Common Ground.
You can't navigate from different maps.

Most teams begin with a Top Team Review. It gives an honest outside view of where the team is, what is working and where it may be stuck, and that picture shows what the next stage of work needs. The leader usually works through Driven, the first Land Well module, before the team work begins, because the team work rests on it. If you're unsure, start the conversation and we'll work it out together.

Yes. The Top Team Review stands on its own. What it finds is the starting point for deciding what comes next.

The full diagnostics take around 20 minutes each. In a Top Team Review, we also hold a one-to-one discussion with each member and observe one of the team's regular meetings. Later stages add pre-reading and short videos, a strategy away day, and a quarterly half-day session, scheduled around existing commitments.

That's the right question to ask, and the honest answer is: it depends on why it didn't land. If the previous work was disconnected from the real strategic context, or relied on exercises rather than the team's actual challenges, Common Ground is built differently. The diagnostics surface what the team is genuinely dealing with before any facilitation begins. The team, in its own right, is the client; not a collection of individuals who happen to be in the same room. If you want to talk through what happened previously, that's a useful conversation to have before committing to anything here.

If the real issue is one person's behaviour and its effect on the team dynamic, that's not a team coaching problem; it's a leadership one. The right starting point is individual coaching with the leader (Land Well exists for exactly that). Common Ground works when the leader is genuinely open to the collective dynamic being part of the picture, and when the work required is something none of them can deliver by operating as individuals. If the leader believes the problem is everyone else, the diagnostic will surface that; the programme can't do the work for them.

Some scepticism is normal and doesn't prevent the work. What matters is whether the team leader is genuinely committed and whether the resistant members are willing to engage, even if unconvinced at the start. The diagnostics often do useful work here: seeing a shared picture of the conditions tends to open conversations that individual opinions can't. If you're concerned about a specific dynamic, it's worth raising in the introductory call.

Over 20 years I've worked with leadership teams across financial services, construction, pharma, mutuals, hospitality and more. There's a reasonable chance I've worked with a team navigating something close to your situation, and where that experience is relevant, I'll bring it. At the same time, Common Ground isn't off-the-shelf advice, and it isn't a solution that worked somewhere else being shoehorned into your context. Everything is grounded in your diagnostic data and worked through with your team. The picture we're working from is yours; the insight that shifts things comes from within the room.

When a leadership team is operating from different maps at the moment a strategy needs collective delivery, the cost shows up quickly: stalled decisions, failed execution, exhausted leaders, initiatives that generate cynicism rather than momentum. Against that, the programme fee is modest. What you're investing in is professional team coaching with a structured diagnostic framework, grounded in your specific data and worked through with your team. Not a workshop, not an away-day, not advice that worked somewhere else. The question worth asking isn't whether the fee is significant; it's what the current misalignment is already costing you, and what a failed transition would cost on top.

The OrgBarometer is re-run as part of the ongoing work, at least six months after the baseline and then once a year. It gives a direct comparison to the starting point, which is useful evidence where you need to demonstrate progress to a board or sponsor.

The real measure tends to be more visible than that. You notice it in the conversations the team starts having: the ones that weren't happening before, the ones that used to stay polite or stall. You see it in decisions that get made and stick, in frustrations that had been running for months suddenly breaking through, in the leader's impact landing differently. When the work is doing what it should, the team isn't waiting for the next session to move; they're moving between them. We'll agree at the start what that looks like in your specific context, so the measure is yours, not a generic one.

A clear shared picture of where the team started and where it has moved to, and a shared language for continuing the work without external facilitation. The intention is to build capacity that stays in the room, not dependency on the programme.

AI is a tool I use, for example in preparing materials and exploring themes. Nothing from client sessions is ever entered into AI in a way that could identify anyone. I always edit and complete the work myself.

The diagnostics were developed from my own experience and skills, with AI used as a support tool only, and your diagnostic report is produced without AI. I hold a Professional Diploma in AI for Business from UCD Professional Academy, which informs the coaching I do with leaders working with AI.