Docs/Core concepts

Frameworks and research behind Vizuna

Official Vizuna product documentation · Written by the Vizuna product team · Updated 13 August 2026

Vizuna combines established work on trust, implementation intentions, competing commitments, emotional vocabulary, protective responses, difficult conversations, and psychological safety. These sources inform the coach’s reasoning. They are not endorsements, diagnoses, or scripts that are forced into every conversation.

A system, not a reading list

Workplace situations rarely belong to one framework. A missed commitment can involve reliability, an unclear expectation, avoidance of conflict, or a habit that collapses under pressure. Vizuna uses different lenses for different jobs and only when the situation provides enough evidence.

The source names generally stay under the hood. The person gets plain language about their situation, not a lecture about a model.

Core source lineages

Area	Source lineage	How Vizuna uses it
Trust behaviours	Stephen M. R. Covey, The Speed of Trust	Turns trust into observable moves such as talking straight, clarifying expectations, keeping commitments, righting wrongs, and listening first.
Trust diagnosis	Charles Feltman, The Thin Book of Trust; the Trust Equation from Maister, Green, and Galford	Helps distinguish the part of trust that broke instead of treating trust as one vague score.
Habit design	James Clear, Atomic Habits; Peter Gollwitzer’s implementation-intention research	Connects an intended behaviour to a specific cue and a response small enough to attempt in real work.
Repeated failed change	Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey, Immunity to Change	Tests whether a sincere goal is being blocked by another commitment or assumption. This is framed as a hypothesis, never a verdict.
Emotional language	Brené Brown, Atlas of the Heart	Offers precise emotional vocabulary when a broad word such as “stressed” hides distinctions that would change the useful response.
Protective reactions	Steven Kessler’s work on five survival patterns; stress-related derailment research	Looks for the sequence of moves a person reaches for when they feel exposed or unsafe. Vizuna treats these as states, not personality types.
Difficult conversations	Crucial Conversations and Crucial Accountability; feedback and coaching research	Separates observation from interpretation, clarifies shared purpose, and matches accountability to a first incident, a repeated pattern, or a damaged relationship.
Team conditions	Amy Edmondson’s psychological-safety research and related team-learning work	Examines whether people can raise questions, mistakes, and dissent without interpersonal punishment.

What “informed by” means

The coach does not reproduce a book chapter or run a framework mechanically. A source lineage contributes a small set of rules about when a lens is useful, what evidence it needs, and what it must not claim.

For example, implementation intentions are useful when someone knows what they want to do but needs a reliable cue. Competing commitments are reserved for a change that has failed repeatedly despite genuine effort. One missed attempt is not enough. Psychological safety is relevant when the issue concerns whether a group can take interpersonal risks; it is not a synonym for comfort or agreement.

The Barnum test

A statement can sound insightful because it is flattering, balanced, and broad enough to fit almost everyone. “You value harmony, but sometimes need to speak up” is an example. It asks the reader to supply the meaning.

Vizuna uses a stricter standard: a pattern should be tied to repeated evidence, a recognisable trigger, a sequence of behaviour, and a cost. It should be specific enough that the person can say, “No, that is not what happens.” If the evidence is thin, the coach should describe the single event and stop.

This is why Vizuna does not turn the five protective patterns into five public personality types. A person may go quiet in one meeting and become forceful in another. The useful question is what happened in this situation and what they did next, not which box they belong in.

Evidence and judgement

The research gives Vizuna useful distinctions. It does not remove human judgement. The person remains the authority on their internal experience. Colleague signals describe how behaviour landed, not the person’s motive. The coach offers interpretations as options to test and keeps the next move proportionate to the person’s role and the evidence available.

Frequently asked questions

Does Vizuna follow one coaching framework?

No. It combines focused lenses for different kinds of situations. The coach should use the smallest set that fits the evidence, rather than forcing every situation through one model.

Does Vizuna assign a personality pattern?

No. Protective responses are treated as context-dependent states, not fixed types or identities. Vizuna does not diagnose personality.