Ask five teams how you run things here. You will get five answers.
Converge builds one way of running out of the best of what you already have.
All of them reasonable. All of them working, locally. And none of them fitting together, so nothing reads across, nobody moves between teams easily, and a number doesn't mean the same thing in two places.
We have done this at 4,000 people, across a global multi-billion euro business. That is the hardest version of this job, at the scale where the politics are at their worst.
You inherited a patchwork, or you grew one.
One division runs OKRs, some have dashboards, most have nothing formal; reports vary by leader. You know there are things that work there, but nothing is unified or cohesive.
It usually arrives one of three ways: acquisitions never integrated past the finance system, fast scaling with autonomous teams who each solved it themselves, or a new leader who inherited all of it at once.
One question sorts it. Do your teams run their part of the business well, and in the same way?
Depends who you ask, and you already knew that, so Converge. Broadly yes but weak or ceremonial, and you want Scale Ready.
The obvious answer is to pick one and roll it out. It fails, and it fails predictably.
Replacing a team’s way of working is a delicate act, not an administrative one; it needs to be done with care, respect and any changes managed.
The product team uses OKRs; marketing has dashboards, customer success tickets, and a few KPIs; other teams, whatever they like really. Flatten all of it and you have lost real capability to gain consistency.
A team defending its ritual is defending something it believes works. Overrule it and you have taught the whole company something more expensive than whichever framework won.
The first team through this migration teaches everyone else what to expect. Why your people behave the way they do →
So the job isn't replacement. It's convergence.
We meet you where you're and mature what you have. We don't arrive with a template and flatten it.
Six things. Built from what you already have.
You already met three of them on the homepage. These are the same three, opened up.
The same six as Scale Ready, and the same three pairs. The difference is where they come from: most already exist somewhere in your business, and the survey finds who does each one best.
The Focus
Two or three choices the whole company is genuinely resourcing.
Today you likely have several strategies that are each locally coherent and don't add up to one.
The Numbers
One set of measures that would change a decision.
Somebody in your business is already good at this. Usually finance, and usually nobody else uses it.
The Goals
Outcomes, resourced, owned, in one shape.
Written by the teams, against the shared strategy. Aligned, not cascaded, because a goal you helped write is a goal you own, and one handed down is one you defend.
The Work
The cadence that builds confidence and accelerates progress.
The work, the experiments, the short learning loops and the growing playbook.
The Rewards
Recognition, designed and consistent across teams.
In a patchwork this is where the damage hides: what gets you noticed depends on which team you happen to be in, and people work that out faster than any policy can correct it.
The Brain
One memory for the whole company, instead of five separate ones.
This is the one you can't get any other way, and it's why convergence has become urgent rather than merely tidy.
You can't install one operating system, or one AI thread, on top of five different methods.
That isn't a preference. Everything you will want next, reading across the business without translation, putting AI on your own decision history, moving people between teams without retraining them, needs one shape underneath.
Divergence used to cost you comparability, which is a slow and arguable cost. Now it costs you the whole next layer.
Your company is a finite block of hours. See the capacity story →
Survey first. Then one system, negotiated rather than announced.
The bar is us. We are working toward not being needed.
What the Blueprint covers
OKRs, Rocks, KPIs, V2MOM, EOS, something invented locally, or nothing formal yet.
And whether a number means the same thing across teams.
What stalled, and why.
The sceptics as much as the sponsors.
Per team, because it earns its place.
Which is usually the part nobody has looked at.
An honest, written picture of how your company actually runs, team by team. It's yours whether or not you do anything else with us, and some leaders take it and act on it alone. That is a fine outcome.
If the Blueprint comes back and the leadership team won't back a single system, we stop and you keep it. Converge without that backing becomes a permanent negotiation, and we would rather end it early than bill you for one.
One way of running that people helped design, that reads across the business, and that a single method and AI thread can be installed on.
Somebody moves between two teams and doesn't have to relearn how work is run.
That is the test. Everything else follows from it.
The hardest version of this job has already been done.
People, across a global multi-billion euro business. If it can be done there, the version in your business is smaller than it currently feels.
A fast-scaling insuretech, post Series C, went from nine key results to three, stopped using goals at the individual level, and had the metric foundation fixed underneath so a number meant the same thing everywhere. Pace returned in a quarter.
It starts by naming what is good.
Not as a technique. Because it's true, and a team that has been told specifically what it does better than anyone else is considerably more willing to move on everything else.
It converges on shape, not vocabulary.
Teams keep more than they expect. Whether a team says rock or objective matters a great deal less than whether two of them can be compared.
And the sequencing is designed for what it teaches.
Volunteers first, strengths named first, exceptions kept visibly. People work out what really matters by watching what happens to the first team through.
Three situations where this is the wrong instrument.
If your teams broadly run the same way and it's just weak, this is over-engineered. You want Scale Ready.
If the leadership team isn't yet agreed that a single system is worth the disruption, the survey is still worth doing and the convergence is not. Do the first, decide after.
And if the real problem is one division that won't cooperate, this is the wrong instrument. That is a leadership conversation, and it's a great deal cheaper than a programme.
The questions we actually get.
Does everyone have to give up their framework? +
Teams keep more than they expect. What has to become common is the shape of a goal, the rhythm of the review, and the measures that read across. Vocabulary matters far less than comparability.
What if one division refuses? +
Then this is the wrong instrument and we will say so. One division that won't cooperate is a leadership conversation, and it's a great deal cheaper than a programme.
Can we just do the survey? +
Yes, and some leaders do. It's scoped and priced on its own, the written picture is yours either way, and it's the only honest basis for pricing the rest.
How long does convergence take? +
The survey determines it. That's why we won't quote before doing one. What we can say is that migration runs team by team with volunteers first, so value arrives long before the last team moves.
Thirty minutes, and a straight answer.
You will leave knowing whether Converge, Scale Ready or nothing at all is your problem. If you don't need us, we will say so.