FromSpencer Pallone Helm · Legatis Executive Partners
ReHPT360 · the performance cycle
Date02 SEP 2026
StatusVersion 1.0 · open

Most performance problems are not people problems.

They are conditions problems. HPT360 measures the six conditions that decide whether a team performs, tracks them against your own business numbers, and closes the loop between measuring and acting.

Every finding carries its evidence. Nothing I cannot source goes in a report.


The four-minute test

Goal dispersion. It cannot be gamed and it takes four minutes.


Write your team's top three goals below. Then ask each person, separately, to write the top three from memory. Score how many of yours each one got.

Nothing you type here is sent anywhere. This page is a worksheet.

Agreement
not yet scored

Score every person to see the result. Guessing on their behalf is exactly the habit this test breaks.

Under 60% is the normal result, and it is not a memory failure. Teams with specific shared goals outperform goal-less teams by roughly one standard deviation.A About a third of employees report having the clarity they need.B


The six conditions

Scored at team level, quarterly, anonymously. Diagnosed in this order, before anything is attributed to a person.


01DirectionCan everyone recite the goals? The strongest lever in the research, and the one most often missing.A
02StructureRight size, right roles, authority stated out loud. Design controls 37–42% of performance variance. Coaching the leader controls under 10%.A
03Safety and voiceWhen did someone last disagree with you in a meeting, and what happened next?B
04Loops that closeFeedback, debriefs, roadblocks actioned. Structured monthly debriefs improve performance by 20–25%, the best-quantified intervention available.A
05Fit and capabilityMost performance problems arrive at hiring. A failed hire costs 100–300% of salary.C
06Aligned consequencesDoes the pay point where the goals point? Hybrid team-and-individual rewards beat either pure scheme.A

Each condition is scored on five levels: absent, informal, written, running, measured. Leadership is not a seventh condition. Your job is to build the six, so that is what I measure you on, not your style. I do not sell leadership-style makeovers or personality testing. The evidence is not there.


Three lenses

Different raters for different things, so no single source can bend the result.


LensWho rates itCadence
Results. Did the work win?your numbers, verifiedmonthly
Team health. Are the six present?the team, anonymouslyquarterly
Contribution. Is each role carried?self, manager, peersweekly log

The results lens is the one that makes the claim provable. A system built only on opinion cannot show it moved a business number, however many opinions it gathers.


The cycle

This is a loop you subscribe to, not an assessment you buy once.


RhythmWhat runsCost
WeeklyLog: what moved forward, what got in the way, who helped.90 sec each
WeeklyManager one-to-one.15–30 min
MonthlyStructured debrief: planned, happened, why, one change.1 meeting
QuarterlyPulse, reports, reviews, one conditions fix.half a day
AnnuallyComp and role decision on four quarters of evidence.

Each quarter runs the same seven steps: log, collect, report, prep, review, decide, coach. Then we re-measure against your baseline. Improvement is only ever claimed against your own starting numbers.

Weekly log3 questions, 90 sec
Pulse12 items, quarterly
Tabulated byme, not you
Manager reportredacted: no private manager version exists
What the owner seeswhat the team sees

There is no private manager version of the pulse. Pulse answers are never attributed to a person and never enter a review, a disciplinary process or a pay decision. The first time that promise is broken the instrument is dead, so I do not break it.


Before any individual is blamed

Printed on the inside cover of every report. Run against every finding.


1. Was the expectation written, specific and communicated?

2. Did the person have the resources, authority, training and information to meet it?

3. Do the consequences in place actually reward meeting it?

4. Is anyone else meeting it under the same conditions?

5. Only now: skill gap, fit gap, or will gap?

A finding that survives all five is an individual finding. A finding that dies at one to four is a conditions finding, and the report says so in those words.


Where we start

Four checks first. I decline engagements that fail them.


Team methods only pay off where the work is genuinely interdependent. Basketball, not bowling.C If your shop is bowling, I will tell you, and sell you something smaller.

Book the diagnostic.

Half a day on site. You get the goal-dispersion result, the written-expectations audit and a baseline you can argue with.

For Legatis02 SEP 2026 Signed by Spencer Pallone Helm for Legatis, 02 SEP 2026

Evidence grades

A meta-analysis or multi-study program. B single empirical study with real data. C structured practitioner experience, field-tested, unvalidated. Nothing ungraded appears in a report.

24 sources, each read in full and graded. The instrument itself is evidence-informed, not scientifically validated: it becomes validated against your numbers, over quarters, in your business. I would rather say that than claim otherwise.


LEGATIS EXECUTIVE PARTNERS · HPT360 v1.0 hello@legatis.ca
Legatum · Princep · Passio · Scopus