Why Some Truths Only Surface When Things Break

A coach’s reflection on the moment ordinary life stops working and what that has to do with how we see.

People often ask me what ontological coaching actually is. One of the responses I often give is this: it is the work of helping people see what they have been looking through their whole lives without realising it.

Let me explain.

Most of what shapes us is invisible to us. Not because we are inattentive, but because our assumptions, our habitual ways of seeing, our beliefs about who we are and how the world works all operate quietly, beneath conscious thought. They are the lens through which we look at everything.

And as long as the lens is intact, we don’t notice it. We only see through it.

Then something happens. An unexpected event. A piece of feedback. An email from a client. We call these the “Oh no” or “Oh wow” moments. What most people miss is this: the cause of the disruption is rarely the event itself. It is the way we had been seeing, the lens we never knew we had, that just got cracked.

And in that moment when the lens cracked, we suddenly see the lens. Not just the world we were viewing through it.

This is not a moment of failure. It is a moment of realization.

In ontological coaching, we call this “a break in transparency.”

For me, this kind of “break in transparency” moment came in 2019, before Covid.

I was leading the team on the largest project we had ever taken on - largest both in revenue amount and the scale of the project. There was no blueprint, no template, no precedent. And yet we designed the solution, pitched to the client, and won the project. Every external measure said success. The client was so pleased with the end results that they wanted to make it recurring.

But something had been off the whole way through, and I had not paid attention.

In the project debrief, it became painfully clear. My team was resentful of how I had led them. Feedback had not been heard. Requests had been ignored. I had kept pushing forward. Trust between me and them broke down and I had no idea.

Somewhere along the way, I had stopped being conscious of who I was and who I wanted to be.

How the Lens Gets Built

Here is what most people do not realise about the lens we look through.

We did not choose it.

It got built quietly, over time, out of the things we were rewarded for, the things we were punished for, the survival strategies that worked when we were young and somehow stuck around as we aged.

From the unspoken family rules. The narratives from the different authorities in our lives. The cultural scripts of the society. And the personal expectations we slipped into without quite noticing.

For me, the lens that broke in 2019 was something like this. Strong leaders deliver results. Strong leaders lead by example and push through challenges and roadblocks. A team will naturally be fearful in the face of tough challenges and there is no need to slow down and ask the team if they are okay. Strong leaders do not show fear and weaknesses.

Did I ever sit down and decide that was my philosophy of leadership? No. I just absorbed it from my parents and leaders I had admired. From a culture that rewarded outcomes over process. From an internal voice that had been with me for so long that I assumed it was simply me.

And that is the deeper trap. We don't experience the lens as a lens. We experience it as reality. As common sense. As just the way things are. The assumption disappears into the background, and from inside it, we look out at our lives and conclude that this is how the world works.

The Default Future We Drift Into

Each of us, in every area of life, has a default future. We do not choose it consciously. We drift into it. The drifting happens precisely because the assumptions driving it are invisible, running in the background like software we installed so long ago we have forgotten the program is even there.

For many Singaporeans of my generation, the default future looks like this: work harder, achieve more, earn the title, provide for the family, retire comfortably. These are not bad goals. But when they become the only map, without ever being examined, they can lead a person into a life that looks successful from the outside and feels empty on the inside.

Why We Cannot See It Until It Breaks

I wore glasses since I was 10. I forget they are on my face. I don't see them - I see through them until something small happens. A smudge. A scratch. A drop of rain. Suddenly I cannot help but notice the glasses themselves.

The lens we look at life through is the same. We don't notice it when life is moving smoothly. We notice it when something disrupts the smoothness. This could be a comment that lands wrong, a silence that feels new, a result that should feel like a win but doesn't. The disruption does not have to be dramatic. It just has to be enough to break the autopilot mode we did not know we were on.

If things were obviously broken, we would stop and look. But most of us are not in crisis. We are in something quieter. The friendships still exist. The marriage still functions. The team still delivers. So we keep going. And the lens stays invisible.

In ontological coaching, we have a name for things that have become so familiar we no longer notice them - we call them transparent. The way you walk. The way you talk. The way you engage with your colleagues. All transparent. Until something disrupts it.

That disruption is what we call a “break in transparency”. It is the moment the lens stops being invisible. The moment you finally see what you have been looking through all along.

It rarely feels good. But it is the only doorway through which a new way of seeing becomes possible.

Strategy Cannot Fix What Is Actually Wrong

After that team debrief, I did what most people would do - take a few days off, reflect, and re-strategise. This is likely a sensible response except such a response operates at the level of strategy. I had a realization during my self-reflection - strategy cannot fix what is actually wrong.

What I needed to face was a different kind of question. Not what do I need to do differently?

But who have I been, and who do I want to be?

This is what ontological coaching actually does. It supports people to shift not just their behaviour, but their way of being - so they begin to see themselves, others, and the world from a different vantage point. But this shift only becomes possible when something in the old way of being has been disrupted enough that simply returning to it is no longer an option.

The crack is the precondition for seeing the lens.

In my coaching, I help clients name what is not working, not as complaint, but as a courageous claim on a future they actually want, rather than the one they have drifted into. The first step is always the honest acknowledgement that the current path is not delivering what matters.

This is harder than it sounds in Singapore. We move so fast and efficiently that time to reflect, to stop and see, feels like a luxury. We also do not reward admissions of stuckness. Vulnerability is often read as weakness. So we manage by pushing forward, project confidence, and keep building sophisticated strategies on top of unexamined foundations. The structures hold. Until they don’t.

What To Do With the Crack

If something here resonates with you, the instinct will be to ask: so what do I do?

That is a good instinct. But the first move is not an action. It is an inquiry.

Sit with what is not working. Name it first to yourself, before anyone else. Be specific and honest.

For me, this meant facing some uncomfortable truths. I had been blinded by outward success. I had been ignoring the signs that I was not okay physically, emotionally, or spiritually. I had stopped making it safe for my wife to be honest with me, somewhere along the way I cannot quite pinpoint. I had stopped making it safe for the team I was leading.

Hard truths. But the kind that carry the possibility of change, because they locate the source of the stuckness where it actually lives - in our own way of seeing, not in the circumstances around us.

The disruption is not our enemy. It is our teacher. And unlike most teachers, it will wait patiently, and with remarkable persistence until we are ready to hear what it has been trying to say.

The lens we do not see until it cracks. The self we do not meet until ordinary life stops working the way it used to.

This is not a crisis. It is an invitation.

The question is whether we are willing to accept it.

Continue Reading: The Ontological Series

This piece is part of my ongoing series on ontological coaching - exploring how shifts in how we see produce shifts in how we live.

If this resonated, you may want to read:

• Musings about Ontological Coaching

• The Power of Distinctions: How Clarity Actually Works

• Have You Heard of a Commitment to a Mood?

• The 15 Beliefs That Stop You From Learning - And Being Resistance to Change

Curious what your own lens might be hiding from you?

I work with leaders, professionals, and couples navigating stuckness, transitions, and the quiet sense that something is no longer working. If you would like to explore what 1-1 ontological coaching could open up for you, get in touch here.

The Power of Distinctions: How Clarity Actually Works

A few years ago, I was in a pair conversation on the first day of a coaching course. My partner and I were supposed to share why we had signed up. Once we sat down together, I intuitively said to her, "Would you like to start first?"

After the conversation, she thanked me. She said she loved to listen, and because I asked her to go first, she could get the task out of the way and be fully present when I was speaking. In our conversation, I experienced her as a great listener.

What she said made me realise something - I hate sharing things without being clear about what I am going to say. So my request for her to go first was actually about my own needs. I needed time to sort out the content and structure in my head. Which means while she was speaking, I was not really listening.

By the end of our debrief, I had observed something new in myself and gained a new distinction. I had new words for my behaviour in conversations. People had called me a babbler before especially when I had little preparation about my content and structure. I had also received feedback that I was a poor listener. Now I could connect the dots.

Nothing in my life had changed in that hour. But something in me had. I walked out lighter, clearer, and able to act. The shift was not motivational. It was ontological. I had gained a distinction.

What is a distinction, really?

If you have ever ordered kopi at a hawker centre, you already understand distinctions better than most management books will teach you. To someone new, "kopi" is just coffee. But stand at your favourite stall long enough and the menu opens up: Kopi, Kopi-O, Kopi-C, Kopi-gao, Kopi-poh, Kopi-siew-dai, Kopi-C-siew-dai, Kopi-C-kosong. Each word points to something specific. Each one allows the uncle to make exactly what you want.

Now imagine walking into the same stall knowing only the word "coffee." You will still get a drink. But you will not get your drink. And worse, you will not even know what you are missing.

This is what distinctions do. They are not just words. They are how we cut up reality so we can see it, choose, and act. Without distinctions, the world looks like one big lump. With distinctions, the world shows us options.

Why this matters more than it sounds

In the ontological discipline I work in, there is a quiet but radical claim: we do not see the world as it is. We see the world as our distinctions allow us to see it. This is not just philosophy. It is a practical truth that shapes every decision we make.

Take a leader who only has one distinction for difficult conversations: "conflict." Every disagreement gets filed under that one word. The body responds accordingly. Shoulders tense up. Breathing gets shallow. The instinct is to either avoid or attack. Now give that same leader three distinctions: complaint, request, and boundary. Suddenly what felt like "conflict" might actually be a request that was never made. Or a boundary that was never shared. The shoulders soften. A different response becomes possible.

The leader did not become braver. She became clearer. And clarity, it turns out, is not a personality trait. It depends on the distinctions you carry.

The MRT map and the territory

Singaporeans navigate the city using the MRT map almost without thinking. But the map is not Singapore. It is a set of distinctions about Singapore. With the MRT map, we see stations, lines, interchanges and that let us travel with clarity. Without the map, we could still travel from Tampines to Tuas. But it might not give us landmarks we could associate with places we want to go.

Our inner life works the same way. The distinctions we hold are the map we use to navigate ourselves. When someone says "I just feel off lately," they are often saying their inner map has gone blank. They cannot locate themselves.

Is what you are feeling disappointment or resentment? They look similar from far away. But they ask for different things. Disappointment asks to be grieved. Resentment asks for a conversation that has been postponed too long. Treat one as the other, and you will spend years trying to fix the wrong problem.

What an ontological coach actually does

This is the work an ontological coach does. We do not give advice. We do not hand people answers. What we do is help others gain distinctions they did not have before.

Sometimes that means helping someone notice their own body. The way their jaw tightens when a certain colleague's name comes up. The way their voice drops when they talk about their father. The way their energy goes up when they recall a particular memory. Sometimes it means helping someone name an emotion they have been carrying without knowing it. Other times, it means helping someone see how they have been listening. Or not listening. Like I learnt that day in my coaching course.These are signals that were always there. The coach just helps the person see them.

That is the work of clarity. The world has not changed. Your distinctions grew. And once that happens, you can never quite go back to not seeing.

Continue Reading — The Ontological Coaching Series:

• What is Ontological Coaching? A Singapore Practitioner's Guide

• Ontological Coaching vs CBT: Key Differences Explained

• Listening Through Our Mood

• Have You Heard of a Commitment to a Mood?

• The 15 Beliefs That Stop You From Learning - And Being Resistance to Change

Interested in experiencing ontological coaching firsthand? Explore 1-1 ontological coaching.

Written by Victor Seet
Activator • Communication • Strategic • Self-Assurance • Command

As a Gallup and Newfield Certified Leadership Coach in Singapore, Victor is passionate about helping people be better observer of themselves to achieve the results they want, especially in the area of well-being and performance. Victor intentionally integrates the strengths-based and ontological approach into his leadership coaching and workshops.

Frequently Asked Questions About Distinctions and Clarity

Q: What is a distinction in ontological coaching?

A: A distinction is a precise word or concept that lets you see something you could not see before. It is not just vocabulary. It is how we cut up reality so we can act on it. The kopi example illustrates this idea. To someone new, "kopi" is just coffee. But to a regular at a coffee shop in Singapore, the menu opens up to kopi-O, kopi-C, kopi-gao, kopi-siew-dai etc. Each word points to something specific about the coffee and the way it is made, which lets the uncle make exactly what you want. Distinctions work the same way in our inner life. The more we have, the more we can see, choose, and act with clarity.

Q: What is the difference between gaining a distinction and just learning a new word?

A: A new word is information. A distinction is a shift in what we can see and do. We can read a definition of resentment and still not know whether what we are carrying is resentment. The word becomes a distinction the moment we recognise it inside our own experience and our range of possible action expands because of it. The body usually signals when this has happened. Something settles. Or something releases. From the outside, nothing has changed. Internally, everything has. That is why the article says once we have gained a distinction, we can never quite go back to not seeing.

Q: Why does naming an emotion change how we experience it?

A: Because what we cannot name, we cannot work with. Disappointment and resentment look similar from a distance, but they ask for different responses. Disappointment asks to be grieved. Resentment asks for a conversation that has been postponed too long. Treat one as the other and you will spend years trying to fix the wrong problem. Naming an emotion is not a small linguistic act. It is the moment a vague heaviness becomes something you can locate, sit with, and respond to. The distinction creates the leverage.

Q: How do distinctions actually change what becomes possible for us?

A: Distinctions change the range of action available to us. Consider a leader who only has one word for difficult conversations - “conflict”. Every disagreement gets filed there. The body responds with tension, and the only options that come to mind are to avoid or attack. Now if we give the same leader three distinctions: a complaint, a request, and a boundary, then this leader now sees difficult conversations differently. What used to feel like conflict might actually be a request that was never made, or a boundary that was never shared. The leader did not become braver. She became clearer. And clarity, it turns out, depends on the distinctions we carry.

Q: How do I gain new distinctions about myself?

A: Distinctions usually come through three doors. The first is a conversation with someone who can mirror back what you cannot see in yourself, which is part of what makes ontological coaching work. The second is a direct experience that shows us something we could not understand before - what we commonly call a realisation. For me, it was the realisation that I have asked my partner to speak first because I needed time to organise my own thoughts. I suddenly realised that I have prioritised speaking over listening as a recurring pattern. The third is reading or studying frameworks that give us new vocabulary, then testing whether the words actually fit our lived experience. Distinctions that stay only as concepts do little. The ones that change us are the ones we feel in the body when we land on them.

Resolving Conflict When You See the World Differently

Conflicts are part of being human. We work with people who do not see what we see, who do not value what we value in the same order. So we clash. And while clashing is never pleasant, the way we work through a conflict often determines whether the relationship ends up stronger or quietly weaker afterwards.

Many Singaporeans have asked me how CliftonStrengths can help with conflict resolution. My answer has shifted as my own training has deepened. CliftonStrengths still gives us a powerful entry point - language to talk about why we see things differently. But my work in ontological coaching has shown me that strengths alone do not explain the full picture. Conflicts are not only clashes of talent. They are clashes of observers. And resolution is not only about understanding each other's themes. It is about shifting the way we see, the way we feel, and the way we hold our bodies in the conversation.

This article, written on April 2026, is an updated take on a piece I wrote 8 years ago. The earlier version was useful then. This one, I hope, goes a little deeper.

1. We are not just clashing perspectives. We are clashing observers.

CliftonStrengths gives us empirical grounding for why we clash. Gallup's research has shown that the probability of two people sharing the same top five themes in the same order is one in 33 million. So when two colleagues look at the same situation, they are almost certainly seeing two different situations.

The ontological discipline takes us further. Strengths are one stream that shapes how we see. They are not the whole stream.

Each of us is an observer. And what we observe is shaped by three inseparable domains - language, body, and emotion. The words we have available to us. The way our chest, jaw, and shoulders are organised in the moment. The mood we are living inside. All of these shape what we see before we have even formed an opinion about it.

So when a Strategic and an Empathy theme clash in a meeting, it is not just a clash of cognitive lenses. The Strategic person may be living inside a mood of urgency, holding a language of options and trade-offs. The Empathy person may be living inside a mood of care, holding a language of impact on people. Both are seeing accurately. Both are seeing partially. And neither realises how much their body and mood are doing the seeing for them.

This is the deeper reason why most workplace conflicts are not really about office politics or personal attacks. They are observers colliding, each unaware of the soil their seeing grew from.

2. Ask sharper questions when you have been triggered.

When emotions rise, our first instinct is to look outward. What did they do wrong? Why are they like this? The work of self-awareness is to turn that question inward, gently, without self-blame.

CliftonStrengths gives us some clues. Which of my talents got triggered? And how? My Analytical is triggered when an accusation is ungrounded. My Discipline gets thrown off by surprise. My Consistency flares when I sense unfair treatment. Each talent has its own pattern of being activated, and naming the pattern is the first step to taking responsibility for it.

Ontology adds another layer by linking emotion and talent together. Try sitting with these:

• What distrust was I already carrying about this person before our conversation even began?

• Which of my talents, and the emotional state connected to it, could be hindering me from resolving this conflict?

• Which of my talents, and the emotional state connected to it, could help me resolve this conflict?

These questions move us from describing what triggered us to noticing the observer we became before the trigger arrived. That is a different kind of seeing. And from that seeing, different action becomes possible.

3. Conflict avoidance is not the same as conflict resolution.

Many of us, especially in Singapore, are quietly trained to keep the peace. We sweep things under the carpet. We tell ourselves the relationship is fine. We hope time will do the work for us.

It rarely does. What gets buried tends to compost into something else. Resentment. Cold professionalism. A subtle withdrawal of trust the other person can sense but cannot name. The relationship does not break. It just slowly stops being a relationship.

Real resolution asks more of us. It asks for humility. And ontologically, it asks for something specific. Forgiveness is not a feeling. It is a declaration. We declare ourselves no longer bound to the past act, no longer waiting for the other person to fix what cannot be fixed. The body releases. The mood shifts. New action becomes possible.

This is why I often tell clients that the individual is more important than the issue. When we hold the person above the dispute, we make space for a declaration of forgiveness even when the issue itself remains unresolved. That move alone can rebuild trust where logic and explanation cannot reach.

4. Debrief together, and look for what was underneath the storm.

Once the heat has settled, a good debrief can turn a clash into a deepening of trust. The simplest question is still the one I have used for years. Which of our strengths do you think were colliding?

Years ago, I had a heated argument with Jason, a former business partner. At one point I said to him, "What you did does not build trust." I thought I was making a fair point. He went quiet. The conversation cooled, but something between us had shifted in a way I could feel for days afterwards.

When we debriefed, I learnt something I had not understood. Jason has Relator in his top five. Trust is the soil his relationships grow in. To use that word as a weapon, even unintentionally, was to strike at something foundational.

I read that story differently now. The ontological lens shows something more. I had made a public assessment - a statement about him, in a charged moment, without grounding it in shared standards. I had called something "untrustworthy" without first declaring what trust meant to me, what evidence I was using, or what I was actually asking him to do differently. Ungrounded assessments are one of the most common ways relationships break, and most of us do not even know we are doing it.

We agreed afterwards that "trust" between us would only be used as a word of affirmation, not accusation. We also built a small practice. When one of us had a complaint, we would name it as a complaint, ground it in something specific, and turn it into a request rather than a verdict. That small linguistic shift saved us many future arguments.

A good debrief is not just about understanding which themes clashed. It is about asking together: what assessments did we make about each other? What standards were we each holding that the other did not know about? What request was hiding inside the complaint?

5. Settle yourself before you start the conversation.

This is the piece I would have missed in the article I wrote years ago, and it may be the most important one.

Most of us walk into difficult conversations with a body that has already decided how the conversation will go. Shoulders up. Jaw tight. Breath shallow. From that body, almost no good conversation is possible, regardless of how carefully we have prepared our words.

Before any difficult conversation, pause and ask yourself two simple questions. Am I tense or relaxed right now? And if I had to name what I am feeling in one word, angry, resentful, anxious, hopeful, what would it be? You are not trying to fix anything. You are just noticing. Five minutes of walking, breathing, and naming the feeling out loud will change the conversation more than another hour of rehearsing what to say. From a calmer body and a clearer mood, the same words land differently. And often the words you no longer need to say become obvious.

A closing thought

CliftonStrengths gave me my first language for understanding why people clash. Ontological coaching gave me the deeper layer underneath. Both ideas helped me understand that we are observers, shaped by language, body, and emotion, and that real resolution involves shifting the observer, not only exchanging information.

Tools are only as powerful as the person using them. Both work best when something more fundamental is at play. A genuine valuing of the relationship over the rightness of one's position. A willingness to take ownership of how we are showing up. And a quiet trust that the other person, like us, is also seeing something real, just from where they stand.

If you find yourself in a season of unresolved conflict, perhaps the invitation is not to find the perfect words. Perhaps it is to first notice what kind of observer you have become around this person, and ask whether you are willing to shift.

That noticing, quietly done, is often where the real resolution begins.

Written by Victor Seet
Activator • Communication • Strategic • Self-Assurance • Command

Victor coaches teams to leverage their collective strengths, get clear on ways of engagement and ways of working to strengthen team and interpersonal dynamics. He intentionally integrates the strengths-based approaches and emotional agility into his team and 1-1 coaching and facilitation workshops.

Frequently Asked Questions About Resolving Conflict.

Q: What does it mean that conflict is a "clash of observers" rather than a clash of strengths?

A: A clash of strengths assumes two people have fixed traits that don't get along. A clash of observers goes further. Each person is seeing the situation through three filters at once - the mindsets and inner beliefs, the mood they are living inside, and their body system. Two people in the same meeting are almost never seeing the same situation. Their CliftonStrengths shape part of that seeing, but so does the urgency in one person's chest or the care sitting in the other person's voice. Calling it an observer clash rather than a clash of strengths opens up something a strengths framing closes down - the possibility that the seeing itself can shift.

Q: How do I know which of my CliftonStrengths got triggered in a conflict?

A: Pay attention to what the other person did or said just before the heat rose in you. Different talents have different trigger patterns. Analytical gets activated by ungrounded accusations. Discipline gets thrown off by surprise. Consistency flares at unfair treatment. Responsibility tightens when accountability is blurred. Naming which talent got triggered, and the emotion attached to it, is the first move from reacting to responding. The work is not to suppress the trigger. It is to notice the pattern, so you can choose your next action rather than be driven by it.

Q: What's the actual cost of avoiding a difficult conversation?

A: Avoidance feels like keeping the peace in the moment, but what gets buried tends to compost into something else. Resentment. Cold professionalism. A subtle withdrawal of trust the other person can sense but cannot name. The relationship does not break. It just slowly stops being a relationship. Real resolution asks for something avoidance cannot offer, namely the willingness to look at what is actually there and declare what needs to be declared. That can let both people see each other again. Time alone does not heal these things. Declaration does.

Q: How should I prepare myself before a difficult conversation?

A: Most preparation focuses on words - what to say, how to phrase it, which arguments to lead with. The deeper preparation is on the body and the mood we bring into the room. Before the conversation, pause and ask two simple questions. Am I tense or relaxed right now? And if I had to name what I am feeling in one word, what would it be? We are not trying to fix anything. We are just noticing. Five minutes of walking, breathing, and naming the feeling will change the conversation more than another hour of rehearsing your script. From a calmer body and a clearer mood, the same words land differently. And often the words we no longer need to say become obvious.

Q: What is the difference between forgiveness as a feeling and forgiveness as a declaration?

A: Most people wait to feel forgiveness before they extend it, as if forgiveness is an emotion that arrives unbidden once enough time has passed. Ontological coaching treats forgiveness differently. It is a declaration we make. It is a stance we take - that we are no longer bound to the past act and no longer waiting for the other person to fix what cannot be fixed. The feeling often follows the declaration, not the other way round. The body releases. The mood shifts. New action becomes possible. This reframing matters because it puts forgiveness back in our hands, rather than leaving it to circumstance.

Developing Humility

*This article was first written in August 2018 and further developed in April 2026.

Humility seems underrated in corporate leadership. Yet, it is arguably the single, most important determinant of how power and authority will be used by a leader. There have been several articles written on the importance of humility in leadership. This article is written as an extension of the existing discussion(s), and in particular, to explore how to cultivate humility. I approach this topic not as an expert; far from it. In fact, I have broken trust and lost employees because of the lack of humility on my part.

Humility has been defined in several ways. For the purpose of this article, humility will be taken as "not thinking that we are better than we really are in terms of our importance and our ability; but having sound judgement."

In the same vein, someone said "people with humility do not think less of themselves; they just think about themselves less." I fully agree.

Why Humility Cannot Be Studied Like a Subject

Developing humility can be challenging because character formation works differently from the conventional knowledge-based approach to learning. In my previous vocation as a church pastor, one of my primary responsibilities was to help individuals grow in character. The process was baffling. I discovered that one's knowledge of a character trait does not necessarily translate into one's practice of the same trait. Take my life for instance. Though I may cognitively know a lot about humility, my personal failings remain because of a lack of self-awareness.

This is where I feel many leaders get caught off guard. We treat character the same way we treat technical skill. Read the right book, attend the right workshop, take notes, apply. But humility does not work that way. Knowledge sits in the head. Humility lives somewhere else, in how we see ourselves and others when no one is watching.

Developing humility requires a great level of self-awareness, which is not easily acquired. And self-awareness is not really about knowing more facts about yourself. It is about who you become as the one observing yourself.A leader who only sees the world through the lens of his own importance keeps arriving at the same conclusions about every situation. Until that lens shifts, no amount of feedback will land.

The Direct Path Does Not Work

Suppose a student requires two magic bullets to ace an exam:

• knowledge of the subject matter

• time management skills.

Most will agree that knowledge of the subject matter will directly affect the grades while time management affects the end outcome indirectly. Knowledge of the subject matter directly impacts a student's ability to answer the exam questions. Time management is also required for effectiveness. Unless we apportion time to study, time to rest, time to relax, we will not be effective.

I would like to suggest that character traits are best cultivated through indirect means. Trying to be more humble in a direct way can only lead a person to be prideful. It is like making a statement "I'm so proud that I can become humble." It simply does not work. Instead, allowing people to come to their own realizations of their pride may work better. This is the practice of self-awareness.

The reason the direct approach fails is subtle. When I aim straight at humility, the “I” doing the aiming is the very thing in the way. Pride does not disappear because I declare war on it. It just finds a new costume to wear, often the costume of the humble leader.

Two Indirect Practices: Service and Listening

How, then, does an indirect approach look like?

One possibility is through acts of service. Through acts of service, one may discover their prideful areas. Are there tasks I deem too menial to act upon? Am I upset when I am not recognized for the things I have done? Why am I reacting negatively to feedback given to me?

Service has a way of showing us what we would rather not admit. The leader who enjoys running a strategy meeting but quietly resents clearing the cups afterwards has just learned something about himself. That quick flash of irritation when asked to do something small, like clearing the cups, is not a weakness to hide. It is a signal worth paying attention to. A leader who can notice these moments without rushing to defend or explain has already started the work of humility.

Another example of an indirect approach is to practice listening. Intentionally listening to others and paraphrasing what they say is a way to realize if we are more interested in others or in ourselves. Leaders who are more interested to tell others what to do usually end up causing more hurt because of a lack of empathy. Listening is one of the hardest things for leaders with big egos. I regret to say this is one of my most painful realizations.

There is a kind of listening many leaders practise. While the other person is talking, the leader is already preparing his reply, lining up his counter-point, steering the conversation back to what he wants to say. He looks like he is listening, but nothing in him actually shifts. True listening is different. Something in us has to soften. We have to be open to being changed, even a little, by what the other person is sharing. For a leader who is used to having the answers, this can feel like losing ground. I like to think it is actually the start of being trusted.

Other Quiet Disciplines

In essence, humility is a realization of how proud we are. Engaging in good disciplines such as listening and intentionally serving others are powerful ways of gaining self-awareness. Other approaches include journaling and giving thanks. Journaling slows down the rush of the day long enough for patterns to surface. Giving thanks shifts the centre of gravity. A leader who is genuinely thankful, is in that moment, no longer the protagonist of the story.

When a Good Principle Becomes a Weapon

Let me share a personal story.

One of my core beliefs is that it takes two hands to clap. I do not believe marriages or relationships break down because of one party alone. The power of such a belief should empower me to reflect, take ownership of my mistakes, and adjust my behavior. Unfortunately, a lack of humility meant I ended up focusing on where the other party had failed. In short, I like to blame others rather than search my heart.

This was the trap I fell into. A good principle, in the hands of pride, becomes a weapon. It takes two hands to clap was meant to lead me inward. Instead, it gave me a sophisticated way to keep score. Yes, I made a mistake, but so did they. The principle was sound. The observer applying it was not.

I increasingly realized how much pain I have caused my family, close friends, and my work team. My pride caused me to reject feedback. I even rationalized that I was less at fault and more humble since I was constantly adjusting my behavior. Sadly, behavioral change can be superficial. In thinking I had grown in humility, I had ironically become more prideful.

You can change the surface and leave the root untouched. You can adjust your tone, your phrasing, the way you run your meetings, and still be the same leader underneath, just better at hiding. The work is not at the level of behaviour. It is at the level of who you are being when the behaviour happens.

The Freedom on the Other Side

The truth hurts. But there is a freedom on the other side of it that the prideful leader never gets to taste. When you no longer have to defend the version of yourself that has to be right, has to be impressive, has to be ahead, something settles. The meetings get lighter. Feedback gets easier to receive. The team starts telling you the things they used to keep to themselves. If we believe that humility is thinking of ourselves less, it is extremely freeing to focus on the beauty and joy of growing our character and perhaps, the people around us. I hope I can be steadfast in seeing this beauty and joy.

Written by Victor Seet
Activator • Communication • Strategic • Self-Assurance • Command

As a Gallup and Newfield Certified Leadership Coach in Singapore, Victor is passionate about helping people be better observer of themselves to achieve the results they want, especially in the area of well-being and performance. Victor intentionally integrates the strengths-based and ontological approach into his leadership coaching and workshops.

We Are Made to Overcome - Resilience When Work Falls Apart

You are not failing to recover. You are becoming someone new. And that might be the hardest, most important work you will ever do.

This is my story.

I woke up on a Tuesday. I prepared the kids’ breakfast and got them ready for school. I dropped them off like I always did and walked to the nearby coffee shop with nowhere to go. Not because I was sick. Not because it was a public holiday. But because the job I had held for many years had ended. At first, it felt like I finally can use a break. After a few weeks, the reality sunk in. I was jobless. 

I had updated my LinkedIn. I had sent out applications. I had smiled and said “I’m exploring options” to people who asked. But alone, in the coffee shop near to my HDB flat, with a second cup of coffee, I did not know who I was without work.

If you are reading this, you may recognise something of yourself in what I had gone through.

Maybe you are in the middle of a job hunt and the silence is starting to feel personal. Maybe you are still employed but dreading Monday with a heaviness you cannot fully explain. Maybe you were laid off and you keep replaying the moment they told you, wondering what you did wrong, even though the rational part of you knows it was not about you.

I want to say something to you before we go any further: what you are experiencing is not weakness. It is the natural consequence of being disrupted. And true resilience is more than bouncing back. It is about walking forward, even when you are not sure where forward will lead to.

This was how I am overcoming, written upon reflecting on my own journey. 

Step 1: Feel It

The part nobody gives us permission for

We seemed to be living in a culture that is quietly allergic to pain. Someone loses a job, and almost immediately, the people around them are already in solution mode. “Have you tried LinkedIn Premium?” “What about a career pivot? You can use  Skillsfuture credits to learn new skills.” 

All of these are well-meaning though in my perspective, many of these are often a form of unconscious practice (an escape from the discomfort of sitting with someone in their grief).

Wait a minute. Grief? 

Yes because that is what a job loss is. Not just the loss of income but the loss of structure, of identity, of belonging, of the quiet confidence that comes from being able to contribute to some kind of purposeful work. 

Brené Brown, renowned researcher and author on vulnerability, reminds us that we cannot selectively numb emotion. When we shut down the pain, we also shut down access to our own aliveness. 

In our fast paced society, we are so used to being in solution mode, trying to think our way out of something we have not yet allowed ourselves to feel. But the feeling is not the problem. It is the doorway.

From an ontological coaching perspective, emotions are not noise. They are data. They are the body’s way of telling us what matters, what has been disrupted, and what we care enough about to grieve. Anger says something was violated. Sadness says something valuable was lost. Anxiety says we are standing at an edge without a clear path forward. None of these are signs that we are broken. They are signs that we are human.

So the first act of resilience is deceptively quiet. It is giving ourselves permission. Permission to feel what we feel, without rushing to the next step.

Step 2: Name It

Because vague suffering has more power over us (than we imagine).

There is a reason therapists and coaches spend so much time on language. When something painful exists only as a fog, a heaviness, an unease, a dread, it occupies more space than it deserves. When the moment we can name it precisely, something shifts. We go from being inside the fog to standing outside it, looking at it.

This is not merely a psychological technique. It is an ontological truth. Language shapes our reality. The words we use to interpret our situation literally alter what is possible for us within it.

So ask yourself: what exactly am I feeling? 

• Is it shame? Shame sounds like: I should have known. Why did I not see this coming and do something about it? I must be dense or stupid. 

• Is it fear? Fear says: I do not know if I can find a job. Who will want to hire me? I have not done a resume or gone for an interview for more than a decade. 

• Is it grief? Grief says: I miss what was. I miss the people, the rhythm, the sense of satisfaction from finishing the work.

These are different things. They call for different responses. And when you can name them, really name them, you begin to have some agency over them. You stop being at the mercy of an unnamed storm and start relating to a specific weather pattern you can actually navigate.

Question: If you had to name in one sentence exactly what is hardest about your situation right now, not the facts, but the emotional weight of it, what would you say to a trusted friend?

Step 3: Reframe It

I want to be careful here. Reframing is not pretending things are fine when they are not. It is not spinning a positive way of looking at the situation and hoping the discomfort will dissolve. That is not reframing. That is rationalising. And the feelings you bypass will find other ways to surface.

Real reframing is examining the story you are telling about what this means and asking whether that story is the only available truth.

Carol Dweck’s work on mindset draws a clean line between two kinds of observers. The fixed mindset observer looks at a setback and concludes: this is evidence of who I am. The growth mindset observer looks at the same setback and asks: what is this asking me to learn? One story closes. The other opens.

Here is a reframe worth sitting with: a layoff is almost never a verdict on your worth. It is an event. A business decision made under economic pressure, filtered through an org chart, executed imperfectly by humans who were also anxious about what they were doing. You may have been in the wrong industry cycle. You may have been in the wrong company culture for your particular strengths. You may have been simply, painfully, the wrong person in the wrong place.

The observer you are right now, exhausted, uncertain, questioning, is not the only observer you are capable of being. You have changed before. You can change the lens again.

Angela Duckworth’s research on grit tells us that the people who persist are not those who never doubt. They are the ones who do not let doubt have the final word. They hold their long-term purpose steady even when the short-term terrain is difficult. This is only possible if you have a story about yourself that can survive a setback, a story that is bigger than any single job. I remembered going through all the times that I successfully bounced back and allowing those experiences to channel courage from within. For myself, just knowing my name “Victor” means “Overcomer” gave me much hope and courage.

What is your bigger story?
Not your resume. Not your job title. But the thread that runs through all the times you bounce back and return to your best self. 

Step 4: Shift It

From paralysis to a single and honest next step.

Here is what I observe happens to many in career limbo: They go into frantic motion, applying to everything, saying yes to anything and go into hustling mode (often without direction), chasing urgency to outrun the anxiety. This is a form of being stuck, well-disguised as productivity.

Under pressure, many people go into certain unproductive behaviours, driven by their natural talents. The anxiety often narrows what we can see. Someone with the Achiever talent goes into ultra busy mode because stopping feels like defeat. Another with the Deliberative talent goes into over-thinking mode. 

A shift is small, deliberate, and grounded in clarity about who you are, not just what you need. A shift begins when you reconnect with what is actually true about you and take one action from that place, rather than from the fear.

For Adeline (not her real name), who came to me three months after her retrenchment, the shift was not a new job application. It was a conversation. An honest conversation with a former colleague she trusted, where she said out loud for the first time: “I am not okay, and I also know I have something real to offer. Can I think through this with you?” That conversation led to a referral. The referral led to a project. The project rebuilt her confidence and started her on an upward trajectory.

What is the one small action you have been postponing not because you cannot do it, but because you are afraid? That is probably the shift worth making.

Step 5: Move Forward

Not back to who you were but into who you are becoming.

In positive psychology, one of key findings are that people who recover best from adversity are not those who return to their previous state. They are those who are changed by the experience, deepened by it, and who integrate what they have been through into a larger, more honest sense of self.

Moving forward is not the end of the resilience arc. It is the beginning of a new chapter, one where you carry more self-knowledge than you had before, more capacity for honest conversation, more clarity about what work actually means to you and what it does not.

This is not a comfortable place to arrive at. 

It requires letting go of the version of yourself that was defined by the role you lost, or the salary you expected, or the career path you had mapped. And in its place, something quieter and more grounded begins to emerge.

For some people, the idea of becoming starts the moment they choose work that fits and not just work that pays. For others, it becomes a renegotiation of what “success” means, separating the identity they had borrowed from the system or culture from the identity is actually more aligned to their values. For others still, it is simpler: they return to similar work, but with different eyes. They know now that they are not their job. And that insight changes everything.

Resilience is a set of capacities we can develop. Feel what is real. Name it with precision. Challenge the story that says this defines you. Take one grounded step. And keep walking, not back to who you were, but forward into who you are becoming.

We are made to overcome.

Continue Reading - The Human Experience at Work Series:

• How Shame Shows Up in the Workplace

• Five Ways to Uncover Your True Self — Exploring Identity

• The Power of Naming an Emotion

• A Type of Grief That Few Talk About

And if the ontological framework in this article intrigued you, you may also enjoy the Ontological Coaching Series - starting with What is Ontological Coaching? A Guide.

Interested in working through a career or life transition with a coach? To explore 1-1 coaching, enquire here.

Written by Victor Seet
Activator • Communication • Strategic • Self-Assurance • Command

Before You Tell Someone They Over-Used Their Strengths, Read This

Why the "over-used strengths" conversation may be pointing in a wrong direction and an alternative place to look.

There's a moment in many CliftonStrengths coaching conversations that I've come to recognise. A leader describes a situation that went sideways and usually the situation revolves around some kind of interpersonal conflict, a team conflict, or an under-performer. And the explanation: "I think person X over-used his Responsibility." Or Command. Or Empathy. As if the talent was a dial the person had accidentally cranked too high.

It sounds like a weakness. And it probably feels like it is. But there's something in the framing that I've grown increasingly uncomfortable with, something that I feel if left unexamined, actually limits a person’s growth or possibly, misrepresents the idea of a Strengths-based approach.

This article is about that something.

How we got here: from balcony and basement to help and hinder

Gallup's original language for this idea was balcony and basement, evocative metaphors for the productive and unproductive expressions of a CliftonStrengths talent theme. A talent operating from the balcony is elevated, purposeful, visible in the best way. A talent in the basement is reactive, unmanaged, or misapplied and potentially causing damage. 

This framework offered something genuinely useful: the recognition that talent themes are not inherently virtuous, and that how we deploy them matters.

Gallup then released the significantly expanded CliftonStrengths 34 report. The shift in language in the report was notable, from Balcony and Basement to "watch out for blind spots” or “How This Theme Could Get in the Way of Your Success”. Today the vocabulary has shifted toward the cleaner pairing of “help and hinder”, from a frame of architecture to perception. This is a meaningful evolution. 

My Personal View:

As an executive coach who integrates CliftonStrengths and Ontological coaching, I want to offer a different perspective. My view is that both the “Balcony-Basement” and “Help-Hinder” frameworks share a hidden assumption - a person, by making specific adjustments in his action, can bring a new set of results. The focus of both the frameworks is on the doing and changing the actions.

Perhaps we can go one layer deeper.

I propose that when a person is said to be over-using his talents (reactive, unmanaged, or misapplied and potentially causing damage), more than often, the problem is too narrow an observer.

What is an observer, and why does it matter?

In ontological coaching, the concept of the observer is foundational. An observer is not just someone who watches. It's the particular way a person sees, interprets, and makes meaning of the world. Every observer has a horizon: the edge of what they can perceive from where they stand.

An observer is shaped by three interconnected dimensions which are present in every human being, regardless of race, gender, culture. These three dimensions are the language we use (the stories, beliefs, mindsets and interpretations available to us), the emotions and moods we are living in, and the state of our body (posture, flexibility, breath patterns, nervous system's alert level).
When any one of these is adjusted, an observer literally see different things.

As an Ontological and CliftonStrengths coach, I believe this matters enormously for how we understand CliftonStrengths. Every talent theme is, at its core, a specific orientation of the observer. Strategic sees patterns and options others miss. Empathy perceives emotional currents in a room before anyone names them. Maximizer spots the gap between good and excellent. These aren't switches we turn on and off. They are the lenses through which a person's observer engages with reality.

THIS IS A KEY DISTINCTION I OFFER.

A talent is not a dial. It's a lens.

Dials can be turned up or down. Lenses shape what you see and what remains invisible. The question is never how much talent you're using, and if one should turn it up or down. It’s whether the observer sees widely enough to know what the situation or context is actually asking for.

Why "over-use" may be an unhelpful frame

Here is what I observe when a leader says person X "over-used" his talent. In nearly every case, one of three things was happening and none of them suggest that the talent in itself is the problem. I am calling out this unhelpful frame because I have observed enough leaders being biased about particular talent themes, perceiving them as "problematic". The bias is evident from responses whenever they see certain talents in reports and immediately form judgements.

The below three things is derived from the ontological “Observer-Action-Results” framework,

Firstly, person X was in a mood or emotional state that narrowed his observer. Anxiety, urgency, a quiet need to prove something. These emotional states do not turn up the intensity on a talent. What happens is the emotional state constrict the observer's field of vision, making it harder to read contextual cues that would naturally inform how the talent gets expressed. Simply, under certain emotional states, we tend to exhibit behaviours that might be socially unacceptable. This is especially common when a person is under duress or feels under threat. I've written separately about what it means to have a commitment to a mood and why it matters more than most leaders realise.

As an Activator, when I am in a mood of anxiety or anger, I don’t overuse or underuse my Activator. I simply use it without seeing the full picture, because my mood has closed off parts of the horizon. I have no idea if my actions are helping or hindering others. Even if I know, I might not be able to adjust because when my horizon is narrowed, I do not see appropriate actions to take.

Secondly, person X might be committed to a story in his head. Language is not just how we communicate. It's also how we construct our inner world where we then act from. The stories and beliefs we hold don't just limit what we think, they shape what we can see before we even act. When someone is living in a particular story - this team is all over the place, my boss doesn't trust me, we're running out of time, his observer is already shaped before any action begins. What happens is that the talent executes faithfully within the story's logic to create the (damaging) outcomes. The problem is the story, not the talent theme.

Thirdly, person X hadn't yet developed the situational or adaptive intelligence to read what the moment was asking for. This type of adaptive intelligence contains two essential skills:

• mindfulness - the ability to return to a present-moment state of awareness with acceptance. In the ontological world, the language often used is centering.

• Context-reading, knowing when a situation calls for a talent to step forward and when it calls to step back. It requires an expanded or wider observer, one that has been stretched through reflection, feedback, and practice.

In summary, my assessment is:

Calling a talent "over-use" is like blaming a camera for not switching lenses on its own. The lens is doing exactly what it does. The photographer needs to choose differently.

The deeper problem with the weakness framing

Whenever we frame a talent “over-use” as a weakness, we create several problems that compound over time.

First, it pathologises identity. A person's top CliftonStrengths themes are not incidental preferences. They are close descriptions of how their mind is wired, patterns of thought, feeling, and behaviour that are genuinely theirs. Telling someone their talent is a weakness, even contextually, lands in the body as something closer to shame than insight.

I have watched high-performers shrink the moment their natural talents are framed as liabilities. That shrinking doesn't produce growth. It produces self-editing. Many leaders use CliftonStrengths as a weapon (though I believe they use it unconsciously). They might not have done that intentionally but the damage is definitely felt. This is especially true in Asia, where leaders operate within a largely weakness-driven, shame-based society. In my assessment, the Balcony-Basement concept was probably the most “latched on” concept by many leaders and practitioners, including myself when I first started coaching. We turned StrengthsFinder (what the assessment was known previously) into WeaknessFinder.

Second, it ignores coherence. What we often forget is that humans are deeply emotional beings and our body, emotions and language are deeply integrated. When I am in a fight, flight or freeze mode, my body contracts, my lens becomes narrower and I simply cannot see actions or solutions that I can take. When we frame a talent “over-use” as a weakness, we often zoomed into the doing, and fail to see the being. When we do that, we fail to see what that human actually needs and why the person feels threatened.

I have observed in the past that whenever I felt misunderstood because of my Command talent theme, resentment builds up, my body contracts and I'm in fight mode. I end up "retaliating", a classic behaviour when Command is "over-used". The resentment builds up further and the vicious cycle continues. This vicious cycle is often a result of this weakness or "over-used" frame.

Third, it gives people a rule to follow instead of a capacity to develop. "Don't over-use your Ideation" is a rule. But rules are applied to situations by the same observer that created the problem in the first place. The alternative to this and what actually produces growth is a more expansive observer, one who can skilfully return to a mindful or centred state, read more of the situation, hold more of the complexity, and choose more deliberately how to engage.

A NEW FRAME I PROPOSE: Observer and Horizon

If Gallup gave us Balcony and Basement, and later Help and Hinder, I want to propose a third frame: Observer and Horizon.

The question is not whether we are using too much of our talent. The question is: how wide can our observer see in that moment and what is it unable to see from where it currently stands?

This reframe opens up three genuinely developmental questions:

1.THE BLIND SPOT QUESTION

What is this talent unable to see from where it stands? Every lens has a focal length. Achiever can see all the tasks that are yet to be completed and miss the fact that others are emotionally worn out from the overwhelming tasks that lay ahead. Strategic can see intuitively the best path to move forward and miss the fact that others are still processing the information to decide what to do next. Empathy can feel and absorb all the different negative emotions present in the room and miss seeing that their being has already been entangled and intertwined with the emotions. The objective lens that might be required has been lost. All of the examples do not show flaws. It is the nature of the particular way of seeing. Naming the blind spot is not criticism. It's expanding the map.

2. THE MOOD AND BODY QUESTION

What emotional state or physical state is shaping how this talent is being expressed right now? A Harmony operating from a mood of frustration will see things very differently than the same Harmony in a mood of genuine curiosity. The talent is the same. The observer is different. This question puts the person back into developing mindfulness and context-reading skills so they can choose consciously rather than habitually. 

3. THE STORY QUESTION

What narrative is active right now and are there others that might be available? Language constructs the world before we act in it. When we become aware of the story we're living inside, we create the possibility of living inside a different one. Asking this question also allows us to ask ourselves if other talents might see differently and what might be other possibilities. When we can become more curious and open, we can recover authorship. 

These three questions share a common quality: they are respectful of the person's talent and honest about the reality. They don't suggest the talent is too intense or too much. They invite the person to expand as an observer - one who can see more, hold more, and therefore choose more.

What this means in practice

In coaching, this shift changes the quality of conversation considerably. When a leader comes in describing a situation where their Significance "got them in trouble," I no longer begin with the talent. I begin with the observer.

What story were you in? What mood were you carrying into that room? What were you committed to proving, protecting, or achieving? What would you have needed in that moment to see clearly and act differently?

My belief is that the talent naturally dial up or down in intensity because of the state we are in. Human beings when feeling threatened, naturally respond to the danger. When the observer shifts, the actions shift.

And so the change needed is not about restraining the talents that create energy in us. It’s about becoming the kind of observer who can wield what's most alive in us with genuine skill.

“Strengths development is not the management of our best selves. It is the expansion of the person who gets to express them.”

CLOSING

The next time you find yourself in a conversation about over-used strengths, whether as a coach, a leader, or someone doing the hard work of developing another, try shifting the question after giving the observation about the unproductive behaviour. 

From “Why did you overuse your Activator or Achiever? to “What made you unable to see the appropriate response?

It's a small move in language. It opens an entirely different horizon.

Continue Reading — The CliftonStrengths & Ontological Coaching Series:

• How to Prepare for a Difficult Conversation at Work

• How You Handle Your Weaknesses Shapes Your Workplace Impact

• How Shame Shows Up in the Workplace

• Five Ways to Uncover Your True Self — Exploring Identity

If this article resonated and you'd like to explore what your observer might not be seeing, I work with leaders individually through 1-1 coaching — integrating CliftonStrengths and Ontological Coaching to expand what you can see, and how you lead from there. Connect with me here.

Written by Victor Seet
Activator • Communication • Strategic • Self-Assurance • Command

Frequently Asked Questions About Over-Used Strengths

Q: What does it mean when someone says a CliftonStrengths talent is "over-used"?

A: The phrase is shorthand for a moment when a talent appears to be causing more harm than help. A leader's Command sounds aggressive in a meeting. An Achiever burns out their team by pushing too hard. A Harmony avoids the conflict that needed to surface. Most CliftonStrengths practitioners use the term to describe behaviour that has become unproductive or damaging. Gallup's earlier language for this was Balcony and Basement, and the more recent vocabulary is Help and Hinder. Both are useful frames. Both share a hidden assumption that the talent itself is the variable, and that a person can simply dial it up or down to change the result. This article proposes that the framing may be pointing in the wrong direction.

Q: Why might calling a strength "over-used" be unhelpful?

A: Three reasons, drawn from observing many CliftonStrengths conversations. First, it pathologises identity. A person's top talents describe how their mind is wired. Telling them their talent is a weakness, even contextually, tends to land in the body as something closer to shame than insight. Second, it ignores the deeper system. When a talent appears to be causing damage, what is usually happening underneath is a narrowed observer - a mood that has constricted the person's field of vision, a story they are committed to without realising, or a lack of context-reading skill. The talent is executing faithfully. The observer is what needs to expand. Third, it gives people a rule to follow rather than a capacity to develop. "Don't over-use your Ideation" is a rule, but rules get applied by the same observer that created the problem in the first place. Real growth comes from becoming a wider observer.

Q: What is the Observer and Horizon frame, and how is it different from Balcony-Basement or Help-Hinder?

A: Observer and Horizon is a third frame for thinking about CliftonStrengths talents in context. Balcony and Basement treat a talent as architecture - elevated and productive, or low and unmanaged. Help and Hinder treat a talent as a behaviour - useful in one moment, costly in another. Both place the variable on the talent itself. Observer and Horizon shifts the variable to the person doing the seeing. Every talent is a lens, not a dial. The question is no longer how much talent is being used, but how wide the observer can see in that moment, and what is currently invisible from where they stand. The reframe matters because lenses cannot be turned up or down. They can only be expanded by working on the observer - the language, mood, and body the person is operating from.

Q: If a talent isn't really being "over-used," what is actually happening when it causes problems?

A: Usually one of three things, and none of them are about the talent itself. First, the person is in a particular emotional state that has narrowed their observer. This could be anxiety, shame or distrust, just to name a few. The talent still operates, but without the contextual cues that would normally inform how it gets expressed. Second, the person is committed to a story they may not be aware of. “This team is all over the place. My boss doesn't trust me. We are running out of time.” The talent executes faithfully within the story's logic, and the story is what produces the damaging outcome. Third, the person hasn't yet developed the situational intelligence to read what the moment is asking for. This is the ability to centre themselves and to know when a talent should step forward and when it should step back. In each case, the work is on the observer, not the talent.

Q: How should I respond when I see a leader showing unproductive behaviour around a particular talent?

A: Resist the temptation to name the talent as the problem. Instead, give the observation about the unproductive behaviour, and then shift the question. Rather than asking "Why did you over-use your Activator?" try asking “What mood or state were you in when that situation unfolded?" The first question puts the person on the defensive about something closer to his identity. The second question opens a developmental conversation about what state the person was in. It is a small move in language but it opens an entirely different horizon. That might produce a more honest, more useful conversation than a critique of the talent.

The Hidden Cost of Not Knowing Your People: Why Strengths-Based Coaching Skills Transform How Leaders Develop Their Teams

By Victor Seet, ICF (PCC, ACTC). The world's only coach to hold both the Gallup Gold and Platinum Certified CliftonStrengths Coach awards and Newfield Certified ontological coach. Based in Singapore.

Most managers are working harder than they need to, not because they lack skill, but because they are missing important data.

Every time a manager sits down with a team member to understand what drives them, what holds them back, what they need to thrive, they are starting from scratch. They ask questions. They observe. They make assumptions. They test those assumptions. They revise. And slowly, over months and sometimes years, they begin to develop a picture of the person in front of them.

This process is not wrong. But it is expensive. And in most organisations, it is happening informally, inconsistently, and far too slowly to make a real difference.

CliftonStrengths changes this entirely. And when a manager learns to use it as a coaching tool, the impact is transformative.

As a practitioner who have been training many leaders and managers to embody the coaching mindset and coaching skills, here are two reasons why I make this claim.

Reason 1: CliftonStrengths gives you a map of the person before the conversation even begins

In ontological coaching, there is a foundational concept called the observer. Every person observes the world through a unique lens, shaped by their history, their values, their recurring patterns of thought and emotion. Two people can sit in the same meeting, witness the same event, and walk away with completely different interpretations of what happened. Neither is wrong. They are simply different observers.

The challenge for any manager is this: you cannot coach what you cannot see. And understanding another person's observer - how they think, what they need, what triggers them, what energises them. This takes a great deal of time and intentionality to uncover.

CliftonStrengths accelerates this profoundly.

The 34 CliftonStrengths themes are not labels. They are a detailed map of a person's motivations, needs, emotional triggers, communication preferences, decision-making patterns, and blind spots.

An example: when a manager understands that a team member with the Harmony theme has a deep psychological aversion to conflict, he or she understands that the team member might say “Yes” to a decision not out of agreement but out of a compromise. When their inner world is genuinely disrupted when they detect conflicts, they can go quiet quickly. Knowing these details allow a manager to quickly check-in and make specific interventions when needed. A manager can also use this data specifically to have intentional developmental conversations with the team member.

This is the shift CliftonStrengths makes possible: from assumptions to insight. From generic questions to precise ones.

A manager who knows their team member's CliftonStrengths profile can walk into a conversation with a working hypothesis of what matters most to that person. What energises them. Where they are most likely to overextend. How they are likely to respond under pressure. What language will land, and what will fall flat.

The time this saves is significant. By a conservative estimate, a manager can easily save 15 to 20 hours of exploratory conversations, the kind that would otherwise be spent slowly piecing together an understanding of the person across months of interactions. CliftonStrengths compresses that learning curve and allows the manager to begin coaching at depth far sooner.

Reason 2: When work reviews are seen to be more job centric, adding CliftonStrengths to these conversations can make them more human-centric.

Here is the quiet problem with most performance conversations, work reviews, and developmental discussions: they mostly revolved around the job, not the person.

The agenda for work reviews are typically job-centric.
- What are the KPIs and are the performance targets met?
- What does the role require and does the job holder have clarity?
- What job competencies need to be developed?
- Where are the areas of improvements?

These are legitimate and necessary questions. And the way work reviews are structured often make people perceive that these conversations often focus entirely on the doing - the outputs, the behaviours, the deliverables.

What gets lost is the being.

In ontological coaching, we make a fundamental distinction between what a person does and who a person is being. Doings are the actions and results that are visible. Being is the inner state, the mood, the identity, the self-assessment, from which all action flows. A person can perform the same action from a place of confidence or from a place of fear, and the quality and sustainability of the result will be entirely different.

Most of the work conversations operate entirely at the level of doings. They diagnose what went wrong and prescribe what needs to change. They rarely ask the deeper question: who is this person being, and is that the root of what we are seeing in their performance?

CliftonStrengths has the power of restoring this balance (at least in my opinion).

When a manager brings CliftonStrengths into a work review, the conversation is no longer only about what was delivered. It becomes about who the person is, how their natural talents are showing up, and whether those talents are being channelled toward results or creating friction.

A performance gap that looked like a skill deficit often turns out to be a strength overused. A person with Responsibility burning out because they cannot say no. A person with Learner feeling disengaged because they have not been doing the same job repeatedly and have lost interest. And when leaders dig deeper about the talent expression as over-use, deeper things get surfaced. I’ve written a separate article on over-used strengths.

This reframe is not soft. It is precise. And it opens up a quality of conversation that job-centric reviews simply cannot reach.

When a team member feels seen as a person, not just evaluated as a performer, there is a stronger chance that trust deepens. Engagement also rises when the conversation becomes generative rather than transactional. And the development that follows is sustainable because it is rooted in who the person actually is, not a generic competency framework designed for a role.

What this looks like in practice

There is no need for ICF-level coaching skills. Managers don’t have to be CliftonStrengths certified. It is a fair concern that many might have and it is exactly what my Strengths-Based Coaching Skills programme is designed to address.

The tools and frameworks used in these conversations are practical, structured, and immediately applicable. They do not require years of coaching training. They require a manager who is willing to show up differently, with better questions, a strengths lens, and a simple framework to guide the conversation. A middle manager could pick a tool up and use it in a work review the following week, without needing a sophisticated coaching background or prior training.

The invitation

The gap in most organisations is not CliftonStrengths data.

Organizations require their managers to have the ability to use that data in conversations that actually develop people and genuinely unlock their team's potential.

Organizations now need to do that at scale and have all their managers becoming trained.

The Strengths-Based Coaching Skills program is designed to bridge these two gaps.

If you are ready to build this capability within your organisation, explore Strengths-Based Coaching Skills for Leaders or reach out to me directly.

Continue Reading — The CliftonStrengths Series:

• How to Use CliftonStrengths at Work: A Practical Guide

• CliftonStrengths Leadership Domains Explained

• 8 Reasons to Use CliftonStrengths for Team Building

Ready to take the CliftonStrengths assessment or explore your team’s results with a Gallup Platinum Certified Coach? Connect with me here.

Written by Victor Seet
Activator • Communication • Strategic • Self-Assurance • Command

Victor facilitates teams to leverage their collective strengths, get clear on ways of engagement and ways of working to strengthen team and interpersonal dynamics. Victor specializes in integrating strengths-based and ontological approach into his team coaching and leadership workshops.

How to Prepare for a Difficult Conversation at Work

By Victor Seet, ICF (PCC, ACTC). The world's only coach to hold both the Gallup Gold and Platinum Certified CliftonStrengths Coach awards and Newfield Certified Ontological Coach.. Based in Singapore.

In my previous post, I wrote about the nine fears that make certain conversations feel almost impossible to begin. Fears around conflict, emotional outbursts, losing face, being misunderstood and the list goes on. The response from many of you reminded me that this topic cuts across industries, roles, and relationships.

But awareness alone does not move the needle. After the post, several readers wrote in asking the same follow-up question: “Now that I know what I’m afraid of… what do I actually do?”

So this post is the practical companion to that one. This is the “how to.”

I want to be clear about something before we begin: preparing well does not mean you will not feel the fear. You probably will. But preparation changes your relationship to the fear. Instead of the fear running you, you are running the conversation, at least at the start.

Here are seven things I have seen make a real difference, both from my own coaching experience and from the work of leaders, managers, and individuals I have had the privilege of walking alongside.

1. Name Your Fear First

This is where every difficult conversation must begin, not with the words you will say, but with the fear beneath the words.

Go back to my previous post on Difficult Conversations. Which of the nine fears resonated most with you? Is it the fear of damaging the relationship? The fear of an emotional outburst? The fear of your own shortcomings being exposed?

I coached a senior manager named Raymond (not his real name), who kept delaying a performance conversation with one of his team members. He told me he did not know how to start. But when we explored it together, the real issue was the fear of emotional outbursts. He has seen his own pattern of freezing whenever he does not know how to react to people’s emotions. That really scares him. He is fearful of what happens if the team member breaks down or becomes angry.

Naming that fear did not dissolve it. But it gave Raymond something to work with. Instead of going in blind, he now had something specific to manage.

“We can only intervene effectively when we can see clearly.”

2. Clarify Your Intention

Before you decide what to say, ask yourself a harder question: Why do I want to have this conversation?

This might sound obvious, but in my experience, many people walk into difficult conversations carrying a hidden agenda, sometimes without realising it. They say they want to “clear the air,” but what they really want is to be vindicated. They say they want to “give feedback,” but what they really want is to express their frustration.

There is nothing inherently wrong with those underlying feelings. They are human. But if our intention is unclear even to ourselves, the conversation will almost certainly go sideways.

Ask yourself: What is the outcome I genuinely hope for after this conversation? What might a good result look like for both of us?

When your intention shifts from “I need to say this” to “I want us to reach a better place together,” something changes in the quality of how you show up. The other person feels it, even when they cannot name it.

3. Separate the Facts from Your Story

This is one of the most important distinctions in any difficult conversation, and it is one I often spend time with in my coaching sessions.

Here is what I mean. Imagine a team member being late for the last 3 team meetings despite being asked to be on time. That is the fact. But inside your head, the story might sound something like: “He doesn’t respect our time,” or “He cannot be bothered and he is actively disengaged.” Those are your interpretations, the meaning your mind has made of the data.

When we enter a difficult conversation armed with our stories rather than the facts, we often cause the very reaction we were afraid of. We come in defensive, accusatory, or closed. Usually, when we show up this way, the other person responds in kind.

Prepare by writing down two columns. On the left: What I observed. On the right: What I made it mean. Then ask yourself honestly: Why did I have these interpretations? What might be other possible interpretations? What else could explain the same facts?

This is about giving people the benefit of the doubt and learning to be open. It is about entering the conversation with enough humility to stay curious.

4. Choose the Right Time and Space

I have seen well-prepared conversations fail simply because of poor timing. A good exchange in the wrong context rarely land well.

A conversation about performance does not belong in the hallway between meetings. A conversation about a breach of trust does not belong in the cafeteria over lunch. Sensitive conversations need a setting where the other person feels safe enough to actually hear what you are saying.

I coached an individual, Serene, who finally worked up the courage to address a recurring conflict with her peer. However, she chose to raise it in the middle of a team debrief, with four other colleagues present. Her peer shut down immediately. What could have been a productive conversation became a public confrontation. She thought she finally gave herself permission and courage to raise the issue. While that was a win, she shared that she would have preferred to resolve the conflict and improve the realtionship.

Ask yourself: Where and when will this person be most able to receive what I have to say? Give them enough notice to mentally prepare. Ask gently “Can we find an hour this week to talk privately about something that’s been on my mind?” This action itself already signals respect. It also gives you time to prepare properly.

5. Manage Your Own Emotional State Before You Begin

This one is underestimated. And I say this as someone who has made the mistake of walking into an important conversation still carrying the heat of a previous frustration.

If you are anxious, resentful, or emotionally flooded when the conversation starts, your body will communicate that before your words do. The other person will pick it up. Their nervous system will respond to yours. And suddenly the conversation is happening on an emotional battlefield before a single word has landed.

This does not mean you need to feel calm in order to have the conversation. It means you need to have a basic handle on your internal state.

What helps differs from person to person. For some, it is a short walk. For others, it is writing out their thoughts beforehand. For some leaders I coach, it is a five-minute breathing practice. The point is to create enough internal space so that you can be responsive in the conversation rather than reactive.

Ask yourself before you begin: Am I in a state right now where I can listen as well as speak?

6. Decide Upfront: What Am I Willing to Hear and What do I Need?

This is the preparation step that most people skip. And it is often the one that determines whether the conversation creates genuine change or simply passes the ball from one court to another.

Before you walk in, ask yourself:
- Am I prepared for the possibility that they may have a completely different experience of this situation?
- Am I open to the idea that I may have contributed to the problem?
- What do I need the other person to be or to do right from the start?

Estelle, whom I coached, eventually did have the conversation with her director. But she told me afterwards that the thing she had not prepared for was his feedback. She failed to see that after expressing her concerns, her director also felt in fairness, that he needed to express his concerns too. She had not seen that coming and was unprepared to receive the feedback.

Because she had not prepared herself to receive difficult feedback, she left the conversation feeling more frustrated than when she went in. She acknowledged during our coaching that the conversation went poorly because she had only prepared to give and not to receive.

The most productive difficult conversations are not monologues. They are exchanges. Prepare to speak. But also prepare to listen to something that might surprise you.

7. Prepare Your Opening and Then Let Go of the Script

Finally, I am a firm believer in preparing and set up the conversation.

In ontological distinctions, this is what we call “creating the context”. Some call this “setting up the container”. The basic idea is to set up invisible conditions that will enhance the effectiveness of the conversation. The way we enter a conversation often determines its entire trajectory.

A good opening and set up does a few things:
- It names the purpose of the conversation,
- It clarifies your intention,
- It invites the other person into a common (but invisible) space.
- It includes specific requests that will aid the conversation.

An example of setting a context looks like this:

“Annie, I’ve been thinking a lot about something I want to talk through with you. It’s very important to me, and I want us to be able to work through it together.”

“What I am struggling with is that I might be unable to be clear in my thoughts and end up creating a misunderstanding. I am afraid sharing might end up having the opposite effect. But even though I am struggling, I believe our friendship has been built on being honest with each other. I really care about our relationship and this trust that we have with each other.”

“My request to you is that you can listen beyond my words and see my intentions. Even when you feel uncomfortable during any point of my sharing, I hope you can let me finish what I want to say before asking any questions to clarify.”

“There’s something I’ve been noticing that I haven’t raised yet, and I think it’s affecting our relationship and that bothers me. Can I have permission to share my honest thoughts and concerns with you?”

After preparing the script and possibly writing it down, you can prepare by verbalizing and practicing in front of the mirror.

The final advice after preparation is critical: Now, let go of the script.

Scripted conversations often feel stifling and make the other person feel more guarded. They leave no room for the other person to actually be a participant.

Prepare your opening. Then be present for everything that follows.

Before You Begin

None of these steps will make the conversation easy. I want to be honest about that. There are conversations that will still be hard no matter how well you have prepared. The trembling voice, the racing heart,  they may still show up.

But preparation changes what you are walking into.

Instead of walking into a minefield, you are walking into a conversation you have taken seriously enough to prepare for. That is already a form of courage.

I often remind the leaders and individuals I coach: the conversations we keep avoiding do not disappear. They just compound interest.

The conflict that is not addressed today becomes the resentment that shapes us tomorrow. The underperformance conversation that is delayed becomes the resignation letter that catches you off guard. The unspoken tension in a marriage becomes the distance that neither partner knows how to name.

Difficult conversations are a form of care.

The key meaning of any difficult conversation is this: this relationship, this person really matters to me. I actually care so deeply that my felt emotions are the evidence.

And therefore the conversation is worth preparing for.

Continue Reading — The Communication Series:

• What Makes Difficult Conversations Difficult?

• How Shame Shows Up in the Workplace

• Listening Through Our Mood

• Listening Through Our Five Senses

• A Manager's Guide to Emotions and Conversations at Work

Want support navigating difficult conversations in your team or leadership? Enquire about 1-1 coaching with Victor here.

Written by Victor Seet
Activator • Communication • Strategic • Self-Assurance • Command

Victor facilitates teams to leverage their collective strengths, get clear on ways of engagement and ways of working to strengthen team and interpersonal dynamics. Victor specializes in integrating strengths-based and ontological approach into his team coaching and leadership workshops.

CliftonStrengths vs StrengthsFinder: What’s the Difference? A Singapore Coach Explains

By Victor Seet, ICF (PCC, ACTC). The world's only coach to hold both the Gallup Gold and Platinum Certified CliftonStrengths Coach awards and also a Newfield Certified ontological coach. Based in Singapore.

If you have been searching for a strengths assessment in Singapore, you have probably come across two names — StrengthsFinder and CliftonStrengths.

And if you are like most people I meet in my workshops and coaching sessions, you have been using both terms interchangeably. Many though are not quite sure if they refer to the same thing.

Let me clear this up for you right now: they are the same assessment.

One is the old name. The other is the new name. But there is an important story behind the rename and perhaps understanding it will help you appreciate what this tool is truly about.

This is really one of the most common questions I get asked, especially from HR professionals and leaders here in Singapore who are exploring the tool for the first time.

The Story Behind the Name Change

The assessment was originally created by educational psychologist Don Clifton, who spent decades researching what happens when people focus on what is right with them rather than what is wrong. His research asked a deceptively simple question: “What would happen if we studied what was right with people?”

In the 1990s, Gallup built on his work and launched the assessment commercially as StrengthsFinder. The accompanying book, Now, Discover Your Strengths, became a global bestseller, and the name StrengthsFinder stuck. For years, professionals across Singapore and Asia signed up to take the “StrengthsFinder test” and discover their “top 5 StrengthsFinder themes.”

Then in 2015, Gallup renamed the assessment to CliftonStrengths — a tribute to Don Clifton, who passed away in 2003 and was posthumously named the “Father of Strengths-Based Psychology” by the American Psychological Association. The rename was a deliberate act of honour and recognition.

So when someone in Singapore tells you they “did StrengthsFinder” or “got their CliftonStrengths results”, they are referring to the exact same Gallup assessment. The tool, the methodology, the science, they are all the same. Only the name has changed.

What the Assessment Actually Measures

Here is where I want to take a moment to address a common misconception. Many people assume CliftonStrengths is a personality test. It is not. And that distinction matters a great deal.

CliftonStrengths measures talent themes. These are your natural patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving. These are the recurring ways in which you instinctively respond to the world. The assessment identifies your dominant themes from a library of 34 talent themes, each representing a different kind of human potential.

These 34 themes are also grouped into four leadership domains:

Executing -Talent themes like Achiever, Discipline, and Responsibility. These are the people who make things happen.

Influencing -Talent themes like Activator, Command, and Communication. These are the ones who love to rally others and push boundaries.

Relationship Building - Talent themes like Empathy, Developer, and Relator. These are the connectors who hold teams and families together.

Strategic Thinking - Talent themes like Analytical, Futuristic, and Strategic. These are the ones who love to think, analyze, ideate and consider what could be.

When you complete the online assessment, the assessment creates a ranked list of all 34 themes for you.

If you buy the Top 5 profile, the result will hide the 6-34 ranking and instead only show you your top 5 talents. The Top 5 Profile is the most accessible entry point based on cost. If you buy the full 34 profile, Gallup will show you the ranked list of all 34 themes.

Most people start by focusing on their Top 5, which provide the most accessible entry point. The Top 5 profile is recommended for one-off Team Building session and when budget is a constraint.

When I work with clients who are intentional for long term team or leadership development, I always encourage them to unlock all 34. Knowing the lesser themes helps us understand our blind spots and manage ourselves more intentionally and effectively. For married couples, I will always recommend unlocking the 34 profile.

One thing I often emphasise: your talent themes are not your skills or your knowledge. They are your natural wiring. The goal of CliftonStrengths coaching is to help you invest in those natural talents so that they develop into genuine, productive strengths.

How I Use CliftonStrengths in Coaching

I have been facilitating CliftonStrengths workshops and coaching individuals in Singapore and across Asia for many years. Let me share three examples of how this tool shows up in real coaching conversations.

Example 1: The Leader Who Was Frustrated With His Team

A senior manager came to me because he felt his team was unresponsive and disengaged. He had Activator, Command, and Strategic in his top themes (similar to me!), a combination that drives fast, decisive action. His team, on the other hand, was dominated by Deliberative, Consistency, and Responsibility themes.

What felt like “slow and resistant” to him was actually his team’s natural need for thoroughness and reliability. Once we explored this dynamic together through the CliftonStrengths lens, his frustration gave way to curiosity. He started leading differently. He intentionally give his team more lead time to process decisions, and autonomy. In return, the team began to trust his direction more readily.

Example 2: The Professional Who Doubted Her Own Value

I once coached a woman in Singapore whose top 5 themes were entirely in the Relationship Building domain. She came to me feeling that her strengths were “not the kind that get noticed at work.” She compared herself unfavourably to colleagues with Analytical or Strategic themes.

Through our coaching conversations, she began to see how her Empathy and Developer themes had quietly shaped her team’s morale and retention. Her manager confirmed this in a 360 feedback session. She had been the invisible glue holding the team together, and the CliftonStrengths framework gave her a language to own that contribution with confidence.

Example 3: The Couple Who Could Not Stop Arguing About Chores

Not all my CliftonStrengths work happens in a corporate setting. I also run programmes for couples. One couple came to me stuck in a recurring conflict around household responsibilities. The husband had Adaptability as a top theme, had many relational talents and his first executing talent was ranked at 16. He was often seen to operate without a plan. In contrast, the wife had Responsibility and Discipline high up. The constant frustration was his lack of attention to chores till when piled up. She often perceived him to be passive and does not have ownership over household responsibilities. The accumulation of many small disagreements adds up to a huge breach of trust to her.

Understanding each other’s themes did not resolve the tension overnight. But it gave them a shared vocabulary that replaced blame with curiosity. Instead of “Why do you like to wait till the last minute?”, the conversation became “I now know that you love responding to a change in situation and to attend to needs in the moment.” That shift alone was transformative.

Who Should Consider Taking the CliftonStrengths Assessment?

I am often asked: “Is CliftonStrengths for me?” Here is my honest take.

CliftonStrengths is particularly valuable if you are at a career crossroads. This could mean you are stepping into a new leadership role, navigating a job transition, or trying to figure out what kind of work energises you versus drains you.

It is also powerful if you are a people manager who wants to lead your team with greater intentionality. Understanding the collective talents of your team helps you delegate smarter, resolve conflicts earlier, and build a culture where people feel genuinely seen.

Couples have found it equally transformative. When the people you live with understand each other’s dominant themes, everyday friction often softens into understanding.

However, I want to be honest about one thing: the assessment alone will not change anything. It is just the beginning of the conversation. The real value emerges through honest conversations using the Strengths data, ongoing reflections, and the consistent practice of applying your talents with awareness.

I have seen too many people take the assessment, read the report once, and put it away. That is not how this works.

If you are the kind of person who is genuinely curious about yourself and committed to doing the inner work, CliftonStrengths can be one of the most useful tools you will ever encounter.

Ready to Explore Your Strengths?

If you are keen to explore what your CliftonStrengths results mean for your work, leadership, or relationships, I would love to work with you.

I offer 1-1 CliftonStrengths Coaching for individuals and leaders who want a deeper, more personalised experience of the tool. I also run CliftonStrengths Workshops for teams and organisations looking to build a strengths-based culture.

Whether you are completely new to CliftonStrengths or have done it before and want to finally make sense of your results, please reach out and let’s have a conversation.

Continue Reading — The CliftonStrengths Series:

• How to Use CliftonStrengths at Work: A Practical Guide

• CliftonStrengths Leadership Domains Explained

• 8 Reasons to Use CliftonStrengths for Team Building

Ready to take the CliftonStrengths assessment and explore your results with a Gallup Platninum Certified Coach? Enquire here.

Written by Victor Seet

Activator • Communication • Strategic • Self-Assurance • Command
Victor facilitates teams to leverage their collective strengths, get clear on ways of engagement and ways of working to strengthen team and interpersonal dynamics. Victor specializes in integrating strengths-based and ontological approach into his team coaching and leadership workshops.