Your weekly poem: ALONE—or no man’s an island?

Your weekly poem: ALONE—or no man’s an island?

🌿 A poem a day keeps the blues away… 

On this blessed Good Friday, Maya Angelou’s poem ALONE came to mind.

ALONE

🌻 Alone
Lying, thinking
Last night
How to find my soul a home
Where water is not thirsty
And bread loaf is not stone
I came up with one thing
And I don’t believe I’m wrong
That nobody,
But nobody
Can make it out here alone.

Alone, all alone
Nobody, but nobody
Can make it out here alone.

There are some millionaires
With money they can’t use
Their wives run round like banshees
Their children sing the blues
They’ve got expensive doctors
To cure their hearts of stone.
But nobody
No, nobody
Can make it out here alone.

Alone, all alone
Nobody, but nobody
Can make it out here alone.

Now if you listen closely
I’ll tell you what I know
Storm clouds are gathering
The wind is gonna blow
The race of man is suffering
And I can hear the moan,
‘Cause nobody,
But nobody
Can make it out here alone.

Alone, all alone
Nobody, but nobody
Can make it out here alone.🌻

—Maya Angelou

 

Creative, resourceful, and whole

🪴 There’s a persistent belief in coaching—not sure where it originated—that clients are creative, resourceful, and whole.

I always struggled with that mantra, but it took me some time to figure out why.

It sounds amazing, and it’s one of those mantras we sure as heck want to be true. But the question is, is it?

Creativity and resourcefulness sit on a continuum—some have it more than others. But I do believe that we all carry a seed of both. How that seed develops, and how it shows up in action, will greatly vary…

Wholeness, on the other hand, is rooted in this modern-day thinking that we can be anything we want to be, and do anything we want to do, all on our own, if we only put our mind to it. Bollocks. No man is an island. And no talents are infinite.

Relational coaching practices try to tone this idea down by acknowledging the importance of the coach-client relationship, and the coach’s use-of-self as an instrument of change. And yet, we still hold on to the idea of “wholeness” as an individual trait, rather than a communal one.

Why are we so afraid to admit that each one of us has limits?
That no one can be everything to everyone.
That my talents have limits.
My creativity has limits.
My resourcefulness has limits.
My knowledge has limits.
My resilience has limits.

And once we accept that—that we, human beings, have limits—we start to understand that we can only become WHOLE with one another.

“No human being is ‘whole’ in and of itself”

🪴 And I’m not the first one to propose such a sacrilegious hypothesis. I attended a brilliant webinar on existential analysis by Kate Hammer earlier this year, in which she shared the following quote by existential clinical psychologist, psychotherapist, and close collaborator of Viktor Frankl—Alfried Längle, who said:

“According to existential analysis no human being is ‘whole’ in and of itself, even if healthy and with all drives satisfied. A human being as a person needs to transcend themselves and to turn to others (people, projects, tasks) in order to achieve existential fulfilment.”

Imagine my relief when I realised I wasn’t alone in my thinking. Which in itself proves Angelou’s point:

We need one another. We complement one another. We build on one another. We nurture one another. We protect one another. Fill in the blanks…

“Alone, all alone
Nobody, but nobody
Can make it out here alone.”

🪴 In today’s world, with the fires blazing across my beloved Middle East, Maya’s words pierce through the silence:

“Storm clouds are gathering
The wind is gonna blow
The race of man is suffering
And I can hear the moan,
‘Cause nobody,
But nobody
Can make it out here alone.”

Man is no island. Mankind is a highly sophisticated root system—similar to the mycorrhizal network—a Wood Wide Web—or in our case, a Soul Wide Web: connected, woven like a tapestry. Because when it tears somewhere, everyone hurts…

📌 Your turn… 

  • What do you know to be your limits?
  • Who completes you? Go and be with them!
  • What completes you? Go and do it!

🦋 A blessed Good Friday everyone! 🦋

With love,

Dina 🫶🏽

 

PS : all em dashes are my own ;).

Resources:

  • This week’s song is The Power of Love, cover by Josh Krajcik

“”All models are wrong”: what did George Box actually mean?

“”All models are wrong”: what did George Box actually mean?

There are so many quotes out there that we repeat and assume to understand, and then all of a sudden, we discover them in their wider context, and they gain a completely new meaning… That’s what happened to me with George E. P. Box’s quote:

“All models are wrong, but some are useful”. (1987, p. 424)

 

 

 

 

 

Confession time: I used to use this quote as a reason to dismiss most psychological models. They can in no way reflect the complexity of the human mind or spirit—therefore, wrong, therefore, dispensable… After all, if a renowned statistician admits models are wrong, why should I bother? Yes, I admit, it was a relatively cynical view.

What Box actually meant

But then I got curious about that quote and discovered that earlier in his book, on page 74, Box wrote:

“Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful.”

Reading the p.424 quote in light of p.74 reframes it entirely—at least for me. Here’s how I now understand Box’s words:

Models are a simplification of a phenomenon so it can be somewhat grasped by our limited brain cells and become practical. Think of our models for the human body and how it functions; the universe; and so on.

“All models are wrong”

Obviously. They have to be wrong by definition, as they are a simplification of the “real thing” and as such do not represent or encompass the whole thing in its full form or complexity… ergo, all models are wrong. And yet we need models to be able to somewhat comprehend ourselves and the world we live in.

So, knowing that models are just that—models—Box goes on to ask: “the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful.” In other words, how far off from the real thing do they have to be to no longer serve their intended purpose?

One could argue that Box is not questioning models per se, but rather inviting us to think about what margin of error we are willing to accept—and when a gap to reality becomes too wide to be of any use. It seems to me that Box was really a pragmatist, advocating we use the models we have until better ones come along.

Now—another confession: I am neither a statistician, nor a mathematician, nor a George E. P. Box expert. But I love quotes and am always curious where they actually come from. Which is probably why I kept digging and found this, in a journal from 1976, p. 792:

Worry selectively

“Since all models are wrong the scientist cannot obtain a ‘correct’ one by excessive elaboration. (…) Just as the ability to devise simple but evocative models is the signature of the great scientist so overelaboration and overparameterization is often the mark of mediocrity”

Followed by:

“Worry selectively. Since all models are wrong the scientist must be alert to what is importantly wrong. It is inappropriate to be concerned about mice when there are tigers abroad.”

In other words, overcomplicating a model or trying to make it as “complete” as possible is unhelpful. But also, that not all errors in a model deserve equal attention—we should focus on the ones that actually matter instead. Interesting thoughts, especially for someone like me who loves to get lost in the details of things.

Four statements, same author, same thread of thought—each one adding a layer to the others. Together, they paint a portrait of a rigorous but deeply pragmatic mind. Love it!

 

Now it’s your turn

📌  What’s your experience of Box’s quote? How would you interpret it?

📌  Any other quotes you’ve come across that took on a completely different meaning once you explored their original context?

With love,

Dina 🫶🏽

PS: All em dashes are my own.

References:

Box, George E. P. (1976), “Science and statistics” (PDF), Journal of the American Statistical Association71 (356): 791–799, doi:10.1080/01621459.1976.10480949.)

Box, George E. P.; Draper, Norman Richard (1987). Empirical model-building and response surfaces. Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics. Page 424. New York: Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-81033-9. –> “The fact that the polynomial is an approximation does not necessarily detract from its usefulness because all models are approximations. Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.”

Part 2: So, you’ve had a CliftonStrengths team workshop. Now what?

Part 2: So, you’ve had a CliftonStrengths team workshop. Now what?

In my previous article, I explored what really happens in a CliftonStrengths team workshop—and why it so often reveals much more than just people’s strengths.

The buzzing energy in the room when people start to really “see” each other is addictive; as is the shift that takes place when people realise that what looked like a personality clash in a team is very often strengths colliding. And because we look at those dynamics through a strengths lens, even difficult conversations become constructive.

But here’s the thing. These insights only have value if you do something with them after the workshop ends.

You’ve had your workshop.
Your team had a great time.
People learned something new about each other.
There was probably a moment or two of genuine recognition—“oh, so that’s why you keep insisting we assess risks” or “oh, so that’s why we kept clashing on this project”.

And then everyone goes back to their desks.
Now what?

That’s the question I tackle at the end of every workshop I run. And my answer is always the same:

CliftonStrengths journeys are marathons, not sprints. And a workshop is a starting point, not a destination.

The real value doesn’t live in the event itself—it lives in what you build afterwards, making your initial investment ten times more effective.

Working with many different teams, I’ve come to think of this as three layers of practice that build on each other: 1) individual ownership, 2) the manager conversation, and 3) team amplification. Each layer depends on the one before it. Skip a layer, and you’ve built a Leaning Tower of Pisa.

Here’s how it works.

Layer 1: Individual ownership

Many teams want to jump straight from the workshop to embedding strengths into their everyday work. The ambition is exactly right—but for most teams, it’s too big a leap to start there.

The reason is simple: you can’t build a strengths-based team out of people who don’t yet fully understand their own strengths. Individual ownership is the foundation. Without it, team-level conversations stay surface-level. In fact, I often recommend teams (if time and budget allows) to start at that individual level first before any workshops.

When every team member genuinely understands their own profile—how they prefer to build relationships, influence others, process information, and get work done—that’s half the battle won. They now have a language for things they previously couldn’t articulate. They start to see their patterns more clearly: what energises them, what drains them, where they naturally excel, and where they tend to overcorrect—and, more importantly, the possible whys behind it all.

It also hands them something powerful: agency. Suddenly they can take ownership of their own development: in their next check-in with you, when deciding which project to volunteer for, what support they may need, or what training to pursue next.

This means that beyond the workshop itself, it’s worth investing in helping each team member truly explore and own their report. Ideally with the support of a certified coach—because that’s where the real depth happens. Not just understanding what each theme means, but how themes interact with each other: amplifying each other, balancing each other out, expanding each other’s power—and occasionally how they may drive you and others a little crazy.

No budget for individual coaching? No problem. Gallup has an extensive library of resources—podcasts, YouTube videos, articles—covering every CliftonStrengths theme in depth.

And there are simple, visible ways to keep strengths present in everyday life too. Team members can add their Top 5 or Top 10 themes to their e-mail signature. And, if you’re co-located, a team strengths grid on the office wall becomes a surprisingly meaningful conversation starter.

Layer 2: The manager conversation

Individual ownership sets the foundation. And the single most powerful thing a manager can do to build on it is this: show genuine interest in your team members and have a strengths conversation with each one of them, one-on-one.

And the good news: it doesn’t require anything elaborate. You don’t need access to their CliftonStrengths report. You don’t need to be a certified coach. All you need is genuine curiosity, good intention—and the right questions.

None of this is theoretical. I’ve personally experienced how this kind of conversations can shift whole dynamics, relationships, and performance in teams. A manager who takes the time to ask “what do you do best, and are we actually using that?” says: I see you. I care about you. And I want to enable you to work at your best and to grow. That’s the foundation of trust. And trust is what lubricates your team’s engine and makes everything else in a team possible.

Part of what I offer is preparing managers for exactly this kind of conversation. To that end, I’ve developed The Strengths Conversation Guide—a practical tool with 20 questions designed to open up honest, constructive dialogue between managers and their team members.

A few examples:

  • What do you love most about your role?
    – What activities do you pick up quickly?
    – What brings you the greatest satisfaction?
  • Which tasks do you enjoy least—past or present?
    – Why? What makes them less enjoyable?
    – How does this connect to your strengths profile?
  • How would you like to be supported in your work?
    What factors distract or get in the way of your best work? How can I help minimise those?
    – Do you have talents that could benefit the team if you had better opportunities to use them?
    – What steps can I take to ensure you have opportunities to apply your natural talents to your role?

One more thing worth naming: unless your team member specifically expresses a wish to work on a weakness, your greatest leverage as a manager to support their success is to help them develop their strengths—and manage around their weaknesses.
What does that look like in practice?
Invest your development budget in helping your people go from good to great, and from great to exceptional:
– Have a team member who enjoys giving presentations? Pay for a membership at a local Toastmasters club.
– One of your team members is particularly talented in “getting things done”? See if they may be interested in a PMP or Agile certification.
The return on investment will almost always outperform the return on shoring up what doesn’t come naturally (unless that’s what the employee really wants).

Layer 3: Team amplification

With individual ownership in place and the manager conversation underway, you have everything you need to take strengths to the team level—and this is where it gets genuinely exciting.

Beyond the initial workshop, I encourage team members to have informal one-on-one conversations with each other to explore their strengths together: where are we similar? Where are we different? Where could we complement each other? Nothing formal or structured—just a relaxed conversation over a cup of tea or coffee. I often start teams on this path during the initial workshop itself, but the real power lies in keeping these conversations going long afterwards.

Team meetings are another natural home for strengths—and an often underused one. Most teams have a standing meeting rhythm already; the question is whether strengths can become part of the conversation.

– When a team is preparing to take on a new project, a question like: “looking at our collective strengths, where are we well placed, where might we have blind spots, and who on the team can help with those?” can change the quality of the planning conversation entirely.
– When tensions arise or a decision goes sideways, asking “where did our strengths collide or go on overdrive?” reframes blame and opens up a very different kind of dialogue.

These don’t need to be long detours. Even five minutes of strengths-informed reflection in a regular team meeting, done consistently, builds a shared language over time and a new way of working.

For more structured amplification, follow-up workshops are a powerful option. Two of my favourites (though there are many more):

  • What I bring, what I need. Each team member shares two things: what they contribute to the team through their strengths, and what they (and their strengths) need from their colleagues in order to work at their best. It’s a remarkably honest exercise—and it shifts the team dynamic from assumption and underlying conflicts to explicit mutual understanding, respect, and accountability.
  • The talent marketplace. Team members name where they need support on a current challenge or task, and colleagues volunteer help based on their own natural strengths. It turns the team’s collective talent into a living, shared resource. And it can surface combinations of strengths that no one had thought to put together before.

All of these suggestions work because they build directly on layer 1: they only have depth if individuals already understand and own their profiles. And they work best when the manager is genuinely invested in the process and knows their team members’ strengths and preferences. That’s why the sequence matters.

Now, it’s your turn

The teams I’ve seen get the most out of CliftonStrengths are the ones who treated their initial workshop as just the beginning— and kept going. Individual ownership. The manager conversation. Team amplification. Three layers, each building on the last. It’s a marathon, not a sprint—and, in my experience, one of the most rewarding journeys a team can take together.

📌 What are some of your favourite ways to keep the strengths conversation alive after the initial workshop?

I’d love to hear what’s worked, and what hasn’t.

With love,

Dina 🫶🏽

PS: All em dashes are my own.

Recommended resources: 

Part 1: Are CliftonStrengths team workshops worth it?

Part 1: Are CliftonStrengths team workshops worth it?

One of the most common reasons teams contact me to run CliftonStrengths workshops is this: they want to strengthen team spirit and help team members get to know each other from a different perspective.

But very often, the real value of these conversations lies somewhere else.

Business and HR leaders are not just looking for a one-off “feel-good event”. They’re looking for a practical way to help their teams communicate better, understand each other better, and manage pressure and workload more effectively.

Now, I’m normally not a big fan of psychometrics.

Many of these tools can feel like they place people in boxes that are a little too neat, and a little too tight for comfort.

That hasn’t been my experience with CliftonStrengths.

I first encountered it while recovering from a burnout eleven years ago. It gave me a new perspective on how I show up in the world. More importantly, it didn’t make me feel boxed in. Instead, it opened up a conversation with my coach at the time, Gaby Lederer-Ganse, about some of my natural talents—and allowed me to define for myself how they show up in the world, while recognising that this is only one piece of the much larger puzzle of “who I am”.

That experience led me to become a certified CliftonStrengths coach through Gallup (the organisation behind the assessment). I also became the first (and only) certified internal coach at my former employer. Back then, there was little demand for CliftonStrengths. Most teams opted for the DISC profile instead, which I personally disliked (but that’s a topic for another post…).

Then COVID hit. And suddenly, many line managers were looking for new ways to bring their teams together during a very challenging period.

Common criticisms to CliftonStrengths

Now, I’m well aware that CliftonStrengths has its critics.

Sometimes I see people question its validity, even though Gallup is considered to be a highly reputable and trusted source for public opinion polling, social research, and workplace analytics, and is known for its rigorous scientific methods. Having said that, I do concede that many of the validation studies have been conducted and reported by Gallup itself, rather than independent academic researchers, which may understandably lead to some skepticism.

However, a much more common critique I’ve seen is that it’s “too positive”—that it only talks about strengths and ignores weaknesses.

So let’s dispel that myth right away.

CliftonStrengths is not just about strengths.

What actually happens in a CliftonStrengths workshop

When I do individual report debriefs and run team strengths workshops, we certainly explore your strengths—i.e., your preferred ways to get things done, influence, analyse information, make decisions, and build relationships. In other words, the lenses through which you see and interact with the world around you.

But we also look at something equally important: how those same strengths can sometimes get in the way. How they can drive you—and other people—crazy when they are overused or go on “overdrive”.

  • The colleague whose stamina and drive for getting things done start making it feel like work matters more than people.
  • The colleague who keeps analysing when others want to decide.
  • The one who pushes for action while others still want to manage risks.
  • The one who keeps changing targets and plans when others just want to move forward with “a” plan.

We also explore the themes at the bottom of your report—the ones that don’t come as naturally to you but may come very naturally to others on the team.

Looking at these perspectives helps teams understand why tensions or friction may arise—especially in times of pressure and stress.

What looks like a personality problem in teams might be strengths colliding...

And because we look at all of this through a strengths lens, even conversations about weaknesses become constructive. Why? Because the focus shifts from deficiency to difference, and from blame to understanding.

When teams become aware of these dynamics, it becomes much easier to assume positive intent and give each other the benefit of the doubt when things go sideways.

So, to answer my own question…

Are CliftonStrengths team workshops worth it?

After having designed and led many CliftonStrengths team workshops, yes—I do believe they are worth it.

While psychometrics as a scientific discipline is complex and debated, the value of tools like CliftonStrengths in my work lies more in creating structured conversations that help teams understand and collaborate with each other.

But this comes with a caveat.

If a strengths workshop is treated as a one-off exercise, you and your team may end up investing a substantial amount of time and money simply to have “a good time”. And there is certainly value in that!

However, if you want more sustainable results and a real impact, you want to find ways to embed the strengths philosophy into your way of working as a team.

It then becomes a marathon, not a sprint.

That starts with each team member truly understanding and owning their individual CliftonStrengths report—whether they do so with the help of a coach, through their own exploration of the many online resources available, or both.

Just as importantly, the conversation needs to stay alive within the team.

How you may ask?

That will be the topic of my next blog post on the topic.

Now, it’s your turn…

If you’ve been part of a CliftonStrengths team workshop, I’d love to hear: what worked? what didn’t?

If you’ve taken CliftonStrengths yourself, I’d love to know: what surprised you most when you first saw your results?

And, if you’re curious about what a strengths conversation could open up for you or your team, feel free to reach out. No obligation—just a conversation about what new perspectives and opportunities this kind of exploration might offer.

With love,

Dina 🫶🏽

PS : all em dashes are my own.

Your weekly poem: CAGED BIRD—or the world of coaching in the advent of AI

Your weekly poem: CAGED BIRD—or the world of coaching in the advent of AI

🌿 A poem a day keeps the blues away… 

I’ve just come out of an Association for Coaching AI Virtual café session that left me feeling both angry and depressed… I will probably be writing an article about it at some point, but I’m not ready yet. What I can offer you today is raw. And then I remembered Angelou’s poem.

So, I’m offering you her poem as a way to express how I feel right now towards the coaching profession in general, and AI coaching agents specifically.

 

CAGED BIRD

🌻 A free bird leaps
on the back of the wind
and floats downstream
till the current ends
and dips his wing
in the orange sun rays
and dares to claim the sky.

But a bird that stalks
down his narrow cage
can seldom see through
his bars of rage
his wings are clipped and
his feet are tied
so he opens his throat to sing.

The caged bird sings
with a fearful trill
of things unknown
but longed for still
and his tune is heard
on the distant hill
for the caged bird
sings of freedom.

The free bird thinks of another breeze
and the trade winds soft through the sighing trees
and the fat worms waiting on a dawn bright lawn
and he names the sky his own.

But a caged bird stands on the grave of dreams
his shadow shouts on a nightmare scream
his wings are clipped and his feet are tied
so he opens his throat to sing.

The caged bird sings
with a fearful trill
of things unknown
but longed for still
and his tune is heard
on the distant hill
for the caged bird
sings of freedom. 🌻

—Maya Angelou

 

Caged…

… in the belief that simulation is as good as reality. That placing words next to each other based on statistical probability is the same as two human beings making meaning together.

… in the belief that relationship is secondary. In the reduction of relational coaching to having a “nice relationship”—as if presence were decoration, only needed at the beginning of a session.

… in the doubt of our own value, experience, and humanity—so much so—that we think AI can emulate our “knowledge”, as if we were walking encyclopaedias to be downloaded for greater effect.

… in frameworks that have reduced coaching to a set of competency boxes to be ticked—and in the ensuing illusion that if AI can tick those same boxes, it must be coaching.

… even in our own tools and techniques, as if coaching were a set of formulaic transactions, processes and structures you download—rather than a way of being you spend a lifetime developing.

… in an illusion of false promises—calling it democratisation when it’s just cost-cutting dressed up as access—creating a caste system where those with least get the least.

… in the pretence of progress—at enormous environmental cost, in a world where millions still have no reliable internet connection to access the “solution” being sold to them.

Caged …

Caged …

I have no words of wisdom or hope to offer you today… except that I REFUSE to be caged.
I did not leave my golden cage to be entrapped in a bronze one—and nor have you.

I am the free bird.
I leap on the back of the wind
and float downstream
till the current ends
and dip my wing
in the orange sun rays
and dare to claim the sky.

Who are you? And what do you dare to claim?

 

🦋 Happy Sunday everyone! 🦋

With love,

Dina 🫶🏽

PS: I’m speaking my truth from a relational, Gestalt-informed tradition—and I’m well aware not everyone shares this frame.

Resources:

  • This week’s song is Freedom! ’90 by George Michael

Why coaching skills training are turning managers into robots—and what to do about it

Why coaching skills training are turning managers into robots—and what to do about it

Something very strange happens to managers who attend a coaching skills training
—they lose their ability to speak!

I was invited to observe a coaching skills training for managers to see if I would wish to facilitate the programme—and I left wanting to rewrite it.

Meet John

Picture John (fictitious name). A highly accomplished expert in his field and a leader. Eloquent, well spoken, and you can tell he’s a very bright fella’…

He’s just been taught that coaching means being neutral (are we ever?!?), holding no opinions or thoughts of his own, and only asking open-ended questions (except for any starting with “why” that is). Translation: be a robot.

All of a sudden, John is making very strange, weirdly structured sentences. In fact, at times, they don’t even make any sense. The words are English but the meaning escapes comprehension. What’s going on?

Now, some coaches would argue that’s just what learning coaching does. As a manager, you’re used to “telling”—so like any new language, it takes a while to get used to it… Bull! (pardon my French)

Here’s what I think is going on

We’re witnessing the discomfort of trying to perform formulaically, and being incongruent between what you think, feel, and say.

It has nothing to do with how difficult the coaching mindset is. It’s because we’re asking the Johns of this world to talk like robots instead of human beings.

And here’s the really sad part

HR leaders will view the training as a success.

Leaders will pat themselves on the shoulder for learning a new language.

Meanwhile, Jane (fictitious name)—an employee in that same training—is telling our breakout group how her manager went through this exact training a while back, but sounds so “phony” she doesn’t want to open up to him.

That’s the story the HR leader and line manager will never hear.

What I suggest instead

When I run coaching skills training for managers, we cut through that noise.

I don’t want you to talk like me or some coaching guru.
I don’t want you to tick competency boxes.

I want you to sound like you—genuinely you—while openly relating to another human being and making the conversation about them.

And—very importantly—we openly address the elephant in the room: you can’t be neutral. You’re human. You have countless thoughts, opinions, feelings, and sensations—and rather than pretending otherwise, we explore how to use them purposefully.

We also acknowledge the fact that you wear multiple hats at once: expert, leader, people manager. That can create tension and interesting power dynamics in the room. And any training that doesn’t tackle those head on is doing its participants a disservice.

And we don’t shy away from this one either: not everyone wants to be coached by their manager. That’s their right—and ignoring it helps no one.

So—

if you want your managers to sound neutral, follow models, and talk like robots, by all means, continue doing what you’re doing.

If you want real cultural change, let’s chat!

 

Agree? Disagree? I’d love to hear from you.

 

With love,

Dina 🫶🏽

 

PS : all em dashes are my own. What can I say—I can’t help myself. 🙂

Recommended resources: