Storming shows where working styles on your team diverge, and suggests what the people involved can agree on.
Everyone on the team answers a questionnaire from personality research and a shorter one on team culture. Storming compares the answers using published rules. Anna and Marc might then learn that they mean different things by “done”, along with a suggestion for what to agree on.
Built for teams of five to fifteen. The longest questionnaire takes about twenty minutes, and afterwards the people involved talk the result through and write down what they want to change.
Storming is in development. The beta starts later in 2026, beginning with teams from the waitlist.
An example from the pair view
A pair analysis describes a situation both people know from daily work and suggests an agreement for it, with the scores it is based on listed underneath. Anna and Marc read it together and then decide whether to adopt the suggestion as it stands or agree on something of their own.
- In daily work
- Marc considers a task done when it works; Anna, once it is documented and checked. Both have had to rework things the other thought were finished.
- Based on
- Orderliness Δ 34 points · intervals do not overlap
- Suggestion
- Before work starts, write down what “done” means for each artefact: ticket, migration, runbook.
What Storming does
Pairs
Friction between two people
Eight published rules compare two people’s profiles and how each of them sees the team’s culture. The two get at most three observations, each with an everyday situation and a suggested agreement.
Culture
How the team sees its culture
Everyone answers statements on eight topics, such as decision speed or how conflict is handled, twice over: as things are today and as they should be. Alongside the median, the map shows how far apart the answers are. Where they spread widely, the team usually has something worth talking about.
Delegation
Who can handle what on their own
For each area of responsibility, you and the person concerned rate competence and commitment together. That produces a suggestion for how closely to guide and how much to hand over. If you decide otherwise, the suggestion stays visible next to your choice.
Development
Goals you can observe
A development goal describes a behaviour in four rungs, for example how someone records decisions. Each person has at most two active goals at a time, and moving up a rung takes dated examples. A personality score is never the goal itself.
Who gets what out of it
Lead
Less mediating
Two people who keep clashing get a concrete starting point from the pair view and a suggestion to discuss with each other. You no longer have to settle every bit of friction yourself.
Lead
Delegate more deliberately
For each area of responsibility you see where someone can work independently and where you should still stay close. That makes one-to-ones more concrete.
HR
A tool you can stand behind
Storming gives no scores and builds no rankings. How data is protected is described publicly on the Trust page, and you receive the data processing agreement and the technical measures before you start.
Why people answer candidly
Each person sees their own profile and decides what to share, and with whom. That makes it easier to answer the way things really are day to day, and every analysis depends on it.
Only differences the data supports
Every questionnaire score carries some measurement error. When two people are close enough that their ranges overlap, Storming shows no difference. That way nobody builds an explanation around a gap that isn’t there. The rule sits in the scoring itself, so it applies to every view.
There is a worked example on the method page.
Where the instruments come from
The personality questionnaires come from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP), a public-domain collection researchers have worked with for about thirty years. There are no per-person licence fees, and you need neither a certification nor an outside consultant to understand the results. We wrote the team culture and team climate questionnaires ourselves; the method page says what still has to be validated.