Workshop proposal · September 2026
One day where nine leaders move from understanding their own strengths to seeing how the whole organisation experiences their decisions.
The purpose
This day is built to produce conversations they have not had yet — using their own assessment results and decisions they genuinely face, not a case study about someone else.
Contents
Every sample profile, grid and decision split in this document uses fictional names over genuine rank patterns. Nothing here reports on a real person.
One connected experience
Each stage opens a different conversation. Every output comes from reports, choices and words the participants have confirmed themselves.
Helps each leader make sense of their own report before asking them to interpret anybody else. The person confirms, corrects, or sets aside every reading.
Teaches leaders to read another person's report as a set of questions, then gives the report-holder the first and final word on what fits.
Pairs people deliberately and gives each pair possible accelerators, inhibitors, needs, and one practical question to test face to face.
Brings the nine confirmed profiles together and lets the group read its own pattern before offering any interpretation.
Runs a real decision, closes and reveals the anonymous split separately, then tests possible strengths-based explanations against what people actually said. Only then does the frame widen to the 300-person Org DNA.
Leads a reflection on what actually happened, including where the strengths reading was wrong, then holds the room to three behaviours it will carry.
The experience, made visible
The following sample uses genuine CliftonStrengths 34 rank patterns under fictional names. It shows the journey, not a promise about any person.
01
Self awareness
Alex Morgan sees all 34 themes, not only a top-five label. She explores what she may bring, what she may need, and what she may have to regulate—then confirms or rewrites the interpretation herself.
What the participant leaves with
A confirmed personal profile in her own words
Self awareness · what becomes visible
CliftonStrengths 34 profile
Operations lead
Leads with Executing. The strongest reported theme is Deliberative.
Domain composition · top 10
Theme focus · choose one to discuss
May bring
Bring them in early rather than at sign-off.
May need
Time to examine a decision before backing it.
For the person to confirm or reword.
Watch for
Care reads as resistance when the reasoning stays unspoken.
What would make this theme easier to work with?
What the participant sees on their own screen: the full sequence, the balance across the four domains, and the themes to watch. They leave with it in their own words.
02
Others awareness
Before offering an interpretation, each leader sees the other person's full sequence and hears their own explanation of it. Similar words can hide very different needs.
What the participant leaves with
Curiosity before judgement
Others awareness · what becomes visible
Two reports · one conversation
Alex Morgan
Top themes · top 5
Sam Rivera
Top themes · top 5
The report starts the question. The report-holder has the first and final word on what fits.
Two leaders compare the shape of their own patterns. They leave with an explanation in each other's words, not an interpretation handed to them.
03
Partnerships
The pair receives possible accelerators and inhibitors—not a compatibility score. They test each one, surface alternative explanations, and make one request of each other.
What the participant leaves with
A partnership practice they can use tomorrow
Partnerships · what becomes visible
What may accelerate us
What may inhibit us
The question in the roomAmir, what would Hidayah need to see before you have her genuine backing rather than her silence?
Possible accelerators on the left, possible friction on the right, and one question the pair answers together. They leave with rules of engagement in their own words.
04
Team DNA
The grid reveals what the team reaches for repeatedly, what only one person carries, and what is absent. Here, the thin spaces include Activator, Competition, Intellection, Significance.
What the participant leaves with
A shared picture of collective strengths and gaps
Team DNA · what becomes visible
Top five · sample team
| 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 | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · |
Each row is one leader, each marker is one of their top five themes, and the number in the marker is that theme's rank for that person. The colour is the domain it belongs to.
05
Decisions under pressure
Leaders answer on their phones while the projector stays blank. The facilitator closes voting, reveals the anonymous split separately, and then connects the reasoning to the organisation's aggregate strengths profile.
What the participant leaves with
A real decision with its human consequences visible
Decisions under pressure · what becomes visible
Anonymous decision
Option 1
Hold the date. Extend the swings and push through.
At least 6% energised
At least 88% likely to pull back. A floor for discussion, never a prediction.
Option 2
Reset the date publicly and rebuild the plan with the crews.
At least 88% energised
At least 6% likely to pull back. A floor for discussion, never a prediction.
Org DNA · 300 people
The two options and the verified aggregate strengths picture underneath. Discussion floors, never predictions.
06
Commitment
The group reflects on what the evidence changed, including where an interpretation was wrong. It writes three observable behaviours together and signs the same charter.
What the participant leaves with
A signed team charter and a private record for each leader
Commitment · what becomes visible
Our commitment
Name the need behind the position.
Invite the strength the room is missing.
Explain what a decision feeds—and what it may starve.
Three observable behaviours written by the room in its own sentences, then signed by everyone in it. Each leader also leaves with a private three-month commitment.
What Your leadership team gains
Nine people describing how they work using the same four domains, so a difference becomes a fact to work with rather than a personality clash.
Each pair leaves knowing what accelerates them and what quietly costs them, and the one practice that changes it.
The team's real gaps, not the assumed ones. The strengths nobody carries are visible, so the group can decide deliberately who covers them instead of hoping somebody does.
Decisions with the reasoning attached. The trade-offs the team protects under pressure are on the record, including where the group is genuinely divided.
The organisation's DNA in the room. The collective strengths picture of three hundred people, so the team can see which of its decisions inspires that workforce and which quietly disengages it — before the decision is announced.
A charter the room owns. Three behaviours and nine names — written in the room, not handed to it.
The boundaries
Before, during, after
They receive a private invitation and upload their own CliftonStrengths 34 report, or the facilitator uploads it for them.
They answer on their own phone, privately. Phones never display the room's results.
Their full theme sequence in the four official domains, with what they bring, what they need, and what they watch in themselves.
The day
One room, one projector, and each participant's own phone. Lunch begins at 12:30, with two short breaks.
What the room actually does
No games and no scoring. Each activity puts one honest conversation in front of the people who need to have it, and nothing is collected unless the room chooses to keep it.
Others Awareness
Each person takes one of their own theme cards to the table. Three rounds: what you love about having it, when it has made someone else's work harder, and whose use of a theme you would like to borrow.
It gets the cost of a strength said out loud by the person who holds it, before anyone else says it for them.
They walk out with
Each leader leaves with one sentence about the cost of their own strongest habit.
Partnerships
Pairs walk the room with their two readings: where they are alike, where they differ, what that difference has already cost, and what it covers. They come back with rules of engagement in their own words.
Standing and walking keeps it a conversation between two people rather than a report being reviewed.
They walk out with
Each pair leaves with written rules of engagement they both agreed to.
Partnerships
Each person names one thing their own leading theme tends to hide, then asks their partner to say when they have seen it and stayed quiet. Permission is given before anything is named.
A blind spot only becomes useful when the person who has it asks for it.
They walk out with
One blind spot named by the person who owns it, and one person allowed to flag it.
What the room actually does · continued
The last two activities work on decisions the team is genuinely facing, and end with commitments the room writes for itself.
Decisions Under Pressure
One real Your leadership team decision on the screen. Choices come from phones, the room stays blank while people choose, then the split is revealed and the reasons are heard before the count is discussed.
Closing and revealing are separate so nobody follows the crowd.
They walk out with
The team's real split on a live decision, with the reasoning on the record.
Commitment
The room writes what it will do differently, in its own sentences, and each person writes what they will invest in for the next three months.
A commitment written by the room outlasts one written for it.
They walk out with
A signed team charter, and one personal three-month commitment each.
How the room is set
Four deliberate room states keep attention on the conversation the team is having—not on a fixed classroom setup.
Ready for the room
The strongest session starts with the right people, confirmed reports, and decisions that matter now.