Strengths Inventory

A senior manager has been promoted twice in three years based on strong execution. She describes her work as 'going well' but feels like she's working harder than she should for the outcomes she produces. When asked what she's genuinely good at versus what she's learned to be good at, she pauses for a long time. Her current role was built around organizational needs, not around her actual strengths.

Frame the distinction upfront: 'Competence and strength are not the same thing. You can be competent at something that drains you and a strength is something that energizes you while you do it. This inventory maps five strengths and then asks how much of your current role uses them. The use rating (1-10) is the key number - not how good you are at something, but how often the role actually pulls for it.'

Watch for strengths named at high competence levels (9-10 Current Use) that the client lists without any evidence or example - these may be strengths-by-reputation rather than genuine energizers. The evidence field is diagnostic: vague examples ('I'm good with people') versus specific ones ('I can walk into a room where two senior stakeholders are in conflict and find the third option they haven't named') reveal whether the client knows her strengths from the inside or is reporting from feedback.

Start with the Most Underutilized Strength section. 'Read me what you wrote in the example/evidence field for that strength.' Then: 'If your role used that strength 30% more, what would be different about how you show up to work?' The before-session prompt assigns deploying the underused strength once - ask how that went and what she noticed about her energy during it versus her normal work.

A 38-year-old attorney is leaving law after 12 years to move into an advisory or consulting role. She knows what she's moving away from but struggles to articulate what she brings to a non-legal context. Her identity has been tightly coupled to her professional title and she can't see her strengths as separate from the legal context in which they've been demonstrated.

Position this as a translation tool. 'Your strengths are not legal skills - they are things you do that happen to be expressed in a legal context. This inventory separates the strength from the domain. When you name a strength and then write the evidence, we want examples from your legal work that illustrate something transferable - not the legal knowledge itself, but the underlying capacity.' The 1-10 current use rating is secondary here; the evidence examples are the primary output.

Watch for strengths named in legal terminology - 'contract analysis,' 'regulatory interpretation,' 'litigation strategy' - these are domain skills, not transferable strengths. Push for the underlying capacity: 'What is it that makes you good at contract analysis? What do you actually do when you read a contract that others miss?' The answer to that question is the transferable strength. If she struggles to go beneath the domain label, she may not yet have separated her identity from the profession.

Take each of the five strengths and ask: 'Where would this show up in an advisory context?' This is the translation exercise. Then look at the current use ratings - if several strengths are rated at 3 or 4 in her current role, that's a useful reframe: she's been underusing her actual strengths in law, which explains part of the depletion. The new path isn't just a change of scene; it might actually be a better structural fit.

A director is required by HR to create a formal development plan. He's done the 360 feedback process and has a list of 'areas for growth' that feel externally imposed rather than personally motivating. He is going through the motions on the development plan and has no genuine investment in it. He agreed to include strengths work in coaching because it felt less threatening than more feedback.

Use the strengths inventory to create the contrast that makes the development plan meaningful. 'Before we look at what the 360 says you need to work on, let's map what you're actually good at and how much of your current role uses those strengths. If we know where your natural energy is, we can build development goals that amplify your strengths rather than just patching gaps.' This framing makes the subsequent development conversation more viable.

Watch whether the strengths he names align with or contradict the 360 feedback themes. If his top-rated strength is interpersonal influence but the 360 flagged listening and empathy, explore the gap. It's possible he's strong at a version of influence that doesn't include the empathy component - and that's more specific and actionable than 'work on empathy.' Also watch for low current use ratings across multiple strengths: a leader who is underusing most of his strengths in his role will not be energized by a development plan.

Start with the underutilized strength and ask: 'Your development plan is going to ask you to build something. Would you rather build it starting from this strength, or starting from the gap the 360 identified?' Most clients choose the strength - which gives you the architecture for a development goal that's both genuine and organizationally defensible. Then check: 'What would the 360 feedback look like six months from now if this strength were being deployed at a 9 instead of a 4?'