ProductiviTree: Cultivating Efficiency, Harvesting Joy

ProductiviTree #20 - Strengths Kill Weaknesses - Katharina Breme on Leading with Talent

• Santiago Tacoronte • Season 1 • Episode 20

Share episode

In this conversation, Santiago Tacoronte interviews Katharina about her journey into strengths coaching and the importance of focusing on individual strengths in the workplace. Katharina shares insights on the CliftonStrengths assessment, the myths surrounding strengths-based leadership, and how organizations can better align roles with individual talents. The discussion also touches on cultural considerations, the role of strengths in promoting diversity and inclusion, and practical exercises for teams to enhance collaboration and productivity. Katharina emphasizes the importance of psychological safety and the need to address performance gaps through a strengths-based approach. 

Takeaways 

  • Strengths coaching can unlock energy and resilience. 
  • Focusing on strengths leads to better performance outcomes. 
  • CliftonStrengths identifies natural talents in individuals. 
  • Strengths-based leadership does not ignore weaknesses. 
  • Performance is essential in the workplace. 
  • Cultural context matters in strengths development. 
  • Strengths can enhance diversity and inclusion efforts. 
  • Psychological safety is crucial for team dynamics. 
  • Tech teams can benefit from strengths-based approaches. 
  • Data privacy is important in strengths assessments. 

Thanks for listening to ProductiviTree! If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and share.

🟢 Spotify

🟣 Apple Podcasts

🟡 Amazon Music

🔴 YouTube

Connect with me:

Have questions or suggestions? Email us at info@santiagotacoronte.com

Katarina, welcome to Productivity. Thank you Santiago. You lead transformation and innovation in a massive food production ecosystem. And also you run your own coaching business. Where does your obsession with strengths come from? And when did it click that this was what you want to pursue? That's an excellent question to start with Santiago. It's actually kind of an obsession. I have always been very strengths oriented from early childhood on without understanding why, obviously. It was just something that was natural. And I got in touch with strengths coaching over five, six years ago when a new leader entered the company and was looking into ways to develop his team. And actually he asked me, well, how would you feel about strength coaching as a coachee? And I said, I'm very interested because I have always, every two to three years, ever since I started working, I took some time to invest in myself, know, bigger training, coaching, something to grow. And this is actually how I met a strength coach, Bianca Cooks. She's based in Zurich and I entered a one-on-one strength coaching program with CliftonStrengths by Gallup. And the results were just super convincing and that's when it clicked, that's when I understood, oh, that is why I function that way. And that's why I have always been very strengths oriented. I would always rather turn towards activities that I was good at and become great at them rather than working on things that I'm not good at, have no talent for and, you know, to just sort of improve them a little bit. And that's when it clicked for me. And then I had the opportunity to experience strength coaching in a team development setting where I was a team member. And then in the third step had the opportunity to enter strength-based team development journey with the team I was leading. And once I had done all that, I thought, okay, that's really a great tool, a great methodology. And I want to train as a strength coach as well. it was journey. At one point I understood how I function and why. You said that when we focus on people's talents instead of their weaknesses, we unlock results, energy and resilience. Yet many companies hire people and this happens super often and they put them to do work that they are not excellent or that not like strength based to succeed. Why does that happen? Well, I think first of all, companies have certain tasks that need to be done. And I believe you can't always shape the work around one person because if that person leaves, well, what do do? So there's some aspect to having certain tasks fulfilled. And then the second is that I believe that every job has a part of activities that you like less. Somehow that's sort of my hypothesis. And When companies hire people, sometimes they're not very aware of the strengths of the person or even the person themselves. They don't know really what they're good at. I mean, we've all answered these questions and job interviews. What are your top three top strengths? What are your top weaknesses? We've all been there, but it's really about translating those into behaviors. And sometimes I feel when companies or you have a task that at first sight might not be aligned with what you're good at. Sometimes it's really about finding out, how can I use what I'm good at in the process? So it's about digging deeper, not really sticking to the obvious of, that task's not a match, but thinking about how can I do this task? Let me give you an example. I, for example, used to hate doing my text declaration, like fastidious task, but I do love numbers. I do love data. I do love overviews, tables. Excel, all these things. So I developed a way to do my text declaration that makes it easy, that helps me use or helps me enjoy the process. And ever since then, I don't hate it anymore. And I also set a timer saying, OK, this task might not take more than whatever hours you want to spend. So playing to your strengths when doing something that you don't like, that helps. You're going to need to explain to this process you found for the tax declaration on a different conversation. You work a lot with Gallup's Clifton strengths tests and it's central to your work. Can you break it down for people that has never heard about it? What is it about and how is it used? Yeah, CliftonStrengths by Gallup is actually the method I chose. There many methods out there. That's the one that stuck with me after trying many of them. It's, the principle is quite simple. It's a test, an online assessment that you take, you answer questions and that test gives you your talents or indicates your talents. Obviously you have to answer honestly in a sense of not how you would like to see yourself, but how you really act in these situations. After that, CliftonStrength says that every human has talents. Even the laziest ones amongst us, we all have talents. And there are 34 talent themes that exist and the test gives you your order of these 34 talents. And a talent is defined as your most natural way of thinking, of reacting in any given situation. So you're spontaneous and intuitive reaction to anything that happens to you. And then we take these talents and explore them in the sense of behaviors. How do they express? And the goal is to take these natural talents, you can think of them as a raw diamond, no it's there, but it's not developed, and invest time into these talents, into getting to know them, into developing them, into mastering them. to bring them to the state of a strength, the polished diamond. And a strength would be the capacity to almost always deliver an almost perfect performance. So that's the circle of the method actually. Very interesting. What's one myth about strengths-based leadership that drives you crazy? Something people get totally wrong. Yeah. What people get wrong very quickly is to think that strengths orientation or strengths-based leadership will ignore problems, will ignore weaknesses and will ignore non-performance. That's not the case. It's a different way of approaching those. It's a different way of tackling challenges and performance and of talking. to people to bring them to a better performance. But that's one myth that annoys me because sometimes people will leave it's just say, it's this glittery rose world where everything's positive and nobody's talking about the problems. That's wrong. You actually get a joint language through strengths based development and alignment. If you know what you're good at and I know what you're good at and we know that about each other with words like neutral vocabulary, then we can talk about it in a better way. And we can also talk about it in a way that allows to say, listen, instead of saying, you always do this and that, saying, OK, I can see your talent, for example, communication. If someone has communication talent, I can see your communication talent go into overdrive because you're talking a lot and you're not listening anymore. You know, so it gives us a joint view and that makes feedback a lot easier. So what drives me crazy is when people think it's about not addressing any problems and just ignoring those or weaknesses. On these lines, should companies stop talking about fixing performance gaps? Should we kill this language? What do we do about this performance gap thing? From my point of view, but I'm also a very resultant performance oriented individual, no, performance is part of the game. When we enter the work world, companies have goals, companies have reasons to be there. They work for profit and even non-profit organizations work for goals. So there are certain expectations in performance and it's a transaction. You enter the world of work and there's a transaction, you receive money. for what you do. So I don't think that companies should cut that, but they can address lack of performance in a strengths-based way. looking into it with people, know, most of the time when performance is lacking, it's less about technical skills. It's most of the time it's about social skills. So about strengths and talents. And what we see in strengths-based development is that your Strengths and your weaknesses are not isolated topics. Most of the time, your biggest strengths can be also your biggest weaknesses if you lean into them too strongly. Let me give you an example. If you are highly action oriented, like in the sense of less talk, more action, let's go, you will most likely bring speed and energy and drive and be very good at getting everything that's stuck unstuck. And that will come at the same time with a certain impatience, like a certain speed, a certain pushiness, that if you express that too strongly can either harm yourself or totally annoy your environment. So it's about how do you, where do you put the cursor? How do you dose these talents? And that is something where you can get a lot more performance out of them because people will learn how to play to their strengths in a beneficial zone. which helps them and which annoys the environment a lot less. So that I think is something you can use for performance, but I believe that performance is part of the game and delivering results is not negotiable at some point. Katherina, something I have observed after being part of multiple transformations is that at some point, particularly when company objectives change or goals or strategies, people gets misplaced. Do you believe people can be redeployed somewhere else, repurposed as words are used sometimes, if they are misaligned? Or there are some people that they're just in the wrong company and no matter how good strengths he or she has, they need to be looking for a change. That's a good question. You know, as I said, everybody has talents. We all have these 34 talents in a certain direction. I would say in a perfect world, thinking through the principle of strengths, yes, everybody could be able to achieve any result with any set of strengths. In practice, that does not work. I've always found situations where you say, okay, this is a mismatch with all efforts that we put in because it requires efforts on both sides, company side and also on side of the person. It requires a lot of self-reflection, a lot of honesty on both sides, feedbacks. So in a perfect world, yes. In practice, I think there are situations where realize this is a mismatch because there are other factors also coming in. It might be the culture, it might be personal values. So it's larger than strength and yeah, in perfect world, in practice I would say no, sometimes you have situations that just don't match. You've worked in multi-language, multi-cultural settings. Does the strength first approach cut across cultures or do you tweak how you present it across different cultures? Is this universal or it needs to be refined wherever you're in Asia or West cultures? In my experience, it works super well across cultures. I have led teams that were deployed over several countries with five or six different mother tongues, so different backgrounds. And what you get with the principle of strengths and CliftonStrengths is you get yet another joint language of how you speak about strengths. And you dive into behaviors. You dive into better understanding each person's natural way of acting in any situation. what happens is that imagine that colleague that always asks 20 questions in each meeting and everybody's there thinking, OK, it's just too much. Instead of viewing that person as the annoying person who always has a lot of questions, when you dive into the world of strengths, everybody knows, that person is naturally curious and wants to understand or learn, or that person is the natural challenger who's a little bit about, okay, let's look into how we can prove this. And once you understand that, you can use that person as an asset. So it becomes benevolent instead of being annoyed. And that also works across cultures. I do think you might have a topic with trust at first in the sense of some cultures are more open about talking about themselves, about coaching, about sharing personal things, and others might be very, very reserved. And that is a trust question that I like to address when we start strength-based development, saying, okay, what we discuss in that room actually stays here. And then it depends on how you can move on with the culture and get open conversations about strengths within the organization. But in my experience, it really helps you also, especially with cross-culture or multicultural teams and languages. Diversity and inclusion is under the spotlight. Many companies are withdrawing support, others are reducing it. The question is, can focusing on strengths be a better driver for diversity and inclusion? Yes, definitely. Not in the sense of male, female or gender or that not. But the principle of strengths, if you look at it, approximately 30 million people have done their strengths profile in the world. Huge database. I would love to have it, by the way. The probability of finding someone who has the exact same top five strengths and the exact same order is one to 33 million. Everybody's unique. There's huge diversity. And diving into this knowledge of not everybody views the world as I do is a huge booster of acceptance for diversity and inclusion. Because suddenly, you know, most of the time people believe that everybody else will view the world they do. I have a certain way of doing things. You do it differently. And I look at you and I'm like, why does he do it that way? doesn't make sense to me, but it makes total sense to you. Once we align on that and we get into that appreciation, people are seen and appreciated for what they bring to the team, their strengths. And that's a huge booster of acceptance, of diversity, of inclusion. There are also studies that show that strengths-based development really boosts KPI. It boosts engagement, it boosts commitment. it reduces turnover. Like in the sense of plus 20 % for engagement and commitment, up to 30 % for the reduction of turnover. And that shows that people really feel more included and more seen. And I've had beautiful moment on Teams with Teams when we focus and workshops on strengths-based appreciation, really saying, I have seen this and that behavior and it connects to your... Strengths or for example empathy and I appreciate you for that. That's really like a heartwarming moment in most teams. So I believe it's a huge booster, but it's underrated because you have to think about it a little to understand the power that it brings. Psychological safety is a term that is central to your work. What is a way that teams or teams leaders kill psychological safety and they're not noticing it and how can strengths-based help with it? From my point of view, that also relates to how I function. The two most effective ways to kill trust in a team as a leader. First, promise something and then don't do it. So, you know, don't stand up to your actions. That's super efficient. And I'm not talking about the, you know, innocent one time I forgot to give you that information. Like really promise people things and then don't keep your promise. Solid way. The second one that I've seen is unpredictability. Like if a team never knows in which humor I will show up in the morning, that creates fear. Or if my team cannot foresee my decisions because they don't know how I function, they don't know my values and my decisions are totally random, that's also a killer for trust, in my opinion. And those are two huge watch outs. because they can be related to your strengths as well. then if you act that way, in my experience, psychological safety is zero because people don't know what to expect and what people need in general is trust. They need empathy. They need stability and they need hope. And if you act that way, there's no trust, there's no stability. can, strength-based development can help you a lot because if we get to know each other, We align on these strengths. have a joint vocabulary and we mutually understand why I think this way and why you think this way. We have a better understanding and we can also anticipate and the team can also give me as a leader feedback based on my strengths. It becomes easier. Let me take an example. I have a lot of drive. I'm someone who gets things done, right? Productivity, that's why we're here. So... I bring a certain speed, energy and drive forward and that comes obviously with a strong urge to get things moving. So I'm not the most patient person. I move quickly and my team knows that. And when they need more time, they tell me because they know otherwise I will speed. I always have to watch out to bring everybody with me and my team helps me. They just tell me, hey, give us a day or two and we'll get back to you and then I'm fine. You know, and that brings more of an understanding in a team instead of sitting there in silence and thinking, my leader always does this and that and I don't like it. Obviously it takes courage to address these topics. In your role, you lead innovation and digital transformation. So how do you bring strengths-based coaching into tech-heavy, data-driven teams who might be a bit skeptical about soft slash fluffy stuff? Always the risk of pain perceived as super fluffy. Two things here I need to distinguish between my two roles. I have my main occupation in a corporate role with Elsegrube and I have my company on the side. in the corporate setting I do not coach my teams. If we work with strength-based development, it's someone else, another trainer, another coach who comes in. I do... as a leader on a daily basis, we develop the principle, I'm the one who always brings it up, but I'm not their coach. I think there is a strong setting. Back to your question. I was actually also expecting a lot of resistant or scepticisms from tech teams also, because tech teams are very male dominated, maybe less of an affinity to softer topics, all that being maybe biases that we have. What I found out is that tech teams, data teams, digital teams super quickly adhere to the principle of strengths-based development. For me it's super important to work with a method where there's science behind it. So I come in with facts and numbers. There are studies, the impact of strength-based development on KPI. There are numbers and facts behind it because I don't want that fluffy thing of, we're having a nice workshop and nothing's coming out of it. I always measure the current state and then we work with strengths. What do we get? So it's always for me about it. It's not about just doing team development for the sake of team development. It's really about how do we bring more impact and more results to the teams. And I found that these tech teams adhere super quickly, open up very quickly, also pure male teams really. And they truly enjoy that journey of having a joint vocabulary and diving into this, in that framework, in that safer framework with the science behind it, enjoy diving into the topic, but I also expected a lot more resistance to be honest. How do you deal with leaders that tells you, don't have time for coaching or this kind of things. I need results and I'm not here to coach people. I'm here to make money or to bring money to the company. That's a common problem because obviously team development takes time. If you view it and it takes consistency as well, it's not done with one workshop and then we're done, that works forever. No, you have to be consistent to really get something out of it. The time invest is actually not that huge if you look at it over a year or two. mean, two or three days invested, then like a push in the team meeting. But it's a common thing and the higher you move up in hierarchy, the less people believe they need team development. That's also something that I observe. Two different approaches again. When I work at the strengths coach with companies, if the manager or the leader is not convinced, I don't think we are matched to go on a team development journey together because I cannot develop your team if you're not my partner. So that is set up for failure. It has never happened to me, but I would most likely not say, okay, I don't think we are met at that current point because I'm not here to convince you. I'm here to support and to help. In the corporate setting, it's a lot about organizational sensing. It's about feeling who are early adopters in a company and when's the right moment to push a topic. And that's actually not only applicable to strengths, that's applies to any topic, can be a data strategy, can be a digital project. When and how can I make the best move? And it's a lot about showing results. For some leaders, I have had leaders working next to me who have not yet engaged in strengths, but they observe from the outside and at one point they come to me and say, listen, I think I would like to do that as well. So I don't push them that much. I present what's in there for them, what I have to offer. And from then on, slow, sometimes drop the little drops of water everywhere and at one point people will move. But it takes time. If I think about it, the journey that we've taken with strengths within Mikro, we started over five years ago, we have an official program set up that is now led by HR, but it takes time. And it can be frustrating if you're super convinced, but I've had to learn that just because I'm convinced of something, it doesn't mean that everybody wants to move right away. Let's get practical, Katrina. Can you give us your favorite team exercise using CliftonStrengths? Something that any listener, team leader, or team member could do with their team tomorrow? Yes, it's actually one of my favorite exercises and it doesn't require CliftonStrengths yet because CliftonStrengths would mean everybody has to do the profile. So there's a step before that and sometimes that hinders people because I mean, financial investment is not a lot, but it still hinders people to move. But one exercise that I really love that opens up great conversation and maybe you can try it with your team tomorrow and give me feedback is Everybody gets three post-its. And on two of the post-its, you write something, write strength of yours that is true. For example, getting things done and communication skills. And on the third one, you write something that's a lie, like, I'm super patient. And then everybody puts their post-it on and the team has to guess which ones are true and which ones are false. If you combine that with a little bit of humour in the sense of the one that's a lie, you take something that's really funny and you clearly know you don't have it, then you bring in a good moment of laughter. And normally good conversations come from there because people start saying, yeah, I do see you for your organisation skills because you organise our team meetings very well or they get a good laugh and I say, yeah, you're really not organised. That is an exercise that is super easy and that's a first conversation opener about how I see myself and how you see me. And then you can move on from there and obviously you can always connect these strengths that you use in everyday vocabulary. You can later then connect them to CliftonStrengths once you do the test. Hmm. How much time should people invest in their weakness? This is a question that comes back to my head again and again and again. Should I completely ignore my weakness and just focus on what I'm great at? Should I try to be a bit better on those things that I'm not so great? First of all, no, I don't think we should ignore our weaknesses. Most of the time, your biggest strengths are your weaknesses when they're not well dosed, you know, and you use them too strongly. So first thing is that awareness of where I'm good at and that my strengths can actually express on a scale of maturity as well, of being beneficial or not beneficial. And then it's about observing myself on a daily basis. And once you dive into the principle of strengths, you will realize, taking again that example of someone who brings in energy and drive, you will realize, oh, in that setting, I got a project team unstuck and that was beneficial. And in that setting, I actually created chaos because there was no need for someone coming in and like bringing everything upside down. We should not ignore our weaknesses. It is about how we manage them using our strengths. If you think about, again, you're someone who is good at communication, will maybe talk a lot. If that person has also empathy, they can sort of combine the two and say, okay, I try to sense when I'm in a conversation, when I'm talking too much. And then I can dial the communication down and bring the empathy up. It's a lot about balance. So no, don't ignore your weaknesses. It's about being aware of them. But what in the principle of strengths orientation does not work is to say, we'll take on that list your number 34, like your least natural way of acting, and we'll try to bring that up. Imagine if you don't have natural authority. That's absolutely not your thing. And you work in a very authoritative environment. It doesn't help you if someone comes and says, oh, you have to show more authority because that's just not your way. You can try, you can act, but then you're in the mismatch, you know? So it's more about looking into your top strengths of thinking, okay, how can I impose myself or obtain my goals by playing to my strengthset? Do I maybe develop relationships? Do I maybe create a great vision that makes people adhere? It's a different way. The principle is, you know, the traditional way of developing people is the best in an organization all behave the same versus in strength-based orientation, strength-based development is the best in an organization all obtain great results, but their way to get there is different. That's the thought behind it. And that takes tolerance, right? It's about diversity. I have to accept that other people do it differently. of course. Katrina, here in Europe... Data privacy, it's of biggest concern perhaps than other areas of the world and it's tighter and it's becoming increasingly difficult to run strengths-based tests among teams. What's your advice for people managers that want still to use the methodology but are a bit afraid of, should I ask this to my team or not? Data protection is crucial. It's extremely important and personal information to protect that is important. And I can see that we're getting more more training on these topics. So it's great that you bring it up. First thing, mean, companies who offer assessments, and I think it applies to any form of assessment, not only CliftonStrengths, they also have to respect data security and laws. So you have to make sure that the company is in alignment with the law of the country you're working in. The second thing is, example with CliftonStrengths, Gallup has servers in different countries. If you're a big company, you can get in touch and see could we maybe have all profiles stored on a certain server. Normally, when you do the test, you create your own profile. and you own that profile. It's not the company you work for that owns the profile. So you can at any time ask for a deletion of your data or decide who you want to share with. For leaders in practice, I think it's important to explain to your team also your intention because sometimes people might get scared of is that a new profiling device and they will do a match of my profile and the job. So explain your intentions, address these concerns. and then also keep the profiles safe. Don't, you know, we talk a lot in the organization about strengths because we've also with my teams, we share them transparently, but the team agreed to do that. But be aware of the state of maturity and don't send around other people's strengths profile. That is for me a clear no-go. Let them share them if they want to. don't make them public without them wanting to. We had a tool for example where everybody who registered could see other people's profile, but they had to consent. And it's always useful if you bring something up to align with HR or talk about data protection to have someone who says, that works in our company setting. One for team leaders. I'm sure you know the Gallup Strengths list by heart. In terms of productivity, what are good paintings? What should a manager be looking into mixing to get productivity, whatever we want to measure, output or quality? I'm going to give you a very disappointing answer, Santiago. With any strengths set, you can normally reach any goal. So there should not be like the ideal combination. It's something we often talk about. I have candidates in recruitment? Should I have them take the assessment, for example? Because in my team is missing that and I might look for something. I don't recommend this. Because with any set of strengths you can reach any result. It's about how you learn to play according to your strengths. That being said, there are certain strengths that particularly love output and productivity. Because the 34 are devised into four domains. The domain of strategic thinking, that's what I like to call the head. The domain of relationship building somehow refers to the heart. executing like your hands and then influencing which is like I bring everybody around me with it and obviously there are certain strengths that particularly love to produce results, deliver cross-off checklists so those in a team can play a role of boosting productivity but others can as well. So like a little bit of a disappointing answer right? It's okay, I thought you would say it depends, which is probably the most disappointing answer I hear all the time. I'm just kidding. What is one behavior that tells you that someone is operating against their strengths? Hmm. You know, when you meet people, most people have some form of USP. Like something they have about their being that makes them unique or that is their... like the character trait that you... that marks you most. Do you see what I mean? Like someone who is very positive. You will always say, that's very positive. Someone who is very critical thinker. So... Those character traits, I like to call them the USP, like what you bring to the room that makes you you. In my experience, when that fades, when people do not show that anymore, oftentimes they start acting in mismatch with their strengths. And I'm not talking again about they dial it down a little bit because they realized during strength-based development that it was actually counterproductive. But really take the example of you have someone who brings a lot of positive energy to the room, that energy suddenly fades most of the time there's something happening with the person. That's how I sometimes see that. Let's do some rapid fire questions. Answer in less than 30 seconds. No, it depends, please. Okay, clear framework. Number work. Is it better to double down on your top five strengths or develop your six to ten? start with your top five. Definitely. You can work from them to the Number two, weakness focused performance reviews. Are they still useful or they are outdated? Focus on the strengths and how you can use the strengths to overcome performance gaps or weaknesses. Number three, what's one strength you see consistently underrated in corporate life? I would say the strength of foreseeing risks and letting people know, because that is always perceived as, the person is hesitant, doesn't want to take risks, but actually a skill of avoiding failure. What is the fastest way to spot a misaligned team dynamic in a meeting? Nobody says anything and the leader is the only one talking. bit more of a local one. What's your favorite German word that doesn't exist or has a difficult translation into English, but perfectly describes a team trade or a workplace behavior? can think of one word in the Clifton Thranx principle that really translates weirdly or is very clear in German. It's in German, it's Kontaktfreudigkeit, like someone who loves to be in touch with other people, which in English translates to winning others over, which sounds a little bit manipulative. And in French was translated with Charisma and it's actually not the same. Mmm. Katerina, if you could give one piece of advice to someone who feels stuck in their current role, they know they have strengths, but they don't know how to use them perhaps, what would it be? My advice if someone feels stuck and it's painful but I'm convinced of is radical acceptance and get to own your reality. Stop searching or stop blaming everybody else around you, get down to the circle of control and concern and own your part of game. It's super useful to get to know your strengths, to get to know your values, your core values, what's not negotiable for you to get to know your purpose and from there you can then get unstuck. But I would always start with, as painful as it is, own your reality and accept your part of the situation. Can you recommend a good book to the audience on strengths-based development? Yes, there many good books. One I really enjoyed and that's maybe the power of the principle is it's called Strengths Based Marriage. I thought that was a little bit outdated in the title. It could have been called Strengths Based Partnership in 2025, but that's a different story. It's about how you can use your strength in your personal life and your partnership as well, because you can use the principle in your work life for yourself as a team, but also in your private life. And it helps a lot in understanding. So I found that book. super interesting, yet it helps to convince your partner to take the test as well and that might be the tough part of the work. How can listeners connect with you, learn more about you as a coach, as a speaker? How can people get in active on LinkedIn and that's actually also where we met. So over LinkedIn, over my profile, that's quite easy to get in touch with me. I also have a website, also on LinkedIn. But I would say LinkedIn is the most efficient part because I'm active there and I talk about digital, I talk about data, about transformation, leadership and obviously, strength coaching. Katerina, this was a master class. I really want to thank you for these 40 minutes of very insightful and actionable insights. I live with a lot of food for thoughts as a team leader on ways I can capitalize on the strengths of my team, myself. And I wish you really, really good in the future. And thank you very much for being with us today. Thank you so much Santiago, was a great pleasure talking to you. Thank you.