Values Affirmation Exercise

A VP at a professional services firm has been making decisions she describes as 'the right call strategically' but that leave her feeling hollowed out afterward. She approved a restructuring that eliminated roles she believed were valuable. She agreed to a client engagement she had reservations about. She frames each decision as a necessary compromise. In coaching she says she doesn't know what she's compromising — she just knows something feels off.

Position this as a diagnostic rather than a values clarification exercise. 'You've been naming the feeling but not what's underneath it. This worksheet builds paired statements across four categories — what you are, what you'll do, what you can do, and what you want. Completing them often surfaces the specific value the decision violated.' The resistance to watch for: clients who are analytically oriented often experience values-affirmation language as soft or aspirational. Name this early: 'I'm not asking you to write what you aspire to be. I'm asking what's actually true about you when you're operating well.'

Look for inconsistency between the I AM and I WILL categories. A client who writes 'I AM committed to developing people' but writes nothing in I WILL about how she acts on that commitment is showing you where the gap lives. Also watch the I CAN category — clients who write strong I AM statements but thin I CAN statements are often experiencing a capability or authority constraint rather than a values misalignment.

Start with the I AM statements. 'Read me the one that felt most true when you wrote it.' Then compare it to the decision that left her feeling hollow: 'How does that statement sit next to what you agreed to in the restructuring?' The goal is not to second-guess the decision but to make the value that was in tension visible. Once named, the client can work with it consciously rather than experiencing it as vague discomfort.

A director at a rapidly growing startup has been in the role eighteen months. In the first six months, he described a clear sense of what kind of leader he wanted to be. Over the following year, as the pace accelerated, the executive team's expectations intensified, and several leadership decisions were made by the CEO over his head, his language about his own leadership has gradually shifted — he describes himself now in terms of what the organization needs rather than what he brings. His coach has noticed the shift but the client hasn't.

This tool works here as a recalibration exercise — not against the organization's expectations but alongside them. 'Before we plan what you're going to do next quarter, I want to map who you are when you're leading well. Not the job description — your language, your commitments, what you actually stand for.' Clients who have been shaped by organizational pressure often resist this because it highlights the distance between where they are and where they started. Name that: 'This isn't a performance review. It's a compass check.'

Watch whether the client's statements are written in his own voice or in the language of the organization. 'I AM aligned with our mission' is an organizational statement; 'I AM someone who tells my team the truth even when the message is uncomfortable' is a personal one. The difference is significant — organizational language in personal values statements often signals that the client has absorbed the culture's self-description rather than his own. Also watch whether the I WANT category produces any statements that surprise him.

After he completes the worksheet, read one statement from each category aloud and ask: 'Does this sound like you, or does it sound like what they want from you?' The distinction usually emerges quickly. Then: 'Which of these statements did you last act on? When?' This grounds the values in behavior rather than aspiration.

A senior consultant is returning from a 14-month parental leave. Before leaving, she had a clear professional identity and a well-established set of working commitments. She is three months back and describes feeling like a different person in the same role. She has different priorities, different tolerances, and different things she is no longer willing to do. She wants coaching on 'reintegration' but what she's describing is a values realignment.

Frame this as a documentation exercise for what has already changed, not a design exercise for what should change. 'You're describing a values shift that already happened. The worksheet gives you a way to write it down so you know what you're actually working with.' The resistance here is often internal — clients in this situation frequently feel guilty about changed commitments or worry that naming them will make them real in a way that creates professional risk. Name that directly: 'Writing it down doesn't mean you have to announce it. It means you're working from accurate information about yourself.'

Watch the I WILL category carefully — this is where the new commitments and the old commitments come into sharpest contrast. A client who writes 'I WILL leave work by 5:30 to collect my child' alongside 'I WILL be available to clients whenever needed' has a conflict in the I WILL category that she may not have examined explicitly. The worksheet often makes these conflicts visible in a way that conversation alone doesn't.

Start with I WANT — this category tends to be the most honest for clients who are reorienting, because it's less constrained by what they think they're supposed to say. 'Read me the I WANT statements. Which of these is new since you came back?' From there, compare the I WANT statements to the I AM statements: 'What would you have to become to act on what you want?' This opens the identity question without framing it as a loss.