.
Graph I — Adapted (team average)
How this team consciously behaves in its current environment — the working face it shows.
Graph II — Instinctive (team average)
What the team falls back on under pressure, when the working face becomes expensive to hold.
Graph III — Mirror (team average)
The team's settled self-picture. The centre of gravity and coverage gaps are read here.
Reading the team's graphs
What the three pictures say when you put them side by side.
The team performs urgency it does not feel
Adapted Dominance is 60; Mirror Dominance is 53. As a group, these seven people push harder and faster at work than their settled selves prefer. A small gap like this is normal in project teams — but it is also the classic early signature of burnout. Watch the deadlines: how many of them are real, and how many are performed?
There is more steadiness available than the team uses
Instinctive Steadiness is 52, but Adapted is only 45. Under pressure, this team naturally has more patience and follow-through than its daily working style shows. The steadiness is in the room — in Kumar, Grace and Farah — but the team's pace culture suppresses it. That is free capacity, currently wasted.
Conscientiousness is low in all three graphs
38 to 42, everywhere, with no member carrying it as a primary style. This means quality in this team currently depends on individual heroics, not on the system. Nothing is wrong yet. Something will be — most likely in the handover details, the fine print, or the thing everyone assumed someone else had checked.
Team composition
Where each member sits, and how the styles distribute.
Member
Blend
D
I
S
C
Hafiz Omar
The Driver · D
83
47
27
43
Sofia Lim
The Pioneer · DI
77
63
30
30
Jason Ng
The Energiser · I
43
80
40
37
Aina Rashid
The Campaigner · ID
60
77
30
33
Kumar Selva
The Anchor · S
30
43
77
50
Grace Wong
The Harmoniser · SI
27
60
73
40
Farah Aziz
The Steady Hand · SD
53
33
70
44
Scores shown are Mirror-graph values. No member carries Conscientiousness as a primary or secondary style — the team's only structural gap.
Optimise — what this mix does brilliantly
Route the right work toward this team, on purpose.
Launch energy. New initiatives, pilots, campaigns and anything that needs early momentum and internal selling. With four fast-paced members and a strong I centre, this team makes new things feel inevitable.
Selling change inside the company. Jason and Aina can carry a story across departments; Hafiz and Sofia give it a deadline. Use this team to front any change programme that other teams resist.
Fast recovery. When something fails, this team's optimism resets quickly. Give it the projects where the first version is allowed to be wrong.
A steady spine, if you name it. Kumar, Grace and Farah are the follow-through this team already owns. Give them explicit guardian roles — promises made, promises tracked — and the team's biggest complaint from other departments will disappear.
Improve — the risks in this mix
Each risk with a concrete, small mitigation the team can start this month.
Quality without a C anchor. No member holds the evidence-and-detail role by nature, so it belongs to nobody. Mitigation: create a rotating “evidence voice” — one member per meeting whose job is to ask “what do we actually know?” — and build the pre-delivery checklist this team does not have.
Performed urgency becomes burnout. The Adapted-vs-Mirror gap in Dominance says the pace is partly theatre. Mitigation: kill fake deadlines. For every date, someone asks: “what is the real date, and what happens if we miss it?” Write both answers down.
Under-used steadiness. The Instinctive graph shows patience the daily culture suppresses. Mitigation: in planning meetings, the three S-members speak before the four fast-paced members. Order of speaking is culture — change the order, change the culture.
Optimism as a blind spot. A team this positive under-weights bad news. Mitigation: a monthly ten-minute review: “What did we ship that we are not proud of?” Keep it blameless and short — and never skip it in a good month.
Coaching this team
For the team lead and the facilitator: how to run this specific group.
Facilitator's page
Meeting design, pairings and one team ritual
Meeting design for this mix
Agenda sent one day before — it protects Farah and Kumar, and it costs the fast members nothing
Thirty seconds of silence before any big decision — the S-members think before speaking; give the thought time to arrive
Steadiness speaks first, Dominance speaks last — reverse of what happens naturally
Every meeting ends with owners and dates read aloud — this team's energy writes cheques its follow-through must cash
Pairings that train the team
Hafiz + Kumar on the next project kickoff: speed learns patience, patience learns urgency — contract openly for how they will disagree
Sofia + Grace on client handling: the pioneer opens, the harmoniser keeps; both watch how the other reads a room
Jason + Farah on the monthly review: energy presents the wins, steadiness presents the slips
One team ritual to install
Monthly, ten minutes: “What have we been misreading about each other?” One answer per person. This team talks constantly and confesses rarely — the ritual converts the talking into trust.
The one debrief question that matters most
Point at the gap between the team's Adapted Dominance (60) and its Mirror (53) and ask the room: “Which of our deadlines are real — and who is tired from the ones that are not?” Let the silence after it do the work.
Report validity
How to read a group view responsibly.
Seven profiles, all completed with high confidence (88–96)
All paired questions answered consistently
Group views combine self-reported profiles and show patterns for discussion — they are not exact comparisons between individuals. Team averages can hide individuals; always read this report next to the seven personal reports, never instead of them.