From Partiva Partners · The Partnership Assessment ↩
· · ·
A relational diagnostic for co-founders, shareholders, family business owners, and professional partners

The Partnership Assessment

For co-founders, shareholders in closely-held companies, family business owners, and professional partners standing at a crossroads — should we keep building, or is it time to part?

Before you begin.

This is a tool for you — not an exercise for the partner group. You'll be asked about three things: yourself inside this partnership, your partner or partners as they actually are, and the us you have built together — whether that's two of you, ten of you, or three generations of family.

This assessment will be kinder to your clarity than to your comfort. It draws on the empirical and applied work of the leading thinkers on organizational, relational, and family-enterprise health. Answer from how things are — not how they were at their best, not how they could be if only.

Twenty to thirty minutes. The questions branch based on your structure (family business, multi-shareholder, co-founder partnership, professional firm).

Completely confidential

Nothing you enter here is saved, sent, transmitted, logged, or retained. No data is shared with anyone — not Anthropic, not any third party, not the people who built this. Your answers exist only in your browser, only for this session. Close the tab and they are gone. No account, no email, no tracking. This is a private space to think.

Drawing on the work of

Amy Edmondson on psychological safety. Patrick Lencioni on the five dysfunctions. Edgar Schein on culture and humble inquiry. Brené Brown on vulnerability and repair. Adam Grant on reciprocity and rethinking. Simon Sinek on shared why. Peter Senge on systems thinking. Kim Scott on radical candor. Daniel Coyle on belonging. Margaret Wheatley & Mary Parker Follett on power-with. Noam Wasserman on the founder's dilemmas. John Davis & Ivan Lansberg on family business systems. James Hughes on family wealth across generations. Terry Real on relational accountability. Annie Duke on the discipline of quitting well.

Know someone else who might find this useful?

(shares the assessment itself, not your results)

0.
Calibration — what kind of decision is this?

Before the deeper questions, a few that will shape how to read everything else. Some decisions are made too late. Some are made too early. The first job is to figure out which kind this might be.

The Frame · Annie Duke Duke's research on the discipline of quitting: people consistently quit important things too late, but minor things too early. Discernment requires distinguishing acute distress from accumulated drift. Recent rupture and long erosion call for very different responses — and conflating them is one of the most common errors in partnership decisions.
01. Are you here in the heat of a recent rupture, or after a long slow drift?

A specific incident in the last few weeks — or a pattern that's been forming for years.

02. Have you had this exact thought — "should I separate from my partner or partners?" — before?

If this is the third or thirtieth time you've sat with this question, that itself is meaningful information.

03. If a trusted advisor told you "decide in the next 90 days, one way or the other," what would your body do?

Sit with this for a moment. The body answers before the mind.

04. What kind of partnership is this?

This determines which sections apply to you. The branching adapts.

05. How many partners or shareholders are involved?
06. Are there outside investors with meaningful equity or governance rights?
07. How long have you been in this partnership?
08. Have you tried to work on the partnership before? (Coaching, mediation, advisor intervention, structured offsites.)
09. Is what you're experiencing a bad patch, or a bad pattern?

A bad patch is acute and has a cause. A bad pattern has been the shape of things for as long as you can remember — predating the current strain.

10. What brought you here today? — optional, just for you
I.
Governance, structure, and the agreements that hold

Most partnership disputes are governance disputes wearing relationship-dispute clothes. Before assessing the relational, it's worth assessing the structural — because some "relational" problems disappear the moment the structure gets fixed, and some are unrepairable until it does.

The Diagnostic · Wasserman, Senge, Davis Noam Wasserman's research on thousands of founders is unambiguous: most founder breakups are precipitated by structural issues that were predictable years earlier — undefined decision rights, asymmetric information, no exit mechanism, equity allocations that no longer reflect contribution. Senge would add: chronic relational friction is usually a structural symptom. The work, before the relational work, is to ask whether the architecture itself is sound.
Structure · Agreements
11. We have a current shareholder or partnership agreement covering decision rights, equity, vesting, and buy-sell provisions — and it actually reflects how we operate.

Wasserman · the founder's dilemmas

"Current" matters. Many partnerships have agreements from year one that no longer match year ten.

Structure · Decision Rights
12. When something needs deciding, we both know who decides — without re-litigating it each time.

Lencioni · accountability

Structure · Information
13. Each of us has full access to the same financial, customer, and operational information — without having to ask, request, or be granted it.

Davis · information symmetry

Information asymmetry is one of the strongest predictors of partnership breakdown. If you're discovering things, that's a signal.

Structure · Exit
14. If one of us wanted out, there is a defined, fair, and executable path — not just hope and goodwill.

Wasserman · exit mechanics

Buy-sell provisions, valuation methodology, drag-along/tag-along rights. "Trapped" changes the entire emotional landscape.

Structure · Oversight
15. There is meaningful outside oversight or counsel — a real board, a trusted advisor, or experienced legal counsel — that has access to how the partnership actually functions.

Senge · structural correctives

II.
The family business — three circles, one company

Family organizations have a fundamentally different geometry: three overlapping but distinct systems — family, ownership, and management — each with their own rules and relational logic. A father–son CEO conflict isn't one conflict. It's three conflicts braided together.

The Diagnostic · Tagiuri, Davis & Lansberg The Three-Circle Model is the foundational framework for family enterprise: the family system runs on love, history, and identity; the ownership system runs on equity, voting, and return; the management system runs on competence, role, and accountability. Trouble arises when the rules of one circle are imported into another — when family loyalty overrides governance, or when ownership disputes get fought across the dinner table. Health requires keeping the circles distinct enough to be functional, while integrated enough to mean something.
Family · Boundaries
F1. We do not regularly discuss business decisions at family gatherings, holidays, or meals — because we have other places where business decisions actually happen.

Davis · separation of systems

When the dinner table becomes the boardroom, both stop functioning.

Family · Fairness vs Equality
F2. Family members are treated fairly in the organization — meaning rewarded for actual contribution — not equally regardless of role.

Lansberg · fairness and equality

"Fair" and "equal" are different things. Family organizations that confuse them tend to either underpay the active and overpay the passive — or rupture trying.

Family · Generational Readiness
F3. If the current generation stepped back tomorrow, the next generation is genuinely ready — by competence and by chosen commitment, not by default.

Davis & Lansberg · generational transition

Family · Non-Family Talent
F4. Non-family executives in our organization have real authority, real career paths, and a real voice — not just titles.

Hughes · the family enterprise

When non-family talent is structurally subordinate to family politics, the best people leave — and the family ends up with what's left.

Family · The Family Itself
F5. If the organization ended tomorrow, our family relationships would survive — strained, perhaps, but intact.

Hughes · family wealth across generations

A useful test: separate the love from the leverage. What's left?

Family · Next-Generation Entry
F6. There is a defined, fair process for the next generation entering leadership — or there is genuinely no next generation pressing in yet.

Lansberg · generational transition design

A landmine that surfaces late in many family enterprises: the next generation arrives — through a job offer to a CEO's child, an heir's spouse looking for a role, a cousin's child finishing business school — without a designed process for entry. The decision-by-default that follows is among the most consistent reasons family organizations fracture in the second-and-third generation.

III.
Deal-breakers — the things that change everything

Some patterns aren't relational frictions to repair. They're foundational fractures that change what kind of decision you're really making. Please answer honestly.

The Frame · A different kind of question Most relational dimensions exist on a spectrum and can be repaired. The patterns below are different — they require professional intervention, immediate boundary-setting, or in some cases, separation regardless of how the rest of the assessment scores. Mark anything that genuinely applies. Minimizing here will not serve you.
Flags · Foundational
16. Are any of the following present in this partnership? — check all that apply, or none
IV.
Trust, candor, and the things you don't say

Edmondson's twenty years of research are unambiguous: psychological safety is the foundation that everything else stands on. Without it, smart people stop sharing, problems stay hidden, and the partnership starts to die quietly.

The Diagnostic · Edmondson, Lencioni, Brown Lencioni: vulnerability-based trust is the first dysfunction's antidote — partners who can say "I was wrong" or "I don't know" without punishment. Brown: armored leadership corrodes everything downstream. Edmondson: the question isn't whether you have conflicts; it's whether you can name them. If you're swallowing things to keep the peace, the peace is already gone.
Me · Honesty
17. When I have a hard truth to share with my partner or partners, I tell them — I don't swallow it to keep the peace.

Scott · radical candor

Them · Receiving
18. When I bring up a problem or tough issue, my partner or partners don't hold it against me.

Edmondson · psychological safety

Them · Vulnerability
19. My partner can say "I was wrong" or "I don't know" without it being a crisis.

Lencioni · vulnerability-based trust

Us · Reliability
20. I trust my partner or partners to do what they say they'll do — without me having to chase or verify.

Lencioni · accountability

V.
Shared purpose and the values underneath

Schein's foundational insight: culture is not what you say, it's what you do under pressure. Partnerships fracture not on different ideas, but on different values surfacing at the moments that matter most.

The Diagnostic · Schein, Sinek, Senge Sinek: a partnership without a shared "why" eventually devolves into transaction. Schein: when values diverge, decisions become exhausting — every choice re-litigates an unresolved cultural question. Senge: a learning organization requires partners moving in the same direction over time, not just on the same day.
Us · The Why
21. My partner and I share a clear, articulated why for this organization — and we'd describe it in similar terms.

Sinek · start with why

Us · Direction
22. When we describe where the organization is going in three to five years, our visions are compatible — not necessarily identical, but moving in the same direction.

Senge · shared vision

Us · Values Under Pressure
23. When we face an ethical gray area — a hard call about a customer, employee, or money — I trust we'll land in roughly the same place.

Schein · culture under pressure

Me · Pride
24. How we treat employees, customers, and money reflects values I'm genuinely proud of.

Schein · culture as enacted values

VI.
Conflict, repair, and how you fight

The question isn't whether you have conflict. The question is what happens after.

The Diagnostic · Lencioni, Scott, Brown, Follett Mary Parker Follett identified this a hundred years ago: the question is power-with versus power-over. Lencioni: artificial harmony is the second dysfunction — teams that don't fight don't decide. Scott: caring personally and challenging directly is the only sustainable mode. Brown: the willingness to repair is the single most predictive marker of relational durability.
Us · Same Team
25. When things are hard between us, it feels like we're on the same team trying to solve a problem — not opponents trying to win.

Follett · power-with

Us · Productive Conflict
26. When we resolve a hard disagreement, we typically reach better outcomes than either of us would have reached alone.

Lencioni · productive conflict

Them · Repair
27. My partner can apologize sincerely — owning their part — when something goes wrong.

Brown · vulnerability and repair

Us · After the Storm
28. After a serious rupture, we're able to rebuild — and the partnership feels stronger, not weaker, on the other side.

Brown · the courage to repair

VII.
Reciprocity, contribution, and the long arc of fair

Adam Grant's research is clear: partnerships die more often from imbalance than from drama. Not 50/50 in any given week — but over the long arc, fair.

The Diagnostic · Grant, Senge, Lencioni Grant on givers, takers, and matchers: takers consistently extract more than they contribute, and over time the partnership becomes a depleting structure for the giver. Senge: systems issues are masked as people issues — chronic resentment usually means the design is broken, not that someone is bad. Lencioni: lack of accountability is a dysfunction, but so is one partner carrying the accountability for both.
Us · Long-Arc Fair
29. Over the long arc of this partnership, the give-and-take feels fair — not 50/50 every quarter, but balanced over time.

Grant · giving and taking

Me · Resentment
30. I do not regularly feel resentful about workload, recognition, or rewards.

Grant · the cost of imbalance

Us · System vs Blame
31. When something breaks, we look at the system together — rather than blaming each other.

Senge · systems thinking

VIII.
Growth, adaptability, and who you're becoming

A partnership is not just where you are — it's the trajectory. Are you growing, individually and together? Or are you both slowly becoming smaller versions of who you once were?

The Diagnostic · Grant, Senge, Wheatley Grant on rethinking: the willingness to update one's view in light of new evidence is rare and predictive. Senge: a learning organization requires partners who can themselves learn. Wheatley: relationships are living systems — when they stop adapting, they don't stay still, they decay.
Them · Learnability
32. My partner is willing to update their views with new evidence — even when it's uncomfortable, even when it costs them.

Grant · rethinking

Them · The Next Chapter
33. I believe my partner or partners are capable of evolving with where the organization needs to go in the next chapter.

Wheatley · living systems

Me · Becoming
34. Inside this partnership, I am becoming someone I respect — not someone I'm slowly losing track of.

Wheatley · who you become matters

IX.
What you bring — the harder mirror

Every assessment so far has asked you about your partner or partners. This section turns the lens. Partners who can't see their own part rarely repair anything — and an assessment that lets you build a case against your partner without ever examining yourself isn't a tool for clarity. It's a weapon.

The Diagnostic · Real, Brown, Grant Terry Real's relational accountability work begins with a single premise: both partners contribute, always. Not equally, not symmetrically — but always both. Brown's research is unambiguous: the only people who repair durably are those who can name their own part. Grant on confirmation bias: we collect evidence for the conclusion we already hold. The point of this section is not to balance the books or distribute blame. It's to interrupt your own pattern long enough to see it.
Self · Their View
35. If my partner or partners described our worst conflicts to a neutral third party, what would they say I do?

Sit with this for a moment. Not what you wish they'd say. What they actually would. Write it in the box below if you want.

Self · The Hard Honest Score
36. I can name two or three specific things I do — patterns, not single events — that genuinely contribute to the strain in this partnership.

Real · relational accountability

Self · Quiet Withdrawal
37. I am bringing my full self to this partnership — not quietly checked out, not phoning it in, not "managing" my partner or partners from a distance.

Brown · the cost of armor

This is a question many partners answer "yes" too quickly. The honest answer often takes a minute.

Self · The Counterfactual
38. If I changed the two or three things I most need to change, would this partnership shift meaningfully?

If yes, that's a finding. If no, that's a different finding. Both matter.

X.
Alternatives, constraints, and what separation would actually mean

"Should we separate?" is the wrong question if you can't separate. And the calculus of staying in a healthy partnership is different from the calculus of staying in a depleting one when you have nowhere else to go. This section asks what's actually on the table.

The Diagnostic · Wasserman, Davis, Duke Wasserman: the cost of separation is dramatically asymmetric depending on equity, liquidity, and dependents. Davis: in family business, the family system constrains the ownership system in ways founders rarely anticipate. Duke: the discipline of quitting requires honest assessment of alternatives — without that, "stay" usually wins by default, even when it shouldn't.
Alt · Liquidity
39. If I needed to exit this partnership in the next twelve months, there is a realistic, executable path — financially and structurally.

Wasserman · exit mechanics

Alt · The Day After
40. I have a clear, plausible picture of what my professional life looks like outside this partnership — not just "free of it," but a real next thing.

Duke · the discipline of quitting

"Anywhere but here" is not a plan. Most people who leave without a plausible next chapter end up in a worse situation than the one they left.

Alt · Active Opportunities
40b. Is there a specific opportunity in motion right now — a recruiter, a board offer, an interested buyer, a collaborator who has invited you to something?

Different from "could there be options" — this is whether something is on the table now. An active opportunity changes the discernment process; you are no longer comparing the partnership to a hypothetical, you are comparing it to a real choice.

Alt · The Cost of Going
41. What's the realistic cost of separation — financial, legal, reputational, relational — if you had to estimate it now?

Not what you fear it will be. What it actually would be, given what you currently know.

Alt · Dependents
42. Who else carries the weight of this decision? — check all that apply

Separations done well consider these stakeholders. Separations done badly externalize the cost onto them.

Alt · Buyer/Buyout
43. Is there a viable buyer or buyout path — someone (you, your partner or partners, an outside party) who could realistically acquire the other side?
XI.
The quieter answers

Some of the most important data isn't in the rational analysis. It's in the body, the imagination, the moments when no one's watching. These questions get past the story you tell yourself.

44. If I could choose this partner again — knowing everything I know now — would I?
45. If nothing changed in this partnership for the next five years, could I stay?

Not "would I prefer change" — but could I genuinely stay, as things are, and not be slowly diminished by it.

46. When I imagine staying, my body settles. When I imagine leaving, it tightens.

Sit with this for a moment. Imagine each scenario. The body usually answers before the mind does.

47. The story I tell others about this partnership matches the truth I sit with privately.

If you've been performing optimism in public while privately knowing something else — that gap itself is information.

48. What's the one thing you've never said to your partner or partners — about the partnership — that you know you should have? — optional, just for you

When you're ready, see what your answers reveal.

Please answer all required questions before continuing.

· · ·
Your assessment

A reading of where you are

Honest, not comfortable. The most useful map is the one drawn from the territory as it is.

The reading

Your partnership profile

The three core needs, inside this partnership

Each need has to be met — at least adequately — for the partnership to be sustainable.

The relational dimensions

Each dimension draws on a different body of work. The lowest scores show where to focus first.

The decision matrix

Two ways of holding what you've found.

If you stay
If you separate

Through three different lenses

The same data, read through the perspectives of three thinkers most relevant to where you are.

The next sixty days

The conversation you need to have

Drawing on Susan Scott, Kim Scott, and Roger Fisher

Watch for these in the coming weeks

Signals — internal and external — that will tell you more than any assessment can.

    Resources — and how to evaluate them

    Most users won't know how to evaluate the right professional. Here's what to look for.

    A final reflection

    Drawing on Edgar Schein

    Schein wrote about humble inquiry — the practice of asking questions whose answer you genuinely do not know. It is, he believed, the foundation of every good relationship: a willingness to be changed by what the other person says.

    If this partnership is going to continue, it will require both of you to engage in humble inquiry — toward each other, and toward yourselves. If it's going to end, it can still be ended with humble inquiry: what is the most honorable version of this conclusion?

    The work ahead is not to be certain. It's to be honest. The clarity follows.

    If you'd like company in the work ahead

    This was a reading. The work that follows is where it gets done.

    If your assessment surfaced something you can't unsee — drift, structural mismatch, or a clarity you've been avoiding — Partiva Partners works with co-founders, shareholders, family business owners, and professional partners through one of three engagements. The right path depends on what you found here.

    Path I
    Repair
    Foundation is sound; the dynamic has eroded. Structural rebuild — protocols, decision rights, accountability. Not exit.
    Path II
    Restructure
    Partnership is real; the shape is wrong. Equity, control, or roles redesigned. Coordinated with counsel.
    Path III
    Separate
    Buyout, asset split, or wind-down. Done with care, value preserved. Done badly, eighteen months of litigation.
    Book a 20-minute call
    No charge. No materials required.
    Confidential by default.
    Note: The call is yours to bring whatever you'd like. Your assessment results stay where they are — in your browser, on your screen. Nothing has been transmitted to Partiva or anyone else by completing this tool. You decide what to share, if anything, in the conversation.

    This assessment is a mirror, not a verdict. It reflects the answers you gave in this moment. The most important data point isn't your score — it's whether reading this clarifies anything you'd been working hard not to know.

    "The most important leadership decisions are not about what to do. They are about who to do it with."

    — Patrick Lencioni

    Partiva Partners
    Decision clarity, value preservation, and structured process for partners at the inflection point.
    Santa Barbara, California · partivapartners.com