1) Make the pattern visible
Observe where it breaks: feedback, directness, timing, conflict, interpretation gaps.
CASE STUDY — GLOBAL TEAMS
Fewer misreads. Cleaner alignment.
In global teams, part of drift comes from different interpretations (conflict, directness, expectations). CQ makes the gap visible — then we encode it into operating rules.
CQConflict hygieneHybrid-ready
Outcomes (what we aim for / what we measure)
- Fewer misreads (intent vs impact).
- Issues surfaced earlier, without drama.
- Decisions accepted more easily because the process is explicit.
- More follow-through (less silent misalignment).
Signals (fill with real values)
- Alignment pulse score (monthly): ____ → ____
- Escalations raised early (count): ____ → ____
- Unplanned rework due to misalignment: ____ → ____
- Cycle predictability across time zones: ____% → ____%
CQ isn’t “team building.” It’s a clarity layer for cross-cultural patterns that impact decision + execution.
Method (at a glance)
2) Action-oriented CQ debrief
What changes concretely in behavior and communication.
3) Encode into rules
Operating agreements: decision, escalation, response expectations, timeboxes, channels.
4) Cadence + measurement
Short rituals, checkpoints, and 2–4 signals to verify impact.
Proof (editable)
“We stopped assuming bad intent. We clarified the process and expectations — and execution calmed down.”
Leader, global team (anonymized)