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

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.