Talent is your biggest post-close risk. You just can't assess it in the window that matters.
By the time a traditional assessment delivers its output, the first board meeting has already passed, and the wrong person is often already running the wrong workstream. Tera assesses an entire portfolio company's leadership team in 48 hours, with evidence behind every signal and no consultant in the room.
You diligence the numbers to the decimal point. You diligence the team over dinner.
The model is stress-tested six ways. The leadership team, the single biggest determinant of whether the value-creation plan lands, is assessed on references, instinct, and a few meetings. Then a wrong C-suite call quietly resets the return.
The window
The first 90 to 180 days determine execution. Traditional assessments arrive around week six, after the plan is already in motion.
The blind spot
Diligence filters for IQ, industry experience, and interview polish. None of these reliably predict leadership performance under PE pressure.
The inconsistency
Ten portfolio companies, ten different gut calls, and no single comparable read across the portfolio.
What a wrong C-suite call actually costs.
One system, three ways to put it to work across the portfolio.
Not a one-off engagement per company. One repeatable process that assesses a team, backs every claim with evidence, and gives the fund a single read across every portfolio company.
Assess the whole team in 48 hours
Structured 15-minute voice conversations with every leader. No scheduling friction, no consultant travel, done before the value-creation planning meeting.
Evidence, not instinct
Each leader gets a behavioral portrait, and every claim is backed by a verbatim quote, defensible in an Investment Committee memo or a board pack.
One playbook across the portfolio
The same process run consistently across ten companies. A firm-level talent read, not ten subjective ones.
One avoided wrong CEO call pays for the program across the entire portfolio.
Assessment quality your investment committee can defend.
of participants rated the conversation equal to or better than a human interview.
Assessment quality, not just automation.
proactively re-engaged after their conversation.
An engagement signal, and an early read on flight risk.
traces to a verbatim quote.
Defensible where it counts: the Investment Committee memo, the board, the operating review.
What lands in the board pack, and on the operating review.
Not another tool in your stack. It's the signal layer underneath your talent decisions, built to surface what everything else misses.
The first questions operating partners ask before anything else.
How do you handle confidentiality during diligence?
We are NDA-bound, data is segregated per deal, and nothing is shared across funds or portfolio companies.
What is the turnaround?
Conversations run in days, not weeks, so it fits a diligence or first-100-days timeline.
Is it defensible for the board or investment committee?
Yes. Every score traces to a verbatim quote from the conversation, not to protected characteristics.
Who owns the data?
The fund owns the data for its engagement. Participants retain their own portraits under our standard privacy model.
How is this different from Korn Ferry or Hogan?
An adaptive voice conversation and a narrative portrait, delivered in 48 hours, instead of a static, self-reported psychometric that needs a trained administrator and six weeks.
Make talent the part of the deal you actually measure.
Run a pilot on one portfolio company's leadership team. A full assessment in 48 hours. See the evidence before you commit the portfolio.
Talk to us about your portfolio