Demo Team

Role Interactions

Please select any two members of the team, then scroll down to view the results:

{{ member.type }} ({{ member.role }} group, {{ member.roleCode }})

{{ firstMember.role }} group, {{ firstMember.roleCodeLetters[0] }}{{ firstMember.roleCodeLetters[1] }}{{ firstMember.roleCodeLetters[2] }}

and

{{ secondMember.role }} group, {{ secondMember.roleCodeLetters[0] }}{{ secondMember.roleCodeLetters[1] }}{{ secondMember.roleCodeLetters[2] }}

If they’re on the same page, these types may join forces. Their shared Visionary trait holds lots of creative potential for the team, potentially yielding novel, groundbreaking, well-analyzed and well-adjusted solutions that improve the way things are done.
Two Creators are unlikely to initially communicate very much if not brought together by work. But when they are, they’ll likely find common ground because they tend to preselect their communications. If they’re on the same page, they may enjoy discussing their ideas together.
They’re likely to agree on which things they pay attention to and how they do it, so even if they aren’t close friends they’re on the same wavelength.
If in different positions (i.e., non-overlapping tasks), they may not initially interact at all. However, over time they’re likely to realize they’re similar in personality and could be good friends.
They’re likely to understand and recognize similarities in each other’s logic, methods, and approaches, and this mutual social support could make communicating their ideas to others easier. However, because of their shared Introversion, two Creators working alone together might alternately become too isolated for successful communication with others. Their mutual support could close them in a bubble – and their team leader will need to find ways to compensate for this.
Given their shared Visionary trait, there could be some creative rivalry and tension between two Creators in a team, and this could be exacerbated by their Introversion. Each thinking they’re right – without feeling the need to prove it in a fair way to the other – could foster uncommunicated animosity.
Thanks to their shared Methodical trait, these two can work well in a structured team together.
If the team is loosely structured and goals are unclear, two Creators could mire the team in theoretical discussions about what might or should be.
These two both tend to spend a lot of time and effort building firm structures. It could be hard for them to get along if such structures conflict with each other.
Two Creators can find common ground in being more internally motivated. They won’t have to motivate one another as they both have their own drive, so they’re likely to value each other’s contribution, regarding it as sincere.
Two Creators aren’t likely to be the loudest voices in work-related meetings, but they can communicate well – even if they disagree with each other. They can even have fruitful discussions, although changing each other’s minds isn’t very easy when they both maintain their sense of certainty.
These two likely have similar problem-solving styles: thinking big and embracing possibility.
Two Creators are likely very thoughtful and will generate lots of ideas, which makes this pair a formidable force in any growing business. However, this can slow the team’s move to action, especially if Creators are in leadership positions.

These Roles can work well in a structured team together, regulated by their shared Methodical trait. Directors in a leadership position can serve well in this relationship, giving guidance and structure to Creators through a framework in which they can thrive.
However, being Extraverted and Methodical, Directors can effectively channel Creators’ creative potential into action, whether in superior or subordinate positions.
Both roles are future-oriented due to their Visionary trait, and tend to be meticulous and organized. Their Introversion-Extroversion difference could make them a great duo for finding groundbreaking solutions that improve the way things are done or benefit the team’s line of work.
Directors may feel both well-understood and secure with less dominant Creators, while Creators can be happy to partner with somebody who will push their ideas through and convince the team of their worth.
Directors’ tendency for loud brainstorming might be a problem for more inwardly-oriented Creators, who could perceive them as too dominant, stubborn, or intrusive.
Creators’ tendency to not disclose their thoughts might prove problematic for Directors who prefer things to be put on the table for all to consider.
Directors and Creators are both self-motivated, and appreciate this quality in each other; they won’t need to motivate each other.
Directors’ Extraverted motivation – which is by definition more oriented toward measurable success – may at times be a little overwhelming for Creators.
Both Roles creatively generate ideas, but Directors will likely be the ones who will “sell“ these ideas to others.
Problems can arise if Directors are hesitant, as situations can get out of hand due to too much thinking between these types.
In general, Creators and Directors should be able to communicate effectively in work-related domains – though, in some cases, Directors might seem a bit pushy to Creators.
If these types see each other as stubborn or thinking too highly of themselves, informal communication could be quite limited. But if they tend to agree on most things, they’ll likely communicate well on all levels.
In some cases where their Visionary natures and scopes of thought overlap significantly, their stylistic differences can be overcome.

Both types are innovative due to their Visionary trait. Although Creators are systematic and methodical and Seekers explorative and free-floating, they share a propensity for big ideas and a bird’s eye view, and can work in great synergy to identify and create opportunities.
Both types can find common ground in their shared Introversion, and likely won’t be bothered too much by each other even if they don’t agree. On the other hand, if they do agree, they may achieve mutually satisfactory collaboration and/or friendship due to their similar worldview and presenting styles. Their differences may actually contribute to their interaction by revealing different viewpoints to each party; both roles are “mild“ in manner, so they can tolerate or even benefit from each other’s respective Spontaneity or Diligence.
Both types like to spend their time alone, which might prove to be problematic in a team that doesn’t do much remote work.
Creators prefer some framework which Seekers might not be able to provide – and Seekers could, in turn, find the framework Creators seek to impose far too restricting.
Creators may think of Seekers as too disorganized (with a “What a shame” sigh.) Seekers may think of Creators as too rigid (with the same sigh.)
Both types aren’t very stubborn regarding the other’s ways, which means they can probably work through their motivation differences.
Seekers sometimes need outside motivation to stay on track, but Creators can find this difficult and may think it’s not their role to motivate them.
If they don’t connect through at least some ideas and views, it’s possible that they just won’t communicate much more than “hello” and “goodbye.”
However, Creators and Seekers should generally be able to communicate well, especially if discussing some novel idea. They might even communicate the most with each other when it comes to “small talk”– if we can call any discussion between these Visionary types “small talk.” Perhaps it’s better to say “non-work-related talk.”
They’re both Visionary and Introverted, and if they click, Seekers’ unobtrusive spontaneity could make Creators relax a bit and open up.
These two roles approach problem-solving from a broad perspective and generate lots of ideas. Both types will likely be focused on this more than organizing the ideas into actions, though Creators may contribute some structure.

The creative potential of Creators can be a great addition to the innovative power of Catalysts, whose calling and propensity is to stir the pot and gather the crowd.
Both types share the Visionary trait, which means they can find common ground when exploring new ideas.
Catalysts’ desire for energetic, engaged brainstorming might overwhelm Creators, who are more comfortable working slowly, thoroughly, and often alone.
While Creators do sometimes change their minds, they may not appreciate Catalysts’ more rapidly fluctuating nature. In turn, Creators might see Catalysts as too rigid or slow to embrace change.
Catalysts may see Creators as difficult to approach or too Introverted, but they aren’t likely to quit trying to reach them. Although they may not always succeed, Catalysts’ social, tolerant, and friendly nature is contagious enough to pull even reserved Creators into the party in many cases.
Catalysts are unlikely to make Creators feel particularly threatened. This makes them suitable to foster and mediate communication between Creators and the rest of the team.
These two types don’t have much common ground in terms of motivation. Catalysts display more external ambition than Creators, and their way of seeing things is deeply embedded in the social world. Although Creators sometimes have trouble understanding why Catalysts do what they do, and the way they do it, it doesn’t bother them too much. On the other hand, there isn’t anything Catalysts can’t understand about other people.
When Catalysts and Creators communicate, they should be able to bond over their search for novelty.
Catalysts are likely to be able to contain and tolerate Creators’ oftentimes awkward social ways without making them feel uncomfortable.
Catalysts may be a little put off by Creators’ more reserved nature and their tendency to easily become overwhelmed. However, as Catalysts don’t tend to be insulted by mild personal transgressions (or hold them against people for too long), things should be OK if Creators can rest for a bit.
Creators and Catalysts will likely be able to generate lots of ideas. However, it’s possible Catalysts will be a little more skillful in turning these ideas into solutions – or at least applicable, realistic ideas – because they share them, transforming them through social interaction that yields high-quality solutions.

Both Roles are Methodical – conscientious, systematic, organized, and methodical – which makes them suitable for any deadline imposed by internal or external circumstances. However, Protectors are more practical than Creators, which might lead to some tension when there are deadlines to be met. “Deadline” is a word written on Protectors’ foreheads, so Creators sometimes feel their Protector coworkers limit their creative potential, especially in cases where “reality“ wins out.
Although they differ on what their minds focus on – such as what might be versus what is – they’ll usually make a great duo essential for any team’s success. Down-to-earth Protectors are able to put all Creators’ ideas into a frame of reality without hard feelings because of their friendly, conventional approach and mild, respectful manners.
If Creators’ ideas aren’t very good, both Protectors’ feedback and grounded nature may be enough to make them reconsider. Being Methodical, these types will probably appreciate each other’s methods – and trust their methods’ results.
Both types aren’t very social due to their Introverted natures, so it’s likely that they’ll find common ground in this regard.
Sometimes, Protectors may regard Creators as a little absent-minded.
Both Roles are strongly internally motivated.
Protectors may like to cooperate with Creators because they’re systematic, and while Visionary, they aren’t boastful or too ambitious – at least in the flashy way that could make Protectors dislike them. Additionally, Creators’ visions and ideas tend to be well-reasoned and deliberate, so Protectors rarely find them completely unrealistic or “just ideas,” and sincerely appreciate them.
Creators’ creativity can serve Protectors as a tool for innovation. In turn, Creators prefer to have a sense of certainty, which Protectors can provide. Both Roles are Methodical, which means they can plan together and work well in a structured team.
However, both Roles could find themselves overwhelmed or dominated by more Extraverted members in an unstructured team – but even this can provide an opportunity to be each other’s support.
Thanks to each type’s thorough style, these Roles are likely to appreciate and trust each other and have little problem delegating or entrusting each other to do anything.
When it comes to which path to follow, problems may arise from their different preferences: innovative (Creators) or more conventional (Protectors). However, these two Roles shouldn’t get in each other’s ways too much, as their mutual social selectivity – along with their “creative differences” – may limit their non-work banter. (However, they could perceive their differences as complementary and become good friends.)
Creators and Protectors collaborate well in problem-solving: Creators come up with possible solutions by approaching things from a broader perspective, while Protectors sort through Creators’ ideas and add some tweaks here and there to make their solutions implementable.

Creators prefer a sense of certainty, which Organizers can provide.
Organizers’ involved leadership and communication style can more deeply include Creators in the team, and Creators can give Organizers a more innovative framework with which to work.
When there’s a difference in opinion stemming from their Visionary versus Realistic tendencies, Creators may feel Organizers limit their thinking and possibilities, while Organizers may see Creators as isolated, stubborn, unrealistic, or even bad team players if they cling only to their own opinions. If Organizers are subordinate to Creators, however, this could be a good thing – Organizers are very well-suited to turning ideas into reality with available resources.
Organizers may have a problem with Creators’ tendency to work alone because Organizers want to “work the room.”
Creators don’t like to share their thoughts before they’ve come to a conclusion. This might prove difficult in an Organizer-run team, as they prefer to work with all available information.
Creators might see Organizers as too “ordinary,” while their own isolation and lack of conventionality and conformity may bother Organizers, who may perceive them as not contributing to a good team atmosphere – or even unhelpfully shaking it up.
Both types are strong in self-motivation, so they won’t need to motivate each other.
Organizers are likely to find the fact they don’t have to push and focus Creators to work as very positive.
Creators value they can find out everything they need from Organizers.
Communication issues could stem from these two types’ different values: while Creators emphasize their opinion of the best way to do things, Organizers more often stress the need for agreement and good relationships. In general, Creators won’t conform to the majority, and Organizers won’t hesitate to speak up if they think Creators are crossing the line, which could lead to clashes.
Organizers in a leadership role should be able to communicate well with Creators as long as their views about how things should be done don’t make Creators feel their creative space is limited. On the other hand, Organizers in a subordinate role could be overly rigorous in asking for information and answers about how things should be done, which could bother Creators.
Organizers will likely do a great job organizing Creators’ ideas, so these two Roles can complement each other in problem-solving situations.

Both types are creative and can complement each other, especially since Creators are more theoretically inclined while Explorers are more practical. However, such opposing characteristics can cause problems if the individuals don’t get along well.
Explorers probably won’t mind if Creators aren’t that communicative about their ideas. They may have trouble understanding the benefit of all that thinking – while, in turn, Creators may think of Explorers as unreliable and not very thoughtful.
It’s likely these two Roles may clash because of Creators’ tendency to overthink, while Explorers prefer to act. However, Explorers can surprise Creators and gain their respect with their imaginative, “out-of-thin-air” quick solutions, easing their cooperation.
These Roles could make a great pair if time constraints aren’t strict. Explorers may gladly embrace and try out everything that comes to Creators’ minds, as their ideas tend to be meticulously tested and rock-solid. As reality tends to be a bit more messy, flexible Explorers are well-suited to carry such ideas into action. The results could be ingenious solutions or new practices.
Creators and Explorers can be very motivated, just in different directions. Persistence isn’t a strong trait of Explorers, and Creators could have trouble collaborating with them long-term if Explorers fail to meet their expectations regarding deadlines, structure, priorities, etc. But non-conformist Explorers won’t be bothered too much – even if such dissatisfaction is communicated.
These two Roles aren’t likely to have many communication problems overall, and it can be very interesting how a talk between innovative Creators and practical Explorers unfolds.
Explorers are likely to be a little put off by the more secretive Creators. However, Explorers’ practical ways of relating with others could serve as secure context for Creators to interact socially, which could foster team bonding.
In problem-solving situations, Creators tend to think while Explorers usually just wait to see what happens. This can lead to tension, especially as they’re both Introverted and don’t disclose their thinking process.
Creators can be frustrated with Explorers’ constantly trying new things unannounced – especially things Creators see as mindless, imprudent, or even risky. In turn, Explorers may be bored by Creators who tend to mull things over, seeing the time spent doing so as useless and ignoring their infrequent remarks, which could annoy Creators even more. On the other hand, both Roles strive toward great opportunities for solutions, which means their differences can turn into benefits for the team.

Communicators and Creators are polar opposites: the former are interested in the real world and other people, while the latter value ideas, possibilities, and their own time and space. Considering their different inclinations, they’re probably going to be working on different positions/tasks; i.e., their interactions may be pre-limited in many teams.
When they do work together, it’s probable they’re going to have different approaches and opinions on most things. This bears potential for conflict as well as growth, both personally for these two Roles and for the team as a whole.
Having Creators and Communicators work together ensures a vast array of possible solutions to a problem is thought through. Additionally, they could collaborate effectively on different aspects of a problem requiring different approaches, both types satisfied they don’t have to deal with the part of the problem that’s less suited to their personality.
Both Creators and Communicators will likely defend their stances, but Communicators’ mastery of social skills will usually keep such discussions from escalating into real conflicts.
Communicators’ “better sorry than safe“ approach will sometimes drive Creators crazy – they might think of Communicators as imprudent, inconsiderate, and may sometimes regard their approach to work as mindless and superficial.
However, Communicators are capable of pulling ingenious ideas and solutions out of thin air, which may be enthusiastically shared with and sold to the rest of the team. Although their problem-solving styles differ, Communicators will be able to register ideas Creators generate and make them presentable and understandable to others. This can inspire Creators to systematically evaluate them, shaking up their “What if?” stance and making them act.
This can be impeded by Communicators’ desire to act quicker than Creators. On the other hand, collaborating with Creators could introduce a bit of order in Communicators’ way of thinking, as well as teach them to assess their risks more effectively.
Creators’ and Communicators’ Motivation will often go in different directions, and persistence (or lack thereof) could be a point of conflict.
Communicators may become too pushy for the Creators’ taste. Creators are naturally closed, and Communicators may view this as a challenge to overcome, which can lead to some conflict.
However, Communicators should be able to have proper communication with almost all other roles, Creators included. In this particular case, Communicators should be able to respect the distant nature of Creators while managing to develop good communication with them.

Two Directors may recognize each other’s high level of energy and optimism as positive: their joint enthusiasm could be lifesaving in times of need.
Although it may take time for both to agree on something, if they do, they’ll be strong support for each other in the group and strong motivators for the group.
The vigorous discussion that will likely be frequent between them can force Directors to think through their new ideas, refining and perfecting them.
As both tend to have the tendency to dominate the room, it will often be too small for two Director personalities in the same position or of same authority. Likely to butt heads during interaction, it may be hard for these two to reach a consensus.
They can expect to have argumentative and public discussions about the best course of action, which could get out of hand if not mediated or cooled down by others.
Directors are internally motivated, so they won’t need to motivate each other.
Their Extraversion leads to achievement motivation which will be valued by the whole team, making them more bound by reality (i.e., market requests) in their ideation. If their fields of duty don’t overlap much or if they agree, their joint endeavors could bring big successes to the team.
Directors can be fairly competitive, and this can lead to tension with each other. If two Directors with different agendas and motivations pull the team in different directions, it could result in a stalemate.
When they agree, two Directors can produce some very fruitful decisions and communicate well. If they disagree, their communication can become very tense: disagreement between Directors may even explode into a prominent discussion.
In general, they’re dynamic, open, and sometimes a bit aggressive – especially to the minds of Introverts. Differences between Directors are more easily resolved if communicated, but are also more easily inflamed if agreement isn’t reached and neither backs down.
Directors can be a formidable force in problem-solving situations because they think of lots of ideas and are able to organize them; they’re likely to be very proactive.

Both types are Visionary, so they may be on the same page regarding their ideas, plans, and mental focus. Methodical Directors can channel Seekers’ creativity into useful results by systematizing Seekers’ output – and, with their openness, Seekers can fit well into Directors’ preference for brainstorming.
Both Roles may make their plans without taking everyday details of their implementation into account, so this could be problematic if the course of implementation is badly assessed.
Seekers are very independent, and may find Directors overbearing in their need to have their own way and to pull the team in their intended direction.
Directors enjoy company and social interaction, which Seekers prefer in small amounts. Seekers might see Directors’ socializing as too much interference when they get absorbed in their own ideas and work.
Directors prefer clear, final decisions. This may be a source of frustration, as Seekers like to change and tinker with how things are done while Directors prefer stability.
Directors might have a problem with Seekers’ preference to work alone.
Directors might see Seekers as useful only in idea-generating stages, and may discard their input too easily in later phases or see them as too wild for Directors’ structure. This could create tension between them, especially when Seekers disregard the agreed-upon path too often or become frustrated with Directors’ frequent dismissal.
Both Roles will generate ideas, but it will likely be up to Directors to organize the ideas into working solutions. This makes for a fruitful partnership when considering new directions in any work aspect, as these types can combine both true creativity and tightly imposed systems.
Directors may be able steer Seekers’ motivation, especially if they see this as a challenge. However, Directors may have a hard time motivating Seekers. Considering Directors are likely to occupy the leading positions in a team, they’ll need to find a way to do this, which may frustrate them.
On the other hand, Seekers might feel too pressured by any constraints Directors try to impose on their mental track, and simply disregard them.
Directors should be able to communicate well with Seekers, though they may feel a bit frustrated by Seekers’ unexplained mental jumps from A to B.

Both Roles are outgoing and prefer to work in groups. They can bring great energy into the room, but their combined Extraverted natures risk overshadowing the quieter or more timid members of a team, such as less social Introverts.
Their shared Visionary trait can work in synergy; however, they may clash over issues of consistency and commitment to a course of action. Directors see these things as absolutely necessary once a good decision is made, while Catalysts see them as limiting their options if they want to tweak things. This can be a problem because Catalysts tend to be quite vocal and decisive about their path – even as it changes – and Directors are quite firm in their resolve.
Although they share the Visionary trait, Catalysts tend to embrace non-conformity and are even less conventional in their thinking than Directors. Directors’ tendency to impose their carefully considered solutions and lead the way could lead to tension between the two Roles when deciding which way to go.
Because of Catalysts’ constant exploring and brainstorming, Directors may think they’re careless or move their ideas forward too fast. Directors prefer a more systematic approach.
Catalysts may find Directors to be too harsh, pushy, or dominating. This type is naturally inclined to engage with others, and may encourage Directors to be more flexible and accepting of others’ ideas and solutions – often with mixed results.
While there are differences in motivation, especially when it comes to persistence, both types are good at making decisions. They have good potential to communicate well and get along if they behave respectfully.
Catalysts are prone to give everything they’ve got in any part of their life and work, and tend to include others in their endeavors. Directors appreciate this energy, and may have an easier time harmonizing their motivations with Catalysts’ because of it.
Catalysts and Directors make good problem-solving teams because there will be many ideas generated between them. Directors will likely be the ones to organize the ideas, but Catalysts are well-suited to give their concepts an initial energizing push toward implementation.

These two Roles have many opposite traits, but are complementary with respect to workplace cooperation in many ways. Directors are passionate Visionaries whose big picture ideas and visions can be turned into reality by the Methodical, reliable efforts of meticulous Protectors.
Protectors will rarely try to challenge the position of Directors because they prefer to work in the background. However, this doesn’t mean Protectors are necessarily followers and that they won’t ever raise their concern – and when they do, because they don’t do it often, Directors will probably pay close attention.
Protectors value Directors’ ability to stick to decisions once they’re made – and vice versa.
There may be disagreements about the importance of maintaining the status quo. Protectors value stability and time-tested ways of doing things, while Directors value progression and find change and improvement very important.
Directors may see Protectors as slightly boring. Protectors, because of their Introverted nature, may find Directors too aggressive in social interaction.
Directors appreciate Protectors’ honest, straightforward nature, but Protectors may think of Directors as sometimes too talkative or aggressive. Communication between the two Roles can sometimes resemble a one-way street.
Directors and Protectors won’t have many problems motivating each other.
Both Roles value each other’s inner drive, dedication, and persistence.
Protectors will probably be okay with having Directors in leadership positions – they tend to feel good when others occupy such roles. But if the positions are reversed, it could be problematic if Directors are too aggressive in their Visionary conviction. They may feel they’re being hindered all the time.
Directors can serve to generate ideas while Protectors can offer simple, effective solutions to the problems that arise during implementation. When it comes to the process of organizing ideas into working solutions, both Roles have preferences which are compatible, but don’t overlap. This makes them a good problem-solving team in situations where both innovation but also reliability, security, and quality are needed.

Both Roles are likely to make good leaders – and if they agree on the direction a project should take, they can cover both the innovative and traditional aspects of team leadership. Each Role could contribute their preferred solutions during tasks requiring innovative solutions as well as the tried-and-true, secure ones. Any problems can be addressed from both theoretical and practical points of view, making successful outcomes more likely.
Both Roles are strong-minded and could possibly pull the team in opposite directions if they’re of equal status and don’t agree. Or, if not of equal status, both Roles could become frustrated with the other’s respective conventionality or innovativeness, potentially leading to accumulated dissatisfaction with the job.
With both Roles being Extraverted, it’s probable that every disagreement will be clearly communicated – the room might sometimes seem too small for both Directors and Organizers.
These two Roles should be a very good fit in motivating other Roles when working in tandem. They’re both internally motivated, but readily share their motivation with others by actively engaging with their team.
Directors are Innovators, while Organizers favor tried-and-true approaches, which could lead to problem-solving disagreements. Additionally, each puts emphasis on different work values and differs in risk tolerance, which could lead to friction. In “flat” teams, both Roles will probably try to persuade the rest of the team that their direction is more suitable, which could create tension. However, they’re likely to appreciate each other’s commitment and decisiveness.
Communication between these two Roles is likely to be open, straightforward, and dynamic, with occasional verbal duels stemming from their Visionary versus Realistic views.
Directors and Organizers may try to steer the conversation simultaneously, often leading to small persuasive competitions in problem-solving situations.

These two Roles are polar opposites in every dimension, meaning their interaction in a team is probably going to be pre-limited by their different interests, inclinations, skills, and consequent positions.
If they don’t work closely together or depend on one another, their interaction could be superficial. However, they may bond over different activities Explorers tend to introduce to people, and which energetic, Extraverted Directors may like.
Regarding work cooperation, these two Roles may have some trouble understanding each other – especially as Explorers are not very inclined to explain themselves, nor are they skillful at it. They tend to disregard the rules if they feel it’s the best option. Directors may value Explorers’ inclination to get a job done, but will sometimes be appalled at the way it’s done.
Explorers don’t always like strict rules, and while Directors can work in a somewhat flexible environment, Explorers’ ways may seem too mindless and unexpected to Directors’ way of thinking.
Explorers prefer to act rather than talk, which could come into conflict with Directors’ preference for loud brainstorming.
Directors might find Explorers too practical and uninteresting – and, in turn, Directors’ tendency to be a little absent-minded can seem exaggerated in Explorers’ eyes.
Although their motivation may be directed toward somewhat different things, both these Roles are proactive – something they respect in each other.
In general, Directors may have a hard time communicating with Explorers regarding work and vice versa, as they usually have quite different styles of communication. However, non-work banter between Explorers and Directors can be quite fruitful, consequently improving their work cooperation and communication.
Explorers will likely have a very hands-on approach to problems, whereas Directors tend to think things through first. If Explorers act too much by their own rules, it could create the impression they’re being disrespectful. However, if they suppress their need to try things out, they may be easily bored by what they see as useless discussion of how to solve a problem. These two Roles may often be completely opposite in everything except their shared understanding that a problem should be solved.

Communicators and Directors are open-minded and straightforward Roles who can work synergistically in their teams. They’re strong personalities who provide a combination of analytical assessment of a situation and flexible adjustment when it starts unfolding, all while keeping the whole team up.
Communicators can be great sidekicks in teams where they’re subordinate to Directors, starting things up and keeping them moving. Reversed positions could also be fruitful for this Role pair, with Communicators concerned with presenting or “selling” direction to the team and keeping them tight, and Directors organizing and leading work activities in the agreed general direction. This can give Directors space for analytical decision-making without leaving them frustrated by a lack of influence.
Directors will value Communicators’ quick-thinking characteristic.
Since both types tend to sway the crowd in their preferred direction, they may clash if they don’t agree, which can increase tension in a group as both roles try to be in the spotlight. Additionally, Communicators’ sudden changes of direction in their thinking could frustrate Directors, while Communicators in turn could see Directors as too rigid.
Communicators are more focused on the “here and now” than Directors, which could prove problematic when introducing changes. Sometimes Communicators may enthusiastically embrace a path, or a decision made out of thin air and then try to push it. When this happens, Directors may be more concerned with the risks and see Communicators as careless and featherheaded.
Directors and Communicators can be a great team when it comes to motivating other Roles. Furthermore, neither should have problems with self-motivation.
Communicators’ lack of persistence and shifts in their motivational objectives could lead to clashes with Directors, who tend to commit to decisions made with careful consideration.
Communicators and Directors can form a great pair in terms of communication style.
Their mutual tendency to be the center of attention could sometimes make them compete for it.
They could make a good duo for problem-solving due to their direct versus detached approaches to problems, which are likely to be clearly communicated. This can enrich both perspectives and lead to a fruitfully merged solution.
Communicators’ taking risks without what Directors see as proper risk assessment could be their main clashing point.

Two Seekers can be great for generating ideas in a team. Although they prefer to work alone, teaming up with another Seeker in idea-generating phases of projects – or whenever and wherever a fresh look is needed – guarantees problems will be examined from myriad angles and aspects.
Although they might leave the impression on every Methodical boss that they’re a combination from hell, two Seekers can be a real dream team when it comes to changes and novelties. If anybody can spot the un-spottable, it’s them, and even more so when they collaborate.
As Seekers aren’t competitive and reject any absolute claims about the world in general, it’s likely they’re going to find common ground in discussions and recognize each other’s mindset. Therefore, two Seekers don’t bear too much conflict potential if they don’t agree or don’t like each other – Seekers will likely avoid open confrontation. They may close themselves off, which can interfere with their work in the team, but they aren’t likely to cause bigger social disturbances. Neutral or positive attitudes are much more likely between two Seekers, and it’s likely they’re going to hang out outside work.
If left unchecked, two Seekers can overwhelm the other Roles in the team and possibly keep a project in stalemate – or even choose a path of action too loosely tied to reality.
They could close themselves off from the rest of the team if they feel others restrict them too much or they have trouble communicating their train of thought, and others may lose the motivation to track them. Any of this can cause them to diverge from the agreed path, if perhaps unintentionally, much quicker than expected.
The lack of competition between two Seekers means they won’t fight for resources, but their mutual support can amplify their tendency to jump from one thing to another and inspire their free spirits. Consequently, they may need a stronger framework provided from the outside when they’re together than when they’re working alone.
Two Seekers will probably be able to communicate effectively because they both tolerate the leaps of faith they’re prone to, although from the outside it could seem like meaningless randomness.
Two Seekers will generate a lot of ideas on how to solve a problem – and may even be able to choose one – but they’ll probably need external support to handle the implementation. If they venture too much into the theoretical and skip the practical aspects of problem-solving, a deadline could be missed.

Although they’re both Visionary and Spontaneous, their Introvert/Extrovert differences may direct them toward different interests and work roles, limiting their interaction in the beginning. However, Catalysts are nicely suited to connect Seekers with the rest of the team because of their endless openness, curiosity, and tolerance. They aren’t going to be easily discouraged by possible initial failures in communication.
When they cooperate on the same project, Seekers and Catalysts will probably be able to follow each other’s sometimes-haphazard train of thought. However, Catalysts are better suited of the two Roles to share their ideas with a group, or specifically to persuade them of their value. Providing a boost of enthusiasm and energy, they’ll use their social skills to push for buy-in from other team members if their ideas match the Seekers’.
Both types are creative and unconventional, which makes them well-suited to cooperate if a fresh look or innovative solution is needed. Catalysts’ sociability – and tendency to act upon ideas wholeheartedly to see what happens – can bring a bit of reality to their theories. This isn’t because Catalysts are reality-testers, but because they can push Seekers to act, and that is often the best reality check.
Seekers may have problems with the Catalysts’ desire to bring people together. Seekers are more solitary and might feel overwhelmed with all the input Catalysts can bring.
Catalysts may have trouble with Seekers who don’t like the direction they’re taking the team. Catalysts’ inclination for social and public brainstorming might be a little difficult for Seekers to handle.
Both types are Spontaneous and Visionary, which is a combination that sometimes requires imposing structure from the outside in order to fulfill the expectations of the world.
Catalysts and Seekers will generate and try a lot of ideas while able to keep sight of the big picture. Even if they don’t agree on a solution, there is little conflict potential because they both tend to disregard absolute claims. However, they’ll likely need another Role involved to be able to take their ideas and implement them into a working solution.
These Roles should be very similar and shouldn’t have that many problems in understanding each other’s point of view.
It’s possible they won’t interact much. Although they’re similar in two traits, their focus is different – social versus inner world.
Seekers may feel overwhelmed by Catalysts’ need to draw too many people around, and may sometimes try to limit time spent around them. But Catalysts are probably not going to see this as offensive as they’re tolerant and understanding, which Seekers will certainly appreciate.

These Roles see the world and act upon information in different ways, but they aren’t very sociable and don’t always share their thoughts as they think them, making conflict potential minimal when they interact. However, if they disagree – which is probable – silent intolerance may develop and hamper their cooperation.
Protectors might view Seekers as too chaotic or recklessly thoughtless. Seekers are good at generating new ideas and revitalizing systems, which Protectors might not like at all, especially if they feel good about the status quo (which is likely).
On the other hand, Seekers will likely regard Protectors in the group as too rigid, old fashioned, stubborn, and even intolerant if they resist new ways of doing things too much or question them too persistently.
However, both will appreciate each other’s unobtrusive manner, especially if surrounded by too many Extraverts. This could provide a link between them.
If working together, Seekers could benefit from Protectors’ structure, who may tend to organize their input and push them to meet the deadlines and formal requests. Protectors, meanwhile, could benefit from Seeker’s occasional creative transgressions. They can help Protectors realize that the world isn’t going to go down in flames if protocol is occasionally disregarded, and that trying new things should sometimes be prioritized over meeting a deadline.
If they disagree, both types prefer to keep things to themselves, so conflicts are likely to be of the silent kind and mild, at least in appearance. They don’t like conflict by nature, so this should be infrequent. Seekers might have a problem with Protectors’ conventional nature, and Protectors may be alarmed at Seekers’ unconventionality. Also, Protectors may be challenged in finding ways to reach Seekers.
These types are likely to stand aside during team building exercises, creating an opportunity for bonding, as knowing a colleague more closely could facilitate understanding the way he/she thinks. This, in turn, could improve work communication; although they might need a little push, their mild, respectful natures enable them to achieve both understanding and cooperation.
These two Roles will have quite different approaches to problem-solving because they’re also quite different in other aspects of their natures.
However, if a guaranteed quick solution to a time-sensitive problem is needed, a Seeker-Protector team makes a great go-to because they’ll cover all the necessary problem-solving aspects. Seekers can easily develop an idea that Protectors will make implementable with their input. These two could also find new ways to apply old methods, which can be a good middle ground in their cooperation.

Seekers and Organizers are polar opposites on every dimension, and this Role pair has little in common in the ways they approach the world. Consequently, they’re probably going to occupy different positions or be in charge of different tasks at work, which could limit their interaction.
It’s not necessary that Organizers be superior to Seekers in terms of authority, but it will probably fall to them to be in charge of organizing how things work, while Seekers will be the one working things out.
Organizers can channel Seekers’ creativity well thanks to their leadership skills, drawing from their rich ideas whatever is suitable – and possible – to implement under the circumstances.
Seekers work well in small groups, and the presence of Organizers can give them structure.
Seekers may not like the occasionally dogmatic nature of Organizers, especially if they’re subordinate to them. On the other hand, Organizers will probably have a problem with Seekers’ tendency to jump from one thing to another, not finishing anything until the end. Seekers may see Organizers as nagging and conventional, and Organizers could think of Seekers as disrespectful and irresponsible.
Organizers might have trouble with more independent-minded Seekers. On the other hand, Seekers might feel a little too pushed by Organizers’ tendencies to set things up and outline the road.
In this Role pair, Organizers will likely have trouble with Seekers’ lack of persistence. However, they’re well-suited to encourage and incorporate Seekers’ creative potential in structures that benefit the team.
Seekers and Organizers may have problems if their respectively innovative and conventional natures clash, and Seekers’ occasional disregard of rules and ways of doing things could lead to verbal clashes initiated by Organizers. However, the way both Roles communicate is likely warm, which will certainly help their connection.
Organizers, who are usually well-suited for leadership, should be great at organizing and selecting the ideas generated by Seekers.

Both types are Spontaneous and Introverted, which means the things that bother other Roles when they interact with Seekers and Explorers won’t be troublesome when these two interact.
Explorers’ energy and active lifestyle can appeal to Seekers’ adventurous nature, and it’s possible that Seekers will be easily approached by Explorers.
The theoretical creativeness of Seekers can mix well with Explorers’ practical creativeness. Explorers tend to get things done, and they can push Seekers’ ideas into more realistic frames while not making them feel confined, thus driving their implementation. However, this pair’s solutions could be rather unconventional and require any external limits and instructions from third parties be specific, firm, and clear. In the world of these two Roles, nothing is written in stone or meant by default.
In a long-term project, this duo can tolerate each other’s lack of persistence, so they may need structure from the outside.
A primary problem between Explorers and Seekers may arise from their respective practical versus theoretical inclinations: the Realistic versus Visionary traits. Explorers may think Seekers’ heads are always in the clouds, while Seekers may feel Explorers discard their ideas without proper reasons. Seekers, however, will hardly be annoyed by this because they already have another idea brewing.
Seekers and Explorers can be a little too different in terms of motivation, but both types should be resilient to burnout.
Neither Role is too chatty, and their Realistic versus Visionary difference combined with their spontaneous styles can sometimes make their communication look like they’re playing Chinese whispers: each one going their own way, only loosely taking their cue from the other and neither being aware or bothered by it.
Clashes or fighting aren’t that probable with these two and, in addition to not getting in each other’s way, they might bond over non-work-related exciting activities. This could open up their communication system to one another, but not necessarily to other people.

Communicators will be able to pick an idea well-suited for the situation out of many generated by Seekers and give it a necessary push. Those ideas Communicators pick will probably need to be adjusted to be more grounded in reality, though. They’re more prone to quick decisions and will use their social skills to put those decisions through – or at least get away with almost everything they try without explicit permission, which may satisfy Seekers.
These Roles can work in synergy when they need to produce some innovative but readily implementable solution.
Communicators are focused on the here and now, which can come into conflict with Seekers’ tendency to play with what-ifs.
Communicators will likely sense when Seekers are in the mood to work with people, and will make use of this situation. On the other hand, when Seekers want to be left alone, Communicators will be at least able to sense this and act accordingly.
Communicators should be able to further motivate Seekers because they can both thrive in uncertainty, but the former are more energetic and push for things to happen.
Seekers will appreciate Communicators’ warm, straightforward nature, and as Communicators are generally skilled at interacting with others, these two shouldn’t have many problems with communication.
Seekers may sometimes regard Communicators as too Extraverted and pushy, and have the impression they just talk and don’t listen to other people.
On the other hand, Communicators may feel a bit put off by the more closed Seekers, and find them boring partners for interaction.
Overall, Communicators will likely be good at implementing the ideas generated by Seekers when considering the other aspects of their Role. These Roles approach problem-solving from different perspectives but they can nonetheless be a favorable pair.

Fully matched in view and approach and both being Extraverted, two Catalysts will almost always understand each other. Even when they don’t agree they’re likely to be on the same page about what’s being discussed, and will communicate openly. This contributes to the understanding of each other’s occasional leaps from idea to idea and topic to topic. It can also lead to new ideas which would otherwise be self-censored by a single Catalyst who feels the team doesn’t understand them.
If they agree, their combined powerful energy is capable of identifying where changes should be made, outlining plenty of top-down solutions, and initiating the changes step by step. These types initiate and drive progress, and two Catalysts working together can do at least twice as much as they can alone.
They’re a great combination for socializing and breathing life into team building events, and in the team in general.
Their constant brainstorming may mean some things never get done – in other words, if a pair of Catalysts jointly works on something, although they tend to draw insight from the environment and act upon it to generate new ideas, they tend to lose the details of implementation. Their energy could even push the rest of the team into something that doesn’t really with realistic constraints, whether deadlines or the possibility of implementation.
If they don’t agree, they could pull the team into different directions – which could lead to stagnation and tension within the team (although this could be a bigger problem for more dominant Roles.)
They’ll have to keep in mind that, while they have no problem with intensity of interaction at work, other teammates might find any lack of clear direction and structure overwhelming and frustrating.
Catalysts can motivate each other toward improvement and a bit of competition between them can lead to high quality ideas in the end. However, because they’re usually not that competitive, they may need to be careful not to develop motivation-related anxiety.
Catalysts love brainstorming and may become so entangled in discussions that their work suffers.
As Extraverts and as probably the best listeners among all types, two Catalysts can facilitate deep communication among other members of the team by initiating it and leading by example.

These two types are polar opposites, and will likely clash in settings of work-related cooperation. These roles are the embodiment of opposite positions along the lines of “changes and innovation“ versus “time-honored and time-tested,” a frequent dilemma in any business.
Protectors may see Catalysts’ unconventional ways of working and tendencies toward change as unnecessary, following fads, or interfering with what already works.
Catalysts may feel Protectors are too rigid and passive in their ideas, and that their loyalty to tradition is restrictive.
Due to differences in their work approach and Extrovert-Introvert traits, their initial working relationship can mostly be based on mutual respect, rather than something more personal. These types both value respectful treatment of others, and are able and motivated to suspend their differences in order to foster good social relations.
These two Roles can complement each other thanks to their respectful manners. Working alongside Protectors can teach Catalysts the value of being consistent and meticulous, showing an example of what can be achieved by those qualities. On the other hand, Protectors may over-value stability, and if communication between them is strong, Catalysts can push them out of their comfortable habits to improve the way things are done.
Catalysts and Protectors can form a good motivating team because they’ll likely value each other’s active approach to problems. They could be in charge of motivating the rest of the team in different problem-solving stages and don’t need to be pushed to think of a clever solution or do their job.
Catalysts might see Protectors as too conventional, uninteresting, and plain, and sometimes have a hard time striking up a deeper discussion with them.
Protectors usually stick to the current approach, so Catalysts will sometimes have a hard time pulling them into discussions with the goal of shaking up their points of view.
When it’s valuable to hear contrasting opinions on how to solve a problem, these two Roles are a good go-to team because they approach things from opposite perspectives. This can lead to tension but also helps the team generate ideas and put them to practice.

As social types, Organizers and Catalysts may find each other generally pleasant to work with and will appreciate each other’s enthusiasm. However, they differ both in what they see in the world and how they approach it.
Although this could generally be a good interaction, Organizers could be frustrated by Catalysts’ lack of structure. They may see it as a lack of direction and disorganization, which could be interpreted as disrespectful toward the rest of the team.
Catalysts and Organizers can influence each other positively in their cooperation. Organizers can help Catalysts stay on track with their work and provide structure for their many thoughts, which can be overwhelming even for themselves. In turn, if Organizers are too systematic and serious, Catalysts can provide the spark of creativity and playfulness needed to help them think outside the box.
Catalysts value innovation more than Organizers do, and may have trouble persuading them that change needs to happen and will be for the better. On the other hand, Organizers could have trouble with Catalysts’ constant wandering and lack of persistence in monotonous tasks.
In extreme cases, these two Roles may frustrate each other. Catalysts may see Organizers’ need for predictability and consistency as trying to control their behavior. In turn, Organizers might simply not understand Catalysts and see them as rebellious.
The differing motivations of these Roles could be productively directed at different stages of work, binding them together as each also uses the input of the side less apt or adept for the stage. Organizers may be especially suitable here, as they won’t be overwhelmed by Catalysts’ Extraversion and tend to have good social skills.
Overall, this pair should work well with regards to communication, though points of disagreement may stem from the more conventional nature of Organizers contrasting with Catalysts’ tendency to disregard the rules.
Catalysts are likely to be the ones brainstorming, while Organizers will likely be in organizing or leadership positions, and will have the task of structuring, planning, and covering different aspects of problem-solving.
Both Roles should be relatively comfortable working in synergy because of their high energy level.

These two Roles are quite different in what they pay attention to, but similar in their approach. Explorers’ relatively high activity levels, at least for Introverts, help foster generally positive feeling about each other.
Catalysts, being open to new ideas, will likely also be open to Explorers’ hands-on approach.
Both types tend to act upon their ideas without reluctance, which can help in teams that require quick thinking and action.
Despite some general differences, these Roles can work well if their communication is good, covering both theoretical and practical aspects of work. However, the results they produce might not always follow the usual ways things are done, so any constraints or absolute aspects of a goal should be made known to them explicitly beforehand.
Explorers may not be able to relate well to what Catalysts find entertaining or intriguing, which could limit their interest in connecting on a personal, rather than professional, level – and vice versa.
Explorers may see Catalysts’ expansiveness and preference for brainstorming as too broad and distracting from practical and “real” work.
Both Roles tend to disregard formal requirements and could reinforce each other in this respect.
These two Roles will probably have many communication differences, as many of the things Catalysts talk about can be perceived by Explorers as empty talk or just ideas. On the other hand, Explorers aren’t the best at explaining things to curious Catalysts, and their many questions could overwhelm Explorers.
They could bond over practical activities or during team building. As neither of them is prone to conflict, they could learn how to meet each other’s communication needs, at least at work.
Explorers’ practical approach can be a great addition to Catalysts’ brainstorming capabilities. Explorers can show which ideas are the most practical and feasible to be implemented, while Catalysts can present these ideas in an exciting manner that energizes Explorers to get into them.

Communicators and Catalysts are likely to get along very well because they’re both quite open and value communication.
Although they’re both Spontaneous and Extraverted, Catalysts and Communicators are drawn to different aspects of the world – an experiential versus more abstract take on things. But they’re both energized by social activity and should be able to communicate in work domains effectively while covering different aspects of any problems.
This Role pair is a great combination in jobs that require quick thinking, working with people, and innovative solutions. Both Catalysts and Communicators are socially adept, comfortable with only general goals and improvisation. Their successful communication and differing outlooks could work with great synergy to produce great solutions.
It’s likely that both Roles will be energized by social acceptance of their presence and ideas, and this can increase when they’re in a pair. Their interactions will likely never become repetitive. However, mutual motivation could prove difficult if either sees the environment as unstimulating as they both value the new and unpredictable.
These types’ joint energy could work in great synergy to lift a team up and stir things up, at least in the short term.
These Roles will likely communicate well, although they’ll possibly experience some mild friction over which of them has the dominant position in a conversation.
Lots of divergent problem-solving ideas will come from these two Roles. They can obtain lots of needed knowledge thanks to their being able to approach things from both a practical and a theoretical perspective. An added benefit is they can relay these ideas very well because both Roles are very communicative.
When working together they might support each other’s risky decisions, disregarding the evaluation of ideas and jumping right into them. Additionally, they may get lost in the details of implementation, while successfully persuading others into taking on more than they can manage.

Protectors will probably agree with each other and be happy working together using time-tested protocols and accumulated knowledge to do their best to keep things in place.
They’ll likely find each other relatable, as they probably have similar interests and lifestyles.
Both will appreciate having a dependable, dedicated partner who can be counted on not to badger or stir things up, but instead to do things right and on time.
Two Protectors interacting can get stuck in a routine, and may not be able to inspire and challenge each other to improve.
They may provide each other social support for resisting – or even undermining – brainstorming and efforts towards organizational change.
They may not be very sociable toward each other, though this will probably be fine with both of them.
This interaction bears little conflict potential; although they may defend their way of doing things if they don’t agree, Protectors aren’t prone to loud confrontations. They may just stubbornly continue their own way, which could lead to silent conflict that may or may not resolve spontaneously, but is unlikely to cause team problems.
Protectors won’t likely need another person to motivate them and another Protector will realize that, so they won’t stand in each other’s way. They’re likely to be internally motivated and resistant to common detriments to motivation.
Communication between two Protectors may not seem like the most exciting thing to others, but they’ll likely enjoy talking to someone with similar worldviews yet isn’t compelled to be sociable all the time they’re together. Even if they don’t agree, they won’t have trouble understanding each other’s point of view.
Two Protectors will likely be great at generating and implementing realistic solutions that are carefully deliberated and thoroughly tested toward. In tandem they can be very steadfast, the only downside being that they may not excel at the theoretical aspect of idea generation when something needs to be improved or done in a new way.

Generally a good pairing, this duo has its valuable place in any business as they like to ensure security, predictability, stability, and effectiveness. In times of change they make sure things really happen at some point.
Organizers will likely be happy to help provide the structure and clearly defined goals that Protectors need to work well, even if there’s no hierarchy difference between them. Protectors aren’t necessarily followers, but prefer to work in the background, so their frequent lack of leadership aspirations can complement Organizers’ wishes to be one.
Protectors tend to provide reliable support for Organizers, and a mutual respect can be expected, based on trusting each other to do their part.
Organizers may try to be too involved and seek too much interaction for Protectors, who just want to be left alone to do their work, and thus might even see them as too dependent on social approval. In turn, Protectors might seem too distant to Organizers.
Responsible and most likely internally motivated, these types should get along pretty well when it comes to motivation in general.
If these two Roles agree on the right way to do a project, they can have very fruitful communication – and if they don’t, they’ll likely find a way to settle their differences. Both value social order and respectful manners so they aren’t likely to clash too often, and even when they do it’s likely in a polite and civil manner.
Protectors and Organizers will likely be able to communicate well. They value similar things and are compatible personalities, although their conversation may not be the most exciting thing in the world to more adventurous listeners.
Protectors and Organizers make a great duo when it comes to turning ideas into practice. They can pitch in with useful suggestions but won’t likely generate lots of novel, interesting ideas that get ahead of the team. However, if there are well-established and concrete practices, this can be a great pair for keeping things running well.

Both Roles are Realistic and, accordingly, are drawn to the realistic aspects of work. However, their approaches are dissimilar, which opens a potential for clashes.
These Roles will likely clash over standard rules and protocols. Protectors may see Explorers as headstrong and self-interested. Explorers, in turn, may not care all that much about Protectors’ time-honored way of working, finding it uninspiring and uncalled for.
Explorers are non-conformists, and their spontaneous manner can be bothersome to more conventional coworkers or bosses like Protectors, who choose to adhere to the rules.
Although both are Introverted and will rarely confront each other openly (partly due to Protectors’ polite manners and Explorers’ tendency not to explain things too much), disagreement can occur around Explorers’ spontaneity or occasional abandonment of the rules.
It’s possible these Roles won’t completely understand each other, as doing so requires persistent social efforts neither are prone to. They may simply adopt an avoidantly permissive attitude toward one another.
However, Protectors will like the fact that Explorers prefer to act without talking too much.
Both Roles will appreciate that the other is unlikely to interfere too much with their thoughts or work.
Both types have no problem working alone, which can be a plus in certain teams.
Explorers can complement Protectors with their more creative approaches.
They could be a great duo for making and implementing solutions in businesses that require both stability and the constant use of new techniques. Protectors will be able to provide structure to Explorers’ endeavors, and Explorers will feel motivated because it means doing what they do best – learning new things.
Protectors and Explorers may admire each other’s self-motivation and respect for the practical. However, they could become frustrated or clash, even if silently, over differences in consistency.
These two Roles should have no problem when communicating with each other; however, neither are very communicative to begin with.
When it comes to questions of how to make something work, both Roles provide answers but in a slightly different manner. This duo will probably be well-suited to problems requiring large-scale innovation during later stages.

Although they’re both Realistic, these two personalities are otherwise completely different. While Protectors value commitment and dedication, Communicators tend to jump flexibly from task to task, person to person. Accordingly, they’ll likely occupy different positions in a team, which could limit their interaction.
Both types are prone to focus on the here and now. They can find common ground in this.
Communicators are generally comfortable with risk. If they constantly disregard the rules, it could frustrate Protectors, who value security. Protectors might thus see Communicators as disrespectful and irresponsible.
A Communicator and a Protector in a team potentially offers great synergy between a person-oriented individual and a protocol-oriented one.
Communicators can get bored if they perceive Protectors as being too set in their ways.
Protectors may be irked by Communicators’ disregard for details and plans, and may feel like they’re being derailed.
Communicators and Protectors don’t have much in common. It will probably be up to Communicators to lead the conversation and find ways to break through Protectors’ barriers.
Communicators may seem quite unmotivated to Protectors, potentially annoying them. However, Communicators might just be able to counter this through their communication skills, quick thinking, and great energy.
Protectors generally aren’t as interested in socializing, so they may find Communicators too gregarious and try to avoid spending a lot of time with them. Communicators may see this as rejection, or as not being a “team player.”
There may be some problems around Protectors’ disapproving of Communicators’ comfort with breaking the rules, but in terms of problem-solving they should have a similar, more practical approach.
Both Roles will probably be better at implementing the acquired knowledge of others than generating it themselves. Communicators may serve well as middle-men, while Protectors are likely to be the final implementers of solutions.

Having an Organizer in a team helps ensure business runs smoothly, and two of them teamed up represent a formidable force capable with dealing with everyday work in stable, effective ways.
They’ll support each other’s efforts to contribute to a sense of community and keep the team together.
They’ll respect each other’s dependability, decisiveness, and straightforward manner.
They’re likely to have clear goals and defined perspectives about the team and Roles within it.
Organizers are likely to communicate very well. Even if they disagree on a topic, they’ll value each other’s approach to people and will, at the very least, likely build mutual respect.
If they disagree over work direction or goals, there can be power struggles about who’s in control. However, Organizers are sociable personalities who value community spirit, and small feuds aren’t likely to go out of hand between them.
In some cases, a minor rivalry could even be inspiring, pushing them to advance and perhaps be more creative in ways of setting things up. The grounded nature of Organizers suggests any such rivalry would stay controlled.
Organizers will appreciate how they can amplify each other’s motivation.
While they could be competitive, Organizers aren’t likely not clash too much, even if their motivations interfere.
Organizers approach problem-solving from a practical perspective. There can be potential problems if a situation requires a more creative approach, since Organizers reinforce each other’s tendency toward a conventional perspective. Together, they’re likely to stick to what they’re certain of, and may sometimes miss the chance to step out and grab new opportunities.

Both types are Realistic, but while Organizers tend to approach problems from a more distant point of view and analyze things thoroughly, Explorers prefer hands-on experience and spontaneous exploration. They could form a compatible pair, but might also fail to reach a full understanding with each other.
With this Role pair, working relationships should be based around practical issues rather than debating the big picture or different team or project perspectives.
Organizers can help Explorers by keeping long-term goals in mind. Additionally, Organizers could be well-suited to identify the most appropriate way to use Explorers’ practical creativity and endless motivation for mastering something new; in this way, a mutually satisfying relationship could develop.
Explorers are unlikely to feel comfortable with strategic decision-making, as they’re mostly concerned with immediate circumstances of their work. They’ll be glad to leave some of this to Organizers, who have broader mindset.
Organizers might occasionally be annoyed with Explorers’ disregard of the rules and risky decisions or actions. Explorers’ tendency to not explain themselves much could make Organizers perceive them as disrespectful toward the team – something Organizers are sensitive to.
Organizers may see Explorers as too loose because of their tendency to not communicate enough and do things their own way.
Explorers may feel that Organizers are dogmatists who desire keeping things in control.
Organizers are great at motivating others, and while Explorers are unlikely to need very much motivation, the fact they’re both Realistic will help them find mutual understanding.
These Roles differ in terms of communication, but Organizers are likely to appreciate Explorers’ practical nature. Unless Explorers decide they need to break the rules on purpose, these two Roles shouldn’t have too much tension in their communication.
This pair can work well in cases where practical solutions are required. Organizers are good at keeping the big picture and strategic decisions in mind, while Explorers are ready to do hands-on work and find solutions to real-world problems.

Communicators and Organizers could work together very well in a team because of their shared sociability. Communicators’ natural affinity for bringing people together goes well with Organizers’ involved style.
Both types are primarily focused on the here and now, which can help in communication, though Organizers focus a bit more on learning from past experiences.
Both types are outgoing and should be able to easily establish rapport.
Communicators tend to sometimes step over boundaries and go around the rules, which could frustrate very responsible, reliable Organizers.
Organizers could feel somewhat threatened by the good social standing of Communicators. In turn, Communicators could see Organizers as not being spontaneous enough in social situations.
If Communicators seem to be more interested in interpersonal relations than their own work output, they may find themselves at odds with Organizers, who focus on reliable productivity.
Communicators may seem too dependent on external motivation and lacking in persistence to Organizers, who would prefer them to follow the rules and be more responsible. On the other hand, Communicators’ stance is that rules are to be broken, so they’ll not likely be too bothered by such judgements.
Organizers will likely find Communicators likeable and talkative. Communicators, who are generally good with other people, will likely view Organizers positively, although not necessarily as the most interesting people. Communicators and Organizers are likely to communicate well, but problems can arise if Communicators start suggesting and introducing too many changes, which Organizers may see as challenging the working system.
Being crafty, this Role pair can ensure any formulated plan is carried out until the end, resistant to unforeseen circumstances by providing both framework and innovation. But above all, this duo can help boost the rest of the group with good team spirit and drive.

Two Explorers could easily find each other to be fun to work with and very pleasant.
Explorers have the same practical interest and spontaneous manner, and will likely be in charge of similar aspects of the work process where they may often directly collaborate.
These types tend to be lone workers, and collaborating with another Explorer could be lifesaving to either of them if their relationship is positive. They’ll probably be able to intuitively pick up each other’s intentions, agree on where to meet and what to do, and then happily go their separate ways and practice their creativity. They won’t be bothered by each other’s spontaneous decision-making and could even inspire each other to be more innovative. It’s possible they’ll admire each other’s skill and craftiness and will be able to intuitively pick up on each other’s focus on mastering a particular thing.
It may sometimes happen that they step on each other’s toes, because both will have their own idea about how the job should be done and can be hard to negotiate with.
If they really don’t like each other, they’ll simply not become friends, and nothing more.
Explorers will appreciate the fact that other Explorers are creative in their practical nature and naturally motivated. They’ll also appreciate each other’s tendency to skip the empty talk and act.
If Explorers have an idea they want to see done, they’ll probably do it even if it means tweaking some rules – and another Explorer will likely support and help them. In this way, they could motivate each other’s innovativeness but be a difficult pair for a Methodical boss, especially a Realistic and Methodical one.
Communication between Explorers will mostly likely be oriented toward the practical, making them likely to be straight-to-the-point. Their communication might seem weird to outsiders, though, especially when they talk about something they’re both familiar with in a combination of half-finished sentences, relational words, syllables, and nods.
Two Explorers will have many practical ideas and will find each other’s creativity inspiring, and maybe even a bit threatening. However, they aren’t the best at coming up with a broad mission and vision of the team, or fitting their solutions to practical problems into a wider understanding of the world. They’ll both likely tend to keep away from that part of the process.

Both types prefer to focus on the here and now and are prone to experiencing the world as they meet it, without predetermined plans and expectations. Their difference lies in what energizes them, and it makes them completely different personalities from the outside – while Communicators are masters of words and people, Explorers are masters of action and things.
They essentially are similar in their approach and focus on reality, and should be able to interact and cooperate effectively.
Explorers will like Communicators quick-thinking ability and readiness to act, while Communicators will appreciate Explorers’ crafty nature. Teamed up, they could provide an endless circle of creating and implementing innovative yet practical solutions in a team, whether strictly work-related or not.
Communicators want to involve people (hence their name), but this can be a problem for the more closed Explorers, who may feel frustrated with the introduction of weighing too many options and opinions.
Communicators may regard Explorers as too simplistic in their world view, and perhaps sometimes even too inconsiderate.
Explorers can find Communicators too “chatty” – and sometimes even annoying.
Explorers may see Communicators as too externally motivated and competitive at the same time. On the other hand, Explorers’ steadfastness might be a little too much for Communicators.
Communicators might communicate better with Explorers by addressing their innovative and crafty interests and nature, although they may sometimes have a hard time getting an explanation out of them.
This Role pair can work very well in a constantly changing environment without feeling too frustrated by a lack of structure and clear goals, and without feeling frustrated with one another. They’re likely to be able to solve most things that could come up every day, no matter their form, and can even flourish in the liberty afforded by the lack of a framework.

Being Spontaneous and Extraverted, two Communicators could really shake their team up. They can provide great solutions when called upon to implement innovative changes, or when a team needs quick thinking, willingness to face risk, and above all, positive spirits if things fail.
Two Communicators are a great asset for a team that needs more human interaction and facilitation. They can drive a team toward innovation through their expertise in human interaction and ability to take risks when necessary.
Communicators in tandem can be a great counterpoint to more closed types in a team.
In calmer periods, a room might be too small for two Communicators and their combined energy too much for the rest of the team. But they’re likely to get along pretty well, as they may provide each other with the excitement they seek without expecting commitment.
Two Communicators in a team may stall progress on tasks if they put too much focus on interpersonal relations.
Communicators’ characteristic search for new social stimulation might prove to be too much for the more grounded types around them, who might prefer to separate social life from work.
Communicators may clash if they don’t agree with each other, and this may impede the work of the team.
Two Communicators may be motivated to compete for the attention of others and their mood may be regulated too much by how others perceive them, possibly resulting in a kind of social rivalry between them.
Discussions between Communicators are likely to appear to be very fun to an outside viewer. Communicators should be able talk very well with each other. Their discussions can become fervent, but they’re likely to understand each other as they’re both proficient with words and people.
Communicators will likely approach problems from a practical perspective – and this will be amplified when there are two in the team. They’ll probably try to find ways to connect people both inside and outside the team, often serving as middlemen between those who generate ideas and those who can make them a reality.

Demo Team