COMING SOON
Your org chart cannot tell you who wants the work.
It can tell you who is qualified for a role and who is available for it. Neither of those predicts who will still want it in a year — and the gap between them is where competent, well-reviewed people quietly disengage and resign, apparently without warning. ORVIS measures the appetite, before you assign the role rather than after.
ORVIS is in development. Register your interest and we'll tell you the day it opens — no other mail.
You receive
Interest is the quietest of the three things that decide whether a placement works — the other two being capability and behaviour, which most organisations already measure. This is the one that goes unasked, and it is the one that predicts who is still there next year.
The types of activity a person gravitates towards when the choice is genuinely theirs — the pull that survives after novelty and obligation wear off, which is the only part that predicts anything twelve months out.
Whether the day-to-day substance of a role lines up with what the person is drawn to. A different question from whether they can do it, and the one that decides whether they are still doing it next year.
Where several people want the same territory, and where nobody wants work the team still has to own. Both are visible before the team starts, and both are expensive after.
The people who are competent at something they have no appetite for. They deliver, and they leave — and neither an appraisal nor a skills matrix shows it coming, because both are measuring the delivery.
Appetite for directing and being accountable for others. Distinct from capability at it — plenty of effective managers have no appetite for the role, and it shows up as slow attrition into technical positions.
Pull toward structure, coordination and keeping a system in order. The person who will genuinely want to own the process nobody else wants to own.
Interest in work whose point is helping people directly. Predicts who will take on mentoring, onboarding and support work as something they want rather than something assigned.
Draw toward originating and designing rather than operating and refining. Both are needed; a team heavy in one and empty in the other has a predictable failure mode.
Interest in investigation, data and getting to the underlying explanation. The appetite behind someone who chases a root cause past the point where the symptom stopped.
Pull toward building, making and hands-on technical work with a tangible result. In manufacturing and engineering populations this is frequently the scale that explains a placement nobody could otherwise account for.
Appetite for variety, physical challenge and the unfamiliar. Relevant to who thrives on commissioning, site work and travel — and who is worn down by it.
Interest in language, reading and scholarship. Often the quiet indicator behind who will actually write the documentation, the standard or the training material well.
All four are visible in an interest profile before the team starts, and all four are expensive once it has.
Nobody says so at the start. It surfaces months later as a boundary dispute that reads like a personality clash and gets managed as one, which never resolves it.
Every team has a piece of necessary work that no member has any appetite for. Discovered after launch, it is assigned to whoever objects least — and it is done to the standard that implies.
Good reviews, no complaints, and no appetite for the actual substance of the role. The appraisal measures the delivery, so it sees nothing. The resignation arrives as a surprise to everyone except the person resigning.
Teams get built from who is free and who is qualified, because those are the two things anyone has data on. Interest is the third input, and it is usually the one that decides whether the team holds together long enough to matter.
Any placement decision rests on three separate questions. Most organisations have evidence for two of them and an opinion about the third.
Capability and disposition. A personality profile at facet level answers this one — Big Five, in this catalogue.
Working style — how they decide, pace and check. DISC answers this one, and it is the question most teams reach for first.
Appetite for the substance of the work. This is the one nobody measures, and it is the one that decides retention. ORVIS answers it.
The three are independent. Someone can be capable, well-suited in style, and entirely uninterested — and that combination looks like a strong placement on every instrument except this one.
Rigour
Interest is not ability, and no result here is a hiring, placement or promotion decision on its own. This instrument is not released. The eight scales described on this page are those of the published source instrument; the final structure of the Reynlab report is confirmed at release, and this page describes what the instrument is for rather than what our report will contain.
ORVIS