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.
A3 Partners Pte Ltd · The-Intellect
Strengths-Based Team Synergy
Turning nine individual profiles into one working team
ExecutingInfluencingRelationship BuildingStrategic Thinking
Orientation01
Why this day exists
The report is the beginning of the conversation—not the conclusion.
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 they work together as one team, 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 the team genuinely faces — 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.
The platform gives the room evidence. The people in it decide what that evidence means.
Inside this document02
Contents
A visual map of the learning design
01
The purpose
02
Learning journey
03
Programme design
04
Worked insights
05
Safeguards and delivery
06
Room and practicalities
The worked examples use genuine CliftonStrengths rank patterns under fictional names. They demonstrate the method, never predict a person. Names shown here are fictional; the rank patterns are genuine.
The learning journey03
One connected experience
From my report to how we lead together
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.
- 0109:20 – 10:20 (60 min, after a 20 min opening)
Self awareness
Each leader opens their own confirmed CliftonStrengths 34 report and explores the complete rank order, strongest themes and domain composition before looking outward.
- 0210:35 – 11:15 (40 min)
Others awareness
Leaders learn to notice a colleague's sequence and domain pattern without predicting behaviour, assigning a label, or treating difference as deficit.
- 0311:15 – 12:30 (75 min, before lunch)
Partnerships
Deliberate pairs receive possible accelerators, inhibitors, and needs to test. These are conversation openings, never conclusions or compatibility scores.
- 0413:15 – 14:15 (60 min)
Team DNA
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.
- 0514:15 – 15:30 (75 min, including the Org DNA lens)
Decisions under pressure
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.
- 0615:45 – 17:00 (75 min, including reflection)
Commitment
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.
Outcomes04
What changes
Six outputs the team can use after the room empties
An intact leadership team that makes decisions together and lives with each other's consequences. Designed for the senior team that sets direction and carries the consequences together.
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 team signed.
Detailed programme design05
Morning · making sense of self and others
Understanding before interpretation
01
Self awareness
09:20 – 10:20 (60 min, after a 20 min opening)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 explorationBring, 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 reflectionMy 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 introduction02
Others awareness
10:35 – 11:15 (40 min)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 comparisonThe 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 conversation03
Partnerships
11:15 – 12:30 (75 min, before lunch)Accelerators and inhibitors
Deliberate pairs receive possible accelerators, inhibitors, and needs to test. These are conversation openings, never conclusions or compatibility scores.
Paired conversationThe 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-takingDetailed programme design06
Afternoon · reading the system and committing
Evidence before action
04
Team DNA
13:15 – 14:15 (60 min)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 analysisThe 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 decision05
Decisions under pressure
14:15 – 15:30 (75 min, including the Org DNA lens)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 responseClose, 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 discussionThe 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 discussion06
Commitment
15:45 – 17:00 (75 min, including reflection)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 inquiryThe 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 commitmentTwo things by Monday
Each person names two behaviours they will start, and the one colleague who will notice whether they did.
Paired commitmentWorked insight07
01 · Self awareness
I can name what I bring—and what helps me bring it well.
CliftonStrengths 34 profile
Alex Morgan
Operations lead
Leads with Executing. The strongest reported theme is Deliberative.
1Deliberative
2Analytical
3Self-Assurance
4Restorative
5Relator
Domain composition · top 5
Executing2/5
Influencing1/5
Relationship Building1/5
Strategic Thinking1/5
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.
Time to examine a decision before being asked to back it, and the reasoning behind a change rather than only the change.
Under pressure her caution can read as resistance. She stays useful when she says out loud what she is weighing, instead of only saying no.
Example focus: Deliberative. The participant confirms, rewrites or rejects every interpretation.
Worked insight08
02 · Others awareness
Two similar-looking reports can carry very different needs.
Alex Morgan
Operations lead
Top-five pattern · top 5
Executing2/5
Influencing1/5
Relationship Building1/5
Strategic Thinking1/5
Sam Rivera
Commercial lead
Top-five pattern · top 5
Executing1/5
Influencing3/5
Relationship Building1/5
Strategic Thinking0/5
The discipline
Notice the pattern. Ask what it means. Let the report-holder speak first.
Worked insight09
03 · Partnerships
A difference becomes useful when the pair can name it.
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.
What may accelerate us
Visible progress — Hand them the fault, not only the symptom.
A clear, single priority — Name what has been dropped when something is added.
What may inhibit us
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.
Working hypothesis
Alex's first instinct is to slow a decision down and examine it; Sam's is to move while the energy is there. Left unspoken, each reads the other as the obstacle.
Alternative explanation
The friction may have nothing to do with their strengths. It may simply be that one of them was accountable for the last commitment that slipped.
The question in the room
Sam, what would Alex need to see before you have her genuine backing rather than her silence?
Worked insight10
04 · Team DNA
The team sees the pattern it creates together.
| 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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Alex Morgan | · | · | · | · | 1 | · | · | · | 4 | · | · | · | · | · | 3 | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | 5 | 2 | · | · | · | · | · | · | · |
| Sam Rivera | · | · | · | · | · | · | 5 | · | · | · | · | 3 | 4 | · | · | · | 2 | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | 1 | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · |
| Priya Shah | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | 2 | · | · | · | · | 1 | · | 5 | · | · | · | · | 4 | · | · | 3 | · |
| Daniel Okafor | 3 | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | 2 | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | 5 | 4 | 1 | · |
| Mei Lin | · | · | · | · | 2 | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | 5 | 3 | · | 4 | 1 | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · |
Consistency (4), Learner (4), Relator (4). These are likely defaults when the room moves quickly.
Achiever · Daniel Okafor, Analytical · Alex Morgan. These are capabilities the team must invite deliberately.
What must we design into the way we work because we cannot rely on it appearing naturally?
Worked insight11
05 · Decisions under pressure
The anonymous split reveals the trade-off—not who chose what.
Illustrative decision
The turnaround is running nine days late. Hold the date and cut scope, or move the date and keep scope.
What the room can see
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.
What it discusses next
Whichever way we go, who will find their job harder because of it, and who is going to tell them?
No individual vote is shown. A strengths reading is tested against people’s stated reasons and an alternative explanation.
Worked insight12
06 · Commitment
The day ends in observable behaviour, not another label.
Name the need behind the position.
Invite the strength the room is missing.
Explain what a decision feeds—and what it may starve.
Individual transfer
Two behaviours I will start by Monday, and one colleague who will notice whether I did.
Safeguards and delivery13
Designed for trust
The method protects the person while making the pattern discussable.
01Nothing is used anywhere until the person it belongs to has confirmed it, in their own words.
02Original reports stay private. They are never published, shown or shared with other participants.
03No individual data on the projector, and no individual data from the wider workforce at any point.
04No figure is reported for any group smaller than ten people.
05No prediction of how anyone will behave, no diagnosis, no clinical language, and no judgement of competence or trustworthiness.
06No compatibility scores and no ranking of people against each other.
07Every interpretation is reviewed by the facilitator before anyone sees it, and carries an alternative explanation beside it.
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.
Room and practicalities14
One room, one screen, every face visible
The setup keeps attention on the conversation.
Shared screen
Nine leaders
one conversation
one conversation
Facilitator
Pair conversation zone
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.
Course details and next step15
Ready for the room
A complete one-day facilitated experience
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.
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 fourteen.
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
Agreed with each client in its own proposal.
Contact
Saurav Atri, A3 Partners Pte Ltd — The-Intellect. WhatsApp +65 9007 8949 · saurav.atri@the-intellect.com · the-intellect.com
Learning objectives16
By the end of the day
Participants can do more than describe their Top Five.
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 wider workforce they lead.
06Commit to specific behaviours, with a named partner who will notice.
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.
Gallup®, CliftonStrengths® and each of the 34 CliftonStrengths theme names are trademarks of Gallup, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. This design document is the work of A3 Partners Pte Ltd and describes our facilitated course; it does not reproduce Gallup course materials.