Proposal · September 2026
The tool this day runs on
Everything on this page is built on CliftonStrengths 34. Hogan, DISC, MBTI and Aura can be set as the tool for a workshop on request — the day, the conversations and the safeguards stay the same; only the language of the profiles changes. We do not show made-up results for a tool we have not set up with you.
01
Nine people run this plant together. Each of them already has a strengths profile somewhere in a drawer. What they do not have is a shared language for how they work, a habit of saying out loud what they need from each other, or a record of how they actually decide when a decision costs something.
This day is built to produce conversations they have not had yet — using their own assessment results and decisions they genuinely face, not a case study about someone else.
02
Seven blocks between 09:00 and 17:00, each one creating a reason to turn away from the screen and talk. The facilitator advances every step by hand. Nothing moves on a timer.
The facilitator
Opens with the purpose of the day and the ground rules on privacy. Each person already knows their own confirmed profile and the needs underneath it.
On the projector
Blank, then the four official CliftonStrengths domains as a shared vocabulary. No individual is ever shown.
On their phones
Each person reads their own profile privately and picks the one need they most want the room to understand.
The facilitator
Pairs people deliberately and gives each pair their accelerators, their inhibitors, and one question to work through.
On the projector
Holds the question for the pairs, then goes dark while they talk.
On their phones
Each person sees only their own pair view, written for the two of them.
The facilitator
Brings the nine profiles together and lets the group read its own pattern before offering any interpretation.
On the projector
The team's domain mix, the themes most of the group carries, and the themes nobody carries.
On their phones
Nothing. Everyone is looking at the same thing.
The facilitator
Reads out a decision the team recognises, collects private answers, closes the vote, and only then chooses whether to reveal it.
On the projector
The situation, then blank while people answer, then the split — with no names.
On their phones
A private choice, the reason behind it, what the person is protecting, and what they would need to go the other way.
The facilitator
Widens the frame from nine people to three hundred: what this workforce collectively runs on, where that differs from the world, and what the decision just taken feeds or starves.
On the projector
The organisation's domain mix, the themes that are far more and far less common here than elsewhere, and the needs underneath them. Aggregates only, nothing under ten people.
On their phones
Each person sees what their own strengths make easy with this workforce, and what they will have to do deliberately.
The facilitator
Tests the strengths reading against what actually happened in the room, including where the reading was wrong.
On the projector
One finding at a time, with the assumptions behind it stated.
On their phones
A private reflection: what surprised me, and what I now know about how we decide.
The facilitator
Holds the room to three behaviours it will actually carry, and one thing it is asking of the wider organisation.
On the projector
The charter, written live, with the names of everyone who signed it.
On their phones
Each person signs and keeps their own copy.
03
Before the day
During the day
After the day
04
Five kinds of insight, each reviewed before anyone sees it. The examples below come from the sample team on this site: genuine CliftonStrengths 34 results shown under fictional names.
Personal · what I bring and what I need
Operations lead · example only
A careful read of risk before anyone commits. She asks the question nobody else wanted to ask, and she asks it early rather than after the fact.
The needs underneath, confirmed by her
Partnership · Hidayah Rahman and Amir Halim
Between them they cover the two things a commitment needs: someone who tests whether it will hold, and someone who can carry the room with it once it does.
Accelerators
Inhibitors
The question the pair takes away: Amir, what would Hidayah need to see before you have her genuine backing rather than her silence?
Team · the pattern the group makes
Thin across this group: Activator, Competition, Intellection, Significance. Nobody carries these high, so the team decides deliberately who pushes for pace and who insists a decision actually gets made.
Team grid · the whole group on one page
One sheet the room keeps for the rest of the day: every person's top five across the four domains. On the day it deepens to ten and then to all thirty-four, at the facilitator's pace.
| Team member | Executing | Influencing | Relationship Building | Strategic Thinking | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Theme | Achiever | Arranger | Belief | Consistency | Deliberative | Discipline | Focus | Responsibility | Restorative | Activator | Command | Communication | Competition | Maximizer | Self-Assurance | Significance | Woo | Adaptability | Connectedness | Developer | Empathy | Harmony | Includer | Individualization | Positivity | Relator | Analytical | Context | Futuristic | Ideation | Input | Intellection | Learner | Strategic |
| Team rank order | 3 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Hidayah Rahman | · | · | · | · | 1 | · | · | · | 4 | · | · | · | · | · | 3 | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | 5 | 2 | · | · | · | · | · | · | · |
| Amir Halim | · | · | · | · | · | · | 5 | · | · | · | · | 3 | 4 | · | · | · | 2 | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | 1 | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · |
| Noraini Pengiran | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | 2 | · | · | · | · | 1 | · | 5 | · | · | · | · | 4 | · | · | 3 | · |
| Zulkifli Awang | 3 | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | 2 | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | 5 | 4 | 1 | · |
| Siti Marlina | · | · | · | · | 2 | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | 5 | 3 | · | 4 | 1 | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · |
Held by more than one person: Consistency (4), Learner (4), Relator (4), Achiever (2), Adaptability (2). That is what this team defaults to when it is busy — the first conversation is whether that default earned the last good result.
Carried by one person alone in their top five: Achiever · Zulkifli Awang, Analytical · Hidayah Rahman, Communication · Amir Halim. Pockets of excellence, and the second conversation is when the team deliberately brings each of them in.
Decision-making · under pressure
The split is not the point. What matters is that the two people most likely to disagree in the corridor have now disagreed in the room, with a reason attached to each choice.
The question that follows: Whichever way we go, who will find their job harder because of it, and who is going to tell them?
Org DNA · what the decision does to three hundred people
The same strengths data across the wider organisation, as an aggregate. 300 people, summarised as one pattern: Executing 10% · Influencing 21% · Relationship Building 67% · Strategic Thinking 2%.
Compared with gallup cliftonstrengths theme frequency, all countries, 21,749,980 respondents, Includer, Connectedness, Adaptability are far more common here, and Achiever, Learner, Responsibility far less. That is this organisation's signature, not a common pattern.
Hold the date. Extend the swings and push through.
At least 6% energised · at least 88% likely to pull back
Feeds something worth winning, a clear, single priority. Starves a settled room, room to move, real one-to-one trust, to be treated as an individual.
Reset the date publicly and rebuild the plan with the crews.
At least 88% energised · at least 6% likely to pull back
Feeds a settled room, everyone in the room, a reason that matters, real one-to-one trust, to be treated as an individual. Starves something worth winning, a clear, single priority.
Aggregates only, and every figure is a floor taken from the largest single need on each side. Nothing here predicts what any individual will do, and no group smaller than ten is reported separately.
See the full sample team or walk through the day step by step.
05
Nine people describing how they work using the same four domains, so a difference becomes a fact to work with rather than a personality clash.
Each pair leaves knowing what accelerates them and what quietly costs them, and the one practice that changes it.
The strengths nobody carries are visible, so the group can decide deliberately who covers them instead of hoping somebody does.
The trade-offs the team protects under pressure are on the record, including where the group is genuinely divided.
The collective strengths picture of three hundred people, so the team can see which of its decisions inspires that workforce and which quietly disengages it — before the decision is announced.
Three behaviours and nine names — written in the room, not handed to it.
06
07
Nobody can price a conversation before it happens, so BLNG does not have to. No fee is agreed before the day. The day runs in full, nothing withheld. Afterwards the L&D head names the figure.
The invoice request lists what BLNG actually received. The fee is set against this list, not against a market rate.
08
The next step is a short conversation about the two or three decisions the team is genuinely facing. Those become the decisions used in the room, which is what turns the day from an assessment debrief into a working session.