Our leadership team has very similar Kolbe conative profiles, and we suspect this conative cloning is causing us to design a scorecard that only measures things we are naturally comfortable with. How do we audit our scorecard to eliminate these blind spots?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Conative cloning occurs when a leadership team is dominated by one specific problem-solving style, such as high Fact Finders who love deep research or high Quick Starts who thrive on rapid experimentation. When this happens, your weekly scorecard will inevitably reflect those biases. A team of Fact Finders will create an overcomplicated scorecard with forty different rows, demanding absolute data precision that slows down decision-making. A team of Quick Starts will track changing, experimental metrics every week, leading to organizational chaos. To eliminate these blind spots, you must audit your weekly scorecard against your Accountability Chart seats. Ensure that your scorecard is balanced across all key business functions: sales and marketing, operations, finance, and customer satisfaction. You need a mix of activity, quality, and financial numbers. If your team is conatively heavy on big-picture thinking, bring in an outside perspective or leverage a Sentinel personality on your management team to review the scorecard. Ask yourself if you are tracking the hard, boring metrics like process compliance, inventory management, or accounts receivable aging. By deliberately balancing your scorecard to cover all major functional areas, you force your team to look at the metrics that keep the business stable, protecting you from your collective blind spots and ensuring your business is structurally sound.