Map your team’s genius coverage

Check whether all six activities are covered by someone who finds them energizing.

Why it works

If a phase of the work — say, evaluation (Discernment) or follow-through (Tenacity) — is covered only by people for whom it is a frustration or competency, the team will consistently underperform in that phase without knowing why. Visualizing the coverage turns a vague "we always drop the ball at the end" into a solvable design problem: find a Tenacity genius or protect that person’s time for closing.

How to do it

1. Have each team member identify their two geniuses and two frustrations.
2. Plot the results on a simple grid: six activities across the top, team members down the side — mark G (genius), C (competency), F (frustration).
3. Identify any activity covered exclusively by F or C players — that gap predicts where the team reliably struggles.

Evidence

Role design and complementarity research shows that teams where work is better matched to member strengths produce more consistent output. The specific Working Genius categories are practitioner-created, but the underlying principle of coverage mapping is consistent with team composition research. (mechanistic)

The six-category grid is specific to Lencioni’s framework and not independently validated. Coverage mapping is useful as a diagnostic conversation, not a predictive formula.

Common mistake

Assuming a senior person can cover any gap because they’re experienced — seniority increases competency, not genius.