The TDf Pattern: Facts, Choices and a Clear Plan

What does TDf mean?

TDf names a perceptual pattern in the TDF framework: a large T lens for facts, a medium D lens for choices and contrasts, and a small F lens for connections. The order matters. A TDf approach starts with what can be observed and understood, then turns that understanding into a plan.

The lowercase f means connections may need more deliberate attention. It does not mean someone lacks affection, imagination or social skills. All three lenses are present in every pattern. They describe what comes into focus, rather than measuring what a person can do. The TDF overview explains how the six arrangements work.

From facts to a workable plan

A muddled task invites practical questions: What happened? Which part failed? What should happen first? A TDf perspective tends to make a large problem more manageable by separating it into parts and finding an order for addressing them. Understanding has a purpose: it makes competent action possible.

This can show up as a clear set of instructions, a carefully organized event, or patient attention to something that needs repair. Preparation is often part of the enjoyment. So is finishing properly, including the details other people may leave behind. A task need not be technical. Planning a family trip or teaching someone a new skill can call on the same approach.

A rushed request for an opinion can be uncomfortable. A new idea has gaps; an established method has evidence behind it. Give the new idea enough detail to examine, and an initial objection may turn into a useful improvement.

A customer handoff that needs more than a checklist

Consider this illustrative situation. A team keeps losing information when sales hands a new customer to support. Maya reviews recent handoffs, identifies missing fields and writes a checklist with a named owner for each step. The sequence is clear, and everyone can see what a complete handoff requires.

In TDF terms, Maya is using facts to shape choices. But one salesperson still resists. Maya first assumes the instructions need clarification. In conversation, she discovers that sales has promised customers a personal introduction and sees the checklist as permission to skip it. Support has heard a different expectation altogether.

Maya keeps the checklist and adds a short introduction involving both teams. The missing information concerned relationships and expectations as well as fields. Her F lens gives the process a context. This invented example illustrates a pattern; a single incident could not establish Maya's assessment result.

Useful contributions and information worth checking

TDf can contribute steadiness when a group feels disorganized: define the job, agree on a method, prepare, and follow through. A fair examination of the evidence can also help a disagreement become specific enough to resolve. These contributions depend on experience and practice, as any skill does.

Trouble can arise when the task becomes the whole picture. Two people can agree on the facts while disagreeing about what matters. A colleague asking for help may need reassurance before instructions. A process that worked last year may no longer fit the relationships around it.

One useful check is: What is happening around this task that the plan does not yet account for? Ask the people affected. Their hesitation may reveal a missing dependency, a different expectation or a concern they have not found a way to explain.

Make the request clear, and explain why it matters

When working with someone who identifies with TDf, bring concrete information. Describe the request, relevant constraints and the result you need. If a plan must change, explain what has changed. Allow time for questions about the method. Those questions may be an effort to make the work reliable.

If TDf is your pattern, add the meaning behind your instructions. Instead of sending only a correction, explain why the detail matters and acknowledge the work already done. When someone shares a difficulty, try: “Would it help to work through possible solutions, or would you like me to listen first?” Our communication guide offers a way to include facts, choices and connections in one conversation.

TDf compared with TFd and DTf

TFd also begins with facts, then follows their connections and implications. TDf is more readily drawn toward a sequence for acting; TFd toward understanding how the pieces fit together. Both can be thorough. The difference is what their attention does with the detail.

DTf shares the smaller F lens, but starts with a choice or goal and examines the facts in relation to it. TDf more naturally asks what the evidence suggests doing. Neither distinction can be settled by asking who keeps the tidiest desk or works the hardest.

A small-F practice for this week

Choose one ordinary task involving another person. Before finalizing the plan, ask what else it touches: their other commitments, expectations, concerns and the people who depend on them. Listen without immediately translating every answer into a fix. Then consider whether the plan needs to change.

• Where did my preparation make things easier for someone?
• When did I assume an agreed process meant everyone felt heard?
• What did I learn by asking about the context?
• Which part of this description fits poorly, and what does that tell me?

Sources and next reading

This guide draws on “The TDf Pattern” and the pattern comparisons in Discovering Your Best Self: The TDF Map, second edition, by David Farr and Bill Roberts, and their The Map of TDF manuscript. Examples and reflection exercises here are newly written. For how to use a result, read what the TDF assessment measures. This general guide does not replace your assessment or individual report.