Identify the hidden value conflicts behind persistent dissatisfaction, using a structured values audit grounded in coaching practice.
The gap table in Step 4 is where this becomes diagnostic — not just what you value, but how well you're actually living each one. What's your honest guess about where the largest gaps will be before you rate them?
A director who moved from hands-on project management to strategic oversight six months ago. They're performing well but report feeling 'empty' and questioning whether they want to stay in leadership. They think it's about missing the technical work.
Frame this as diagnostic, not aspirational: 'Before we explore what's missing, let's map what actually drives your decisions versus what you think should drive them.' Many newly promoted leaders assume the disconnection is about role content when it's about value misalignment. The promotion changed how they express their values, not which values matter.
Step 1 completion speed reveals the pattern. If they check fewer than 15 values, they're editing based on their new role expectations. If they check 25+ but struggle to narrow in Step 2, they're conflating personal values with professional requirements. Watch whether they write 'leadership' automatically in Step 3.
Start with their Step 4 ratings, not their core five. Ask: 'Which value has the biggest gap between current and ideal?' Then: 'When was the last time you felt that value was fully honored at work?' This usually reveals that the promotion didn't eliminate value expression - it changed the mechanism.
If all five core values rate 6 or below, and the client describes feeling 'numb' rather than frustrated, this may signal depression rather than value misalignment. Severity: moderate. Response: explore whether the emptiness extends beyond work before continuing with action planning.
Third-generation CEO of a manufacturing company considering a sale offer. They've run the business successfully for eight years but feel increasingly conflicted about the decision. Family expects them to preserve the legacy, but they're drawn to other opportunities.
Position this as separating inherited values from chosen ones: 'This isn't about what your family values or what the business requires - it's about what you actually value when no one else's opinion matters.' Expect resistance to the elimination process in Step 3. Legacy business leaders often can't distinguish between values they hold and values they've been taught to hold.
The values they check versus the ones they defend reveal the split. If 'tradition' or 'legacy' appear in Step 1 but not Step 3, note it. If 'family' makes the core five but rates low in Step 4, that's the tension point. Watch for rationalization in the gap descriptions - explaining why the rating should be higher.
Focus on the values that made their core five but aren't being honored. Ask: 'If you could honor [underserved value] fully, what would that look like?' Then: 'Is that possible within the current structure, or does it require a different path?' Don't ask about selling directly - let them connect the dots.
If the client cannot complete Step 3 because 'everything is essential,' or if they rate family loyalty at 9-10 but describe feeling trapped, the values conflict may be too fundamental for coaching alone. Severity: moderate. Response: consider whether family systems work or therapy would better address the loyalty bind.
VP of Sales with strong revenue results but high team turnover. They've been told their 'intensity' is the problem and want coaching on leadership style. They believe they need to learn to motivate people differently but don't want to compromise results.
Frame this as examining what drives the intensity: 'Before we change how you lead, let's understand what you're optimizing for that creates the current dynamic.' Most high-drive leaders resist this tool because they assume their values are obvious. The insight comes from seeing which values they're over-indexing on and which they're ignoring completely.
Achievement, excellence, and results-oriented values will dominate their Step 1 selections. The diagnostic moment is Step 2 - do relationship-oriented values make the top ten? If 'collaboration' or 'respect' appear in Step 1 but not Step 2, that's the blind spot. If they rate achievement at 9-10 but relationships at 4-5, that's the pattern creating turnover.
Start with their lowest-rated value in Step 4. Ask: 'What would it look like to honor [relationship value] without compromising [achievement value]?' Then: 'What assumption are you making about the trade-off between these two?' The breakthrough usually comes when they realize the values aren't competing - their current approach just serves one poorly.
If the client rates all achievement-oriented values at 9-10 and all relationship values below 5, and shows no concern about the pattern, this may indicate a deeper empathy or perspective-taking issue. Severity: low to moderate. Response: continue coaching but assess whether 360 feedback or team input would provide necessary external perspective.
Executive director of a social services nonprofit facing budget constraints that require cutting programs. They're paralyzed between maintaining service levels and ensuring long-term organizational health. Board pressure is increasing and they feel like they're betraying their mission either way.
Present this as clarifying what you're actually protecting: 'You're not choosing between right and wrong - you're choosing between different values that are both important. Let's identify which ones are truly non-negotiable.' Nonprofit leaders often carry inherited mission values that conflict with practical leadership requirements. The tool separates personal values from organizational values.
Mission-related values (service, impact, justice) will appear early and strongly. The key observation is whether sustainability values (responsibility, stability, effectiveness) make their top ten. If 'service' rates 9-10 but 'responsibility' rates 4-5, that's the internal conflict. Watch for guilt or justification in the gap descriptions.
Focus on values that seem to conflict in their rating table. Ask: 'When you think about honoring both [service value] and [sustainability value], what assumptions are you making about how they interact?' Then: 'What would it look like to serve both values, even if the expression looks different than it has before?'
If the client cannot rate any sustainability-oriented values above 3, or describes feeling 'selfish' for considering organizational health, this may indicate martyr complex patterns that extend beyond this decision. Severity: moderate. Response: explore whether the self-sacrifice pattern appears in other areas before focusing on the immediate decision.
I feel stuck in the day-to-day and I've lost sight of what I actually want my life to look like
LifeClient is successful by external measures but cannot articulate why the work feels hollow
LifeClient is achieving goals but feels disconnected from any larger sense of meaning
