A3 Partners Pte Ltd · The-Intellect

Strengths-Based Team Synergy

Turning nine individual profiles into one working team

Design Document

Prepared for: BLNG — Brunei LNG leadership team
Format: One-day instructor-led course
Prepared: September 2026
By: A3 Partners Pte Ltd — The-Intellect, the-intellect.com

ExecutingInfluencingRelationship BuildingStrategic Thinking

About this course

Every person in this room already has a strengths profile. Most of them read it once. What none of them has is a shared language for how the nine of them work together, a habit of saying out loud what they need from each other, or any record of how they actually decide when a decision costs something real.

This course is built to produce those conversations. It uses the team's own confirmed assessment results and decisions they genuinely face on the plant — not a case study about another company. The platform on the screen exists only to give the room a reason to turn towards each other.

Program description and learning objectives

Strengths-Based Team Synergy follows six deliberate stages in one day: Self Awareness, Others Awareness, Partnerships, Team DNA, Decisions Under Pressure, and Commitment. It begins with each leader making sense of their own complete CliftonStrengths report before anybody asks them to read another person or the team.

The day closes with a charter the room writes itself: three behaviours they will carry, and one thing they are asking of the wider organisation.

Target audience

An intact leadership team that makes decisions together and lives with each other's consequences. Designed here for the nine executives who run the plant.

Anticipated impact

Participants leave able to describe how they work using one shared vocabulary instead of personal shorthand.
Each pair leaves knowing what accelerates them together and what quietly costs them, plus one practice that changes it.
The team leaves with its real gaps visible, and a named owner for each of them.
The organisation-wide picture is on the table, so the team can see which of its decisions energises the workforce and which quietly disengages it.

Learning objectives

By the end of the day, participants will be able to:

01Make sense of all thirty-four themes in their own report, then confirm what they bring, what they need, and what they may need to regulate in words they chose themselves.
02Read another person's report as a set of questions and hear that person's own explanation before forming a conclusion.
03Name what accelerates and inhibits a specific partnership, then make one practical request out loud.
04Read the team's collective pattern, including the strengths nobody in the group carries.
05Explain the trade-off they protect under pressure and judge the decision against the collective strengths of the three hundred people they lead.
06Commit to specific behaviours, with a named partner who will notice.

Program details

Course schedule: One facilitated day, 09:00 to 17:00, with lunch at 12:30 and two short breaks.
Course size: Nine participants as designed. The same format holds from six to twelve.
Facilitation: One course leader, plus the live platform operated from the leader's laptop.
Prerequisites: An intact team whose members work with each other regularly.
Prework: Each participant completes the CliftonStrengths assessment, uploads their own 34 report privately, confirms the extracted ranks are correct, and confirms or rewords the needs shown underneath their strongest themes.
Client input: Two or three decisions the team is genuinely facing. These become the decisions used in the room.
Postwork: Each participant keeps a private space with their profile, their pair views, the team grid and the signed charter.
Room: One room, one projector or large screen, seating where all nine can see each other's faces.
Investment: You Decide, After. No fee is agreed before the day; afterwards the L&D head names the facilitation fee. Incidentals are charged at actuals, plus a SGD 1,500 floor. Comparable nine-leader days have settled between SGD 8,000 and SGD 18,000 — context, not an expectation. Optional prepay at the reference midpoint is refunded down or invoiced up to the decided figure.
Contact: Saurav Atri, A3 Partners Pte Ltd — The-Intellect. WhatsApp +65 9007 8949 · saurav.atri@the-intellect.com · the-intellect.com

What each participant receives

Their own confirmed profile

All thirty-four themes in rank order, grouped by the four official domains, with what they bring, what they need from others, and what they watch in themselves. Confirmed by them, in their words, before the day.

A partnership view for each colleague

For every other person in the room: the accelerators between them, the inhibitors, and one question the pair works through face to face.

The team grid

One sheet with every person's themes across the four domains. Top five on the wall first, deepening to ten and then all thirty-four at the facilitator's pace.

The decision debrief

How the room actually split, what each side was protecting, and where the strengths reading was wrong — stated plainly, not smoothed over.

The organisation read

The collective strengths picture of the wider workforce as an aggregate, and what each leader's own strengths make easy or hard with that workforce.

A commitment card

Two behaviours, one partner who will notice, and the charter the nine of them signed.

Detailed program design

Six learning stages, in this order. The course leader advances every step by hand; nothing moves on a timer, and there is no countdown in front of the room.

01Self awareness

Timing: 09:20 – 10:20 (60 min, after a 20 min opening)

Content focus	Description	Modality
My full report	Each leader opens their own confirmed CliftonStrengths 34 report and explores the complete rank order, strongest themes and domain composition before looking outward.	Private report exploration
Bring, Need and Watch	The person tests what each leading theme may bring, what it may need from others, and what they may need to regulate. They keep, reword or set aside every interpretation.	Individual analysis and reflection
My own language	Each person chooses the one strength and one need they most want the room to understand. Their wording takes precedence over the platform's wording.	Private reflection and whole-room introduction

02Others awareness

Timing: 10:35 – 11:15 (40 min)

Content focus	Description	Modality
Reading another report	Leaders learn to notice a colleague's sequence and domain pattern without predicting behaviour, assigning a label, or treating difference as deficit.	Guided report comparison
The person speaks first	The report-holder says what fits, what does not, and what others most often misunderstand. Their explanation has priority over any generated interpretation.	Listening conversation

03Partnerships

Timing: 11:15 – 12:30 (75 min, before lunch)

Content focus	Description	Modality
Accelerators and inhibitors	Deliberate pairs receive possible accelerators, inhibitors, and needs to test. These are conversation openings, never conclusions or compatibility scores.	Paired conversation
The practical ask	Each person makes one small behavioural request of their partner and hears one in return. The projector holds the question, then goes dark while they talk.	Paired practice and note-taking

04Team DNA

Timing: 13:15 – 14:15 (60 min)

Content focus	Description	Modality
The team grid	The nine confirmed profiles come together on one sheet. The group reads shared strengths, thin areas, and sole-holder strengths before the course leader offers an interpretation.	Whole-group analysis
The gaps the team must cover	The group decides how to bring in strengths held by one person and how to cover strengths nobody carries highly, rather than hoping somebody does.	Facilitated discussion and decision

05Decisions under pressure

Timing: 14:15 – 15:30 (75 min, including the Org DNA lens)

Content focus	Description	Modality
A decision they recognise	Each person answers privately: their choice, reason, protected interest, and what they would need to go the other way. The projector is blank and phones show no result.	Private phone response
Close, reveal and test	The course leader closes responses and reveals the anonymous split as separate actions. The room tests strengths-based hypotheses against what people actually said, including alternative explanations.	Facilitator-controlled reveal and discussion
The Org DNA lens	Only after discussing its own choice does the team compare that decision with the aggregate profile of the 300-person workforce: what it may feed, what it may starve, and how to communicate it. Nothing under ten is shown.	Aggregate analysis and facilitated discussion

06Commitment

Timing: 15:45 – 17:00 (75 min, including reflection)

Content focus	Description	Modality
Testing the reading	The strengths reading is tested against what actually happened in the room, including the places it was wrong. Every interpretation is offered as a hypothesis with an alternative explanation beside it.	Reflection and inquiry
The charter	Three behaviours the room will actually carry, and one thing it is asking of the wider organisation, written live on the screen with the names of everyone who signed.	Whole-group commitment
Two things by Monday	Each person names two behaviours they will start, and the one colleague who will notice whether they did.	Paired commitment

The insights the room experiences

Worked examples, so the leadership team can see exactly what comes out of the day. These use the sample team on our site: genuine CliftonStrengths 34 results shown under fictional names.

Personal · what I bring and what I need

Executing

Hidayah Rahman

Operations lead · example only

1Deliberative

2Analytical

3Self-Assurance

4Restorative

5Relator

A careful read of risk before anyone commits. She asks the question nobody else wanted to ask, and she asks it early rather than after the fact.

The needs underneath, confirmed by her

Deliberative — Time to examine a decision before backing it.
Analytical — Evidence that stands up.
Self-Assurance — To be trusted with the call.
Restorative — A problem they are allowed to fix.

Partnership · Hidayah Rahman and Amir Halim

Between them they cover the two things a commitment needs: someone who tests whether it will hold, and someone who can carry the room with it once it does.

Accelerators

Visible progress — Hand them the fault, not only the symptom.
A clear, single priority — Name what has been dropped when something is added.

Inhibitors

Time to examine the risk against visible progress — One counts what is finished; the other counts what could go wrong. Both are keeping score of different things.
A clear, single priority against a settled room — One softens the message; the other says it plainly. The same point lands twice, differently.

The question the pair takes away: Amir, what would Hidayah need to see before you have her genuine backing rather than her silence?

Team grid · the whole group on one page

Team member	Executing									Influencing								Relationship Building									Strategic Thinking
Theme	Achiever	Arranger	Belief	Consistency	Deliberative	Discipline	Focus	Responsibility	Restorative	Activator	Command	Communication	Competition	Maximizer	Self-Assurance	Significance	Woo	Adaptability	Connectedness	Developer	Empathy	Harmony	Includer	Individualization	Positivity	Relator	Analytical	Context	Futuristic	Ideation	Input	Intellection	Learner	Strategic
Team rank order					3													1	2						5								4
Hidayah Rahman	·	·	·	·	1	·	·	·	4	·	·	·	·	·	3	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	5	2	·	·	·	·	·	·	·
Amir Halim	·	·	·	·	·	·	5	·	·	·	·	3	4	·	·	·	2	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	1	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·
Noraini Pengiran	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	2	·	·	·	·	1	·	5	·	·	·	·	4	·	·	3	·
Zulkifli Awang	3	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	2	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	5	4	1	·
Siti Marlina	·	·	·	·	2	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	5	3	·	4	1	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·	·

Held by more than one person: Consistency (4), Learner (4), Relator (4), Achiever (2), Adaptability (2). That is what this team defaults to when it is busy.

Carried by one person alone: Achiever · Zulkifli Awang, Analytical · Hidayah Rahman, Communication · Amir Halim. Pockets of excellence the team can bring in deliberately.

Decision-making · under pressure

The turnaround is running nine days late. Hold the date and cut scope, or move the date and keep scope.

The split is not the point. What matters is that the two people most likely to disagree in the corridor have now disagreed in the room, with a reason attached to each choice.

The question that follows: Whichever way we go, who will find their job harder because of it, and who is going to tell them?

Organisation · what the decision does to the workforce

The same strengths data across the wider organisation, as an aggregate of 300 people: Executing 10% · Influencing 21% · Relationship Building 67% · Strategic Thinking 2%.

Compared with gallup cliftonstrengths theme frequency, all countries, 21,749,980 respondents, Includer, Connectedness, Adaptability are far more common here, and Achiever, Learner, Responsibility far less.

Hold the date. Extend the swings and push through.

At least 6% energised · at least 88% likely to pull back

Reset the date publicly and rebuild the plan with the crews.

At least 88% energised · at least 6% likely to pull back

Aggregates only. Every figure is a conservative floor, nothing predicts an individual, and no group smaller than ten is reported separately.

How the platform supports the room

The platform is a facilitation tool, not the content. Its whole job is to give nine people a reason to look at each other.

The projector: Shows one thing at a time, and only when the leader chooses. It is blank while people are answering, and it never shows an individual.
Their phones: Each person answers privately and reads only their own material. Phones never display the room's results, and there are no timers or progress bars.
The leader's laptop: Every step is advanced by hand. Closing the responses and revealing them are two separate actions, so the leader can hold a silence.
Afterwards: Each participant keeps a private space with their own profile, their pair views, the team grid and the signed charter.

Safeguards

Nothing is used anywhere until the person it belongs to has confirmed it, in their own words.
Original reports stay private. They are never published, shown or shared with other participants.
No individual data on the projector, and no individual data from the wider workforce at any point.
No figure is reported for any group smaller than ten people.
No prediction of how anyone will behave, no diagnosis, no clinical language, and no judgement of competence or trustworthiness.
No compatibility scores and no ranking of people against each other.
Every interpretation is reviewed by the facilitator before anyone sees it, and carries an alternative explanation beside it.

Room setup and logistics

Room setup: One table the nine can sit around, or a shallow horseshoe. Everyone must be able to see every other face without turning fully around.
Screen: One projector or large display, visible from every seat. No second screen.
The facilitator brings: The facilitation guide, the live platform, printed team grids, and the theme reference cards.
Each place setting: A table tent with their top five, a printed copy of their own profile, a pen, and a commitment card.
Participants bring: Their own charged phone. Nothing else is needed.
Connectivity: Wi-Fi that reaches every seat, or mobile data on each phone.

Commercial terms and next step

Duration: One facilitated day, 09:00 to 17:00, with lunch at 12:30 and two short breaks.
Investment: You Decide, After. No fee is agreed before the day; afterwards the L&D head names the facilitation fee. Incidentals are charged at actuals, plus a SGD 1,500 floor. Comparable nine-leader days have settled between SGD 8,000 and SGD 18,000 — context, not an expectation. Optional prepay at the reference midpoint is refunded down or invoiced up to the decided figure.
Contact: Saurav Atri, A3 Partners Pte Ltd — The-Intellect. WhatsApp +65 9007 8949 · saurav.atri@the-intellect.com · the-intellect.com
Prepared by: A3 Partners Pte Ltd — The-Intellect, the-intellect.com

The next step is a short conversation about the two or three decisions the team is genuinely facing. Those become the decisions used in the room, and that is what turns the day from an assessment debrief into a working session.

Read the full proposal

Notes

For the L&D lead's own notes while walking the leadership team through this document.