1:1 SDC Deep Dive – six months for your most important decision

More shared responsibility instead of constant overload

Starting point

A team lead in an IT services company with around 40 employees handled nearly every escalation herself. Her dominant CliftonStrengths® themes included Responsibility, Restorative and Empathy.

Work in coaching

We examined when Responsibility served her well – and when it tipped into over-responsibility. She then introduced a binding handover rule and a weekly workload check.

Observable outcome

After eight weeks she reported having her evenings reliably to herself again. At the same time, two team members visibly took on more responsibility.

How to read this

These statements rest on the client's own report and observed changes in daily work, not on a controlled comparison measurement.

From nine offers to one clear portfolio

Starting point

An independent consultant wanted to reposition her offer after twelve years in the profession. Her pronounced talents Ideation, Strategic and Significance produced many attractive options – and a portfolio that was hard to understand.

Work in coaching

We connected her talent patterns with her value priorities and developed clear decision criteria for audience, impact and economic viability.

Observable outcome

She reduced her portfolio from nine to three core offers. In the client conversations that followed she reported fewer price negotiations and clearer positioning.

How to read this

This outcome is also an anonymised self-report. It documents individual transfer, not a general or causal effect of the assessments used.

CliftonStrengths®: making talents visible and discussable

CliftonStrengths® captures recurring patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving and maps them onto 34 talent themes. Gallup describes the assessment as a development instrument – not a clinical diagnosis, aptitude test or complete description of a personality.

A Gallup meta-analysis on strengths-based interventions examined links to sales, profit, customer and employee retention, turnover and safety. Gallup reports, among other figures, profit differences of 14.4 to 29.4 %, sales differences of 10.3 to 19.3 % and 22 to 59 % fewer safety incidents between the groups studied. These values come from organisational group data and are not a guarantee of results for individual coaching.

A further Gallup analysis of CliftonStrengths® 34 covers 34 studies, 30 organisations, 187,291 people, 13 industries and 37 countries. Gallup documents structure, quality criteria and intended use in its scientific overview.

Source: Gallup – Strengths-Based Employee Development Meta-Analysis · Gallup – Effect of CliftonStrengths 34 Feedback · Gallup – Science of CliftonStrengths

Transparency note: These studies were published by Gallup itself. They are vendor research and are not equivalent to a fully independent evaluation.

profilingvalues: values, motivation and perceived capabilities

profilingvalues is a value-metric procedure based on Robert S. Hartman's value science. It makes value priorities, motivation, perceived capabilities and possible tensions discussable. PurposeCoach® uses the result as a structured basis for conversation – never as the sole basis for hiring, promotion or aptitude decisions.

The provider describes the procedure as scientifically validated and points to its methodological foundations.

We therefore phrase it precisely: profilingvalues is a vendor-validated, value-metric reflection instrument. In coaching, its results are checked against dialogue, context and observable behaviour.

Source: profilingvalues.com · profilingvalues Academy

Transparency note: What is publicly available is mainly information from the provider. As long as no freely accessible independent validation study with sample, reliability and validity measures exists, we do not claim 'scientifically proven effectiveness'.