TypeCompass — Jungian Typology × Condition Pulse
Discover how the world looks through the "window" that is you.
Four types (RED, BROWN, YELLOW, BLUE) give structure to the friction in your organization—from individual assessments to team- and company-wide dashboards.
By combining a 16-Type Assessment based on Jungian typology with a monthly Condition Pulse, we support the creation of strong organizations that leverage each individual's traits.
Estimated time: about 15 minutes (60 questions, 5-point scale)
NEWS
Anyone can view titles and summaries. Login is required to read the full text.
外国人労働者の雇用や多国籍組織での利用を見据え、画面、診断設問、結果文、フィードバック、教材、独立LPなどの多言語化を推…
Log in to read the full text →タイプ理解を継続的な成長に接続するGrowth Training、教材表示、トレーニング進捗の保存などを、システム全体の…
Log in to read the full text →TypeCompassの機能から展開する形で、組織におけるAI活用を支援するサービス・機能を追加。AIへの不安把握、診断…
Log in to read the full text →各種DBスキーマ／マイグレーション、Store層、REST API、権限、監査ログ、CSRF対策、レート制限、暗号化、r…
Log in to read the full text →人材認識を実際の仕事・組織課題へ接続する業務適性診断を体系化しました。現行テーマでは、5S、機密保持、リーダーシップ、時…
Log in to read the full text →ストレスチェック、ストレスプロフィール、タイプ別ガイド、結果・フィードバック、管理画面・アクセス制御機能を実装しました。…
Log in to read the full text →個人の性格差を示すだけでなく、異なるタイプの間で生じやすい摩擦や認識のずれを可視化し、相互理解とコミュニケーション改善に…
Log in to read the full text →生成AIの社会普及を背景に、性格タイプの違いを踏まえて、AI活用時の特徴や向き合い方を伝えるフィードバックを追加。人間理…
Log in to read the full text →人手不足の深刻化を背景に、スキルや経歴だけでなく人柄に着眼した人材採用・育成機能「HITOGARAコア」を開発・実装。応…
Log in to read the full text →外見、境界葛藤、委任／動機づけ、称賛／批判、金銭トリガー、圧力／回復など、テーマ別の診断群を整備しました。診断結果の共有…
Log in to read the full text →About TypeCompass
TypeCompass is a talent and organizational development solution that combines a 16-Type Assessment -- which reveals tendencies in perception and judgment across the three axes of Extraversion-Introversion, Sensing-Intuition, and Thinking-Feeling -- with a three-tier Condition Survey that uses both named and anonymous responses.
Taken once upon joining, with an annual update recommended thereafter. Through about 60 questions rated on a 5-point scale, it visualizes your tendencies in perceiving the world and making judgments.
5 questions covering work content, performance, relationships, sleep, and a word for this month. Because responses are named, the right support reaches the right people.
Even for the same assessment result, feedback is delivered in a tone tailored to each client company's values and culture.
PART 1 | The impact of TypeCompass
Small and mid-sized companies rarely have an HR department or a dedicated organization-development team. So problems like “the president and the employees don’t click” or “the younger staff and the veterans don’t mesh” are usually treated as personal-relationship issues and left alone. TypeCompass is the first tool to give numbers and words to this “invisible loss.”
The figures above are a “hypothetical simulation” based on a general turnover-cost model that assumes the turnover rate improves from 10% to 8%. They are not verified results specific to TypeCompass and do not guarantee any outcome (see the materials on the adoption-impact simulation for details).
The 4 Groups
While the classification is based on Jungian cognitive functions, the group names and theme colors are TypeCompass's own framework created for education and dialogue. Start by exploring which of the 4 directions feels closest to you.
TypeCompass condenses the 16 types into 4 groups that are easy to use in daily work. Instead of “that person is stubborn,” you can say “this is where BROWN’s quality check is needed”—and that alone turns personal criticism into a division of roles.
A group of types built around Extraverted Sensing
A psychological orientation that starts from “what is actually happening right in front of me now” and responds immediately
Values the present, the field, and rapid response. Acts fast and handles change well. Less comfortable with standardization and long-term design.
A group of types built around Introverted Sensing
A psychological orientation of maintaining and running things reliably, based on accumulated experience and what has proven dependable
Values experience, procedure, and reproducibility. Strong in quality and risk management. Somewhat cautious about new challenges.
A group of types that combine intuition and feeling
A psychological orientation of finding the meaning and value in events and relationships and nurturing people’s growth and potential
Values people, meaning, and potential. Strong in understanding customers and building relationships. Less comfortable with rigorous verification.
A group of types that combine intuition and thinking
A psychological orientation of finding the structures and principles behind a situation and turning them into strategy
Values structure, logic, and systems. Strong in strategic design. Less comfortable with firsthand information from the field and with emotions.
Detailed explanations of each group and type can be freely viewed anytime after logging in. However, specific assessment results of other members are not shown.
Even for the same “RED × BLUE,” the bridge needed for RED→BLUE differs from BLUE→RED. This asymmetry is what makes it so practical to use.
Most competitors have no guidelines for using AI. For each of the 4 groups, TypeCompass shows “how to use AI to leverage your strengths and where to be careful,” and even adjusts the feedback wording to fit each company’s culture. It lifts AI adoption from “tool training” to “work design and organizational change”—value found nowhere else.
TypeCompass is currently a product in development toward its initial release. The effects and figures on this page are hypothetical, based on generally available knowledge and estimation models, and do not guarantee actual results. The 10 cases that follow are also hypothetical model cases intended to deepen understanding.
PART 2 | 10 case studies
Even with the same “friction between 4 groups,” what happens on the ground is completely different. Here we introduce 10 hypothetical model cases in different forms—stories, dialogue, memoirs, manga, and more. They are designed so that even executives who dislike numbers and managers who are too busy on the front line can feel, “this might apply to my company too.”
The 10 cases below are model cases (hypothetical scenarios based on fictional settings), composed using TypeCompass’s theoretical framework (4 groups and the 16-cell Friction Map). They do not depict real companies or people, and they do not guarantee actual results from adoption. Results after adoption vary depending on each company’s circumstances.
The president came back from a sales call, swung open the factory door, and said, “Let’s change the spec on this part. It won’t sell in today’s market.” The plant manager answered without stopping his work. “You’re changing it again? The same thing happened last month.”
In the president’s mind were the faces of the clients he had just met, a competitor’s new product, and the feel of a market he had only just heard about that day. “There’s no point unless we change it now.” In the plant manager’s mind were the defect that had come from a spec change three years earlier, the time it would take to inform the workers, and the weight of quality assurance.
Neither of them had said anything wrong. Yet every time, the conversation stalled at the same place. The president had come to think, “He opposes everything I say,” and the plant manager had come to feel, “I’m being jerked around by the president’s whims.”
The plant manager opened TypeCompass’s communication guide for managers and paused on one page. “Field Drive (RED) gives top priority to responding immediately to the reality of this very moment”—written side by side were the reasons behind the president’s judgment and a portrait of himself, the person who had found the president difficult.
In their next 1-on-1, for the first time the plant manager began not with “We can’t,” but with this: “Could we split the changes into the parts you can change right away and the parts I’d like just 24 hours to check?” The president looked a little surprised. “That works. In fact, it’s faster,” he replied.
Change requests were sorted into three types: “immediate change,” “confirm within 24 hours,” and “management decision.” The president’s speed was not lost, and neither was the plant manager’s role in quality assurance. Six months later, the president said, “He wasn’t opposing me. He was protecting quality.”
The office head shows both of them TypeCompass’s AI usage guidelines. This is what they say: “Steady Process (BROWN) has strong trust in established procedures and tends to be cautious about new tools. Growth Partner (YELLOW) values possibility so much that the perspective of verification tends to be missed.”
Three months later, the veteran staff member was no longer an opponent of adopting AI but had taken on the role of a quality tester who verifies AI’s output. The junior staff member says that, thanks to her observations, they were saved from AI’s mistakes again and again.
Our company is always full of laughter. Whenever someone proposes a plan, a chorus of “That’s a great idea” goes up. I took that to be a culture I could be proud of.
But every time I looked at the financial statements, the numbers didn’t add up somewhere. Even when there were projects close to running at a loss, nobody mentioned it. Even with impossible deadlines, nobody said “we can’t.” I had always assumed it was because “we have a lot of hard workers.”
When I saw the type composition in TypeCompass, I sat up straight for the first time. Our company leaned surprisingly heavily toward Growth Partner (YELLOW). One line in the report—that the stronger the relationships and empathy in an organization, the more easily people feel that “opposing = damaging the relationship”—explained all the unease I had felt until then.
The first thing I did was not to change anyone. It was to set a rule that every meeting ends by deciding “who, what, by when,” and to appoint a rotating role of “the person who raises one opposing opinion.” At first everyone was bewildered. Yet after six months, opposing opinions had changed from “an act of denying a colleague” into “a role that makes a plan stronger.”
There was no need to break a kind company. All I needed to do was add one mechanism, within that kindness, for saying the things that are hard to say.
— CEO, design company
The site manager is excellent, responds quickly to customers, and solves any problem right away. Yet the state of “busy, but no profit left” continued. TypeCompass’s type-composition analysis revealed that the whole organization leaned toward Field Drive (RED). The very perspective of looking at structure had dropped out of the company.
The above are not measured values from a specific company but illustrative data showing an expected improvement trend. Actual figures vary depending on operating conditions and industry.
Only one measure was introduced: a once-a-month “90-minute meeting to look only at structure, not the front line,” where they always ask, “Why were we busy this month?” and “Did that work lead to profit?” Deliberately adding a perspective for looking at structure—without denying the front line’s hard work—was the turning point.
I clashed with the director of corporate planning again. I ended up saying, “This is a numbers-only discussion by someone who doesn’t know the front line.” He fires back with, “It’s dangerous to make management decisions on rules of thumb alone.” The president gave a wry smile and said, “You’re both right, so why can’t you come together?” Honestly, that’s what I’d like to ask.
I was shown my TypeCompass assessment result. I’m RED, he’s BLUE. And in the materials, this combination was labeled “Friction: extremely high.” I laughed a little. But at the same time it also said “the greatest growth pair, able to complement each other’s weak areas,” which was unexpected.
I tried changing the order of the meeting. ① I share firsthand information from the field, ② the director analyzes it as a structure, ③ I propose next week’s experiment, ④ the director decides the verification metrics. Strangely, we didn’t clash. Or rather, there was no need to clash.
Today the director said to me, “Mr. Tanaka, your feel for the field really is fast.” After working together for seven years, I think it was the first time he had ever said that. It’s not that the clashes are gone. But the clash has changed from “experience versus theory” into a cycle of “gather information → analyze → experiment → verify.”
Dear successor,
The day you said, “A company can’t last on person-dependent management,” honestly, I was angry. It felt as if you had denied everything about how I do things. When I stand on the shop floor, I understand most things. I learned that over many years, with my body. There are many things I can’t explain with logic.
The other day I took an assessment called TypeCompass. The result was Field Drive for me and Strategic Design for you. What was interesting is that it even wrote about each of our “blind spots.” Mine are long-term structure and systemization. Yours are firsthand information from the field and speed of execution. Reading it, I came to think a little better of you.
After that, you began to listen, one thing at a time, to what I look at on the floor and what standards I use to decide. You said you wouldn’t turn it into a manual but leave it as patterns of judgment. Honestly, that made me happy. I finally understood that it wasn’t to deny my way of doing things but to pass it on to the next generation.
I think dividing the company into three was good too. What must absolutely be protected (trust, quality, relationships with customers, philosophy), what to improve (work procedures, sales methods), and what to try anew (AI, web customer acquisition, new markets). My worry that everything might be changed, and your feeling of being stifled that everything is the same as before, must both have eased a little with this.
We’ll probably still clash from time to time. That’s fine. I now believe that for every clash, something remains in the company.
Sincerely, your predecessor
| CASE | Issue | Main friction | Heart of the solution |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | The president’s instructions keep changing | RED×BROWN | Separated rapid response and quality assurance as work processes |
| 02 | Resistance to AI adoption | BROWN×YELLOW | Redefined the cautious side as the quality-verification role |
| 03 | Good relationships, but the numbers don’t add up | YELLOW-heavy | Added a verification function within safe relationships |
| 04 | New-business meetings never end | All 4 groups | Split the meeting by decision stage |
| 05 | Conflict between sales and back-office | RED×BROWN | Formalized the scope for immediate answers and the scope requiring confirmation |
| 06 | Working hard, yet no profit remains | RED-heavy | Added a structure-thinking meeting to the front line’s strength |
| 07 | Clashes between excellent executives | RED×BLUE | Built the clash into the management cycle |
| 08 | Conflict between the DX lead and the front line | BLUE×BROWN | Translated the reform plan into the front line’s language |
| 09 | Conflict over business succession | BROWN×BLUE | Separated what to protect from what to change, first |
| 10 | Stable but not growing | BROWN-heavy | A mechanism for trying change while keeping stability |
PART 3 | Getting started
TypeCompass does not aim to be a personality test or employee training. It aims to convert differences between people—not into conflict, but into a division of roles, translation, and mechanisms—and ultimately into organizational capability.
Carry out the 16-Type Assessment. Initial support (a one-day consulting session) helps with adoption design and in-house explanation.
Based on the Condition Pulse and the Type-Based Communication Guide, hold 1-on-1s starting with the employees who most need follow-up.
Grasp the structure of organizational issues through the Quarterly Survey, and build department-level dashboards into regular meetings.
Verify the effect of measures with PDCA, and expand use to optimal placement, better hiring, and evaluation operations.
Pricing is a fixed annual fee (up to 10 accounts: JPY 36,000/year; 11–50 accounts: JPY 72,000/year; 51–100 accounts: JPY 98,000/year; 101 accounts or more: by quotation / no initial fee, no minimum usage period). The 16 types are not labels for pigeonholing people; they are intended to be used as hypotheses for dialogue.
Before You Begin
Takes about 15 minutes. Your responses are saved automatically at any time, so you can resume from where you left off.
Log In to Start the AssessmentTypeCompass / A talent and organization development solution integrating a 16-Type Assessment based on Jungian typology with the Condition Pulse.
This content is introductory material intended to promote understanding of TypeCompass. The product is in development toward its initial release, and the effect figures and simulation values in this page are hypothetical values based on generally available knowledge and estimation models; they do not guarantee actual results. All 10 case studies are hypothetical model cases that do not depict real companies or people. Specifications and pricing will be announced in final form at the time of release.
