skip to main content
Powerful Partnerships PP > Hero Card
Report

Why Work Friends Matter: Unlocking Powerful Partnerships With CliftonStrengths®

Gallup research reveals how employees' CliftonStrengths shape the way they connect, support each other and create value through their partnerships at work.

Calendar icon Report Released: August 2025
Calendar icon Webpage Published: June 2026

Introduction

Work is a social experience.

Whether we're collaborating on a project, problem-solving in a pinch, or simply sharing a laugh between meetings, our relationships at work shape how we show up and how we succeed.

Employees who have a best friend at work are more engaged, productive, safe and innovative. Gallup research shows they are seven times more likely to be engaged — and our meta-analysis1 of over 180,000 teams finds that doubling the number of employees on a team who have a best friend at work could lead to:

  • 24% higher quality of work

  • 12% higher profitability

  • 26% fewer safety incidents

The best leaders don't leave workplace connection to chance. They create conditions where trust grows and friendships, mentorship and collaboration thrive. They recognize that how we connect, who we trust and what makes a partnership feel meaningful often depends on how we're wired.

When we stop asking if relationships matter and instead ask how, we uncover new ways to help people and teams thrive. This report explores the intersection of natural talent and workplace relationships — how our strengths shape the way we build connection, offer support and create value with others by answering three key questions:

  1. What does it mean to have a best friend at work?

  2. How do CliftonStrengths shape our workplace relationships?

  3. What do best friends at work look like in action?

What Does It Mean to Have a Best Friend at Work?

When we asked employees what it means to have a best friend at work, their answers revealed something both simple and profound: trust is the common denominator, but it takes different forms.

Using a blend of thematic coding, topic modeling, and cluster analysis, we identified the most common themes respondents described when defining, in their own words, what a best friend at work really is.2 For some, friendship at work is expressed through deep personal connection like sharing life updates, bonding over lunch and connecting outside the office. For others, it lives within professional boundaries — honesty, feedback, loyalty and having each other's backs through the highs and lows of work.

  1. Trust

This theme emerged as the single most common factor in how people define what it means to have a best friend at work, and was consistent across individuals regardless of which strengths domain they lead with. Trust is the anchor, the access point, the common ground. Trust in this sense was not passive; it was deeply active, expressed through loyalty, consistency, honesty and care.

  • Confidential and dependable: A confidant they can talk with about personal and professional challenges, vent frustrations to and share sensitive concerns with. Someone who can be trusted to keep sensitive or personal information private and be counted on in times of need.

  • Constructive and transparent: A friend who offers truthful, constructive feedback and challenges their thinking, even when it's hard to hear. A defining feature of these connections is the ability to be transparent and forthcoming, allowing individuals to speak freely and authentically.

  1. Personal Connection

This theme highlights friendships that extend beyond the role or workplace, blurring the line between colleague and personal friend. These relationships are grounded in shared experiences both inside and outside of work and are sustained by a genuine investment in each other's whole lives. Friends at work become companions in both personal and professional journeys — celebrating milestones, sharing challenges and socializing outside of work.

  • Blending personal and professional life: A companion who shares hobbies, leisure activities, family connections and emotional support. These friends celebrate milestones together, from birthdays and family news to professional achievements, creating bonds rooted in mutual care and genuine involvement in each other's lives.

  • Enduring beyond the workplace: A relationship that continues even when roles change or employment ends. These friendships evolve into long-term companionships grounded in shared values, history and trust. Respondents describe these as friendships that continue through consistent contact, shared experiences and a deep desire to remain in each other's lives.

  1. Shared Experience

This theme reflects the importance of shared experience and the reciprocal emotional support that only someone who knows your day-to-day experiences at work can bring. Respondents describe a friend at work as someone who “gets” the unique challenges, stressors and context of their professional environment, often because they live it too. This shared understanding allows for a kind of support and validation that is difficult to find outside the workplace.

  • Support through understanding: A colleague who offers the kind of support that only someone who fully understands your day-to-day work experiences can provide. Someone who helps them navigate stress, setbacks and tough decisions. They provide not just a listening ear, but also comfort and guidance, stepping in during moments of crisis or feeling overwhelmed.

  • Enhancing wellbeing at work: A friend who brings balance and relief by checking in, offering comfort and showing genuine care for their wellbeing. These are people who help them navigate pressure, feel supported and who demonstrate genuine interest in the other person.

  1. Mutual Investment and Collaboration

This theme highlights the role of collaboration and mutual investment in the work itself. These friendships are defined by hands-on help, motivation and professional synergy. Respondents describe their best friends at work as reliable collaborators who actively contribute to both daily success and long-term growth.

  • Tangible support: A collaborator who steps in to share the workload, meet deadlines or solve problems together, making daily responsibilities more manageable. These friendships are defined by dependability and a sense of shared responsibility for getting the job done. Respondents describe these relationships as safe spaces for brainstorming, where creative ideas can flourish and challenges are tackled collaboratively.

  • Professional growth and development: A partner who encourages excellence, helps address blind spots and pushes for high-quality work. These relationships are intellectually engaging, offering mutual encouragement to stretch, grow and thrive together.

Emotional Outlets Matter. Boundaries Do, Too.

Emotional closeness at work comes with responsibility. Not all sharing is productive. When venting turns into co-rumination or when closeness fuels gossip and emotional dependency, the benefits of connection can quickly erode. Some individuals are naturally wired to lean on others in moments of personal or professional challenge, but even then, emotional intelligence includes knowing when to share and when to hold space.

For leaders, managers and coaches, this means helping individuals distinguish between healthy vulnerability and emotional overexposure, and fostering environments where openness is encouraged but balanced with clear and respectful boundaries.

Some individuals build trust through personal affinity, while others connect through mutual reliability and work alignment. Importantly, there's no single blueprint for what a best friend at work should look like. In fact, when comparing the open-ended results across individuals who lead with different CliftonStrengths domains, we find no significant differences in the pattern of results.

Not Everyone Has — or Wants — a Best Friend at Work

When asked to define what it means to have a best friend at work, about one in 10 respondents opted to share they prefer keeping personal and professional relationships separate, or implied that they don't want to be personally close with coworkers, at all.

For these respondents, the idea of having a “best friend” at work feels misplaced, too intimate, or risky, particularly in environments where hierarchies, competition or confidentiality are factors. Some have experienced emotional fallout from prior work friendships, leading to a more guarded, pragmatic approach. While they may still value trust, collegiality and mutual support, they intentionally draw a line between friendly professionalism and deep personal connection.

While the open-ended responses highlighted how people define or resist the idea of a best friend at work, a separate survey question provided additional insight into those who do not currently have one. Respondents who indicated they do not have a best friend at work were asked whether they want one, revealing important distinctions in preference and aspiration.

Among those who do not have a best friend at work, just under half — 45% — said yes, they want to have one. Of note, results did not significantly differ across individuals who lead with different CliftonStrengths domains.

What This Tells Us

These qualitative findings make it clear that “best friend at work” is not a one-size-fits-all experience. The way trust, connection and support take shape depends on individual preferences, boundaries and the context in which relationships form.

Just as these definitions vary, so too does the way people's unique talents shape how they build and experience relationships at work.

  • 2 See Appendix A for an overview of qualitative themes.

How Do Strengths Shape Our Workplace Relationships?

Understanding Workplace Connection Through Strengths

Respondents were also asked to reflect on key aspects of connection and support in the workplace by indicating their level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements:

  • At work, I have a lot of strong personal partnerships.

  • I have a friend at work who I share new ideas with.

  • My coworkers and I work well together to do great work.

  • The people I work with help each other when there is a need.

  • I have someone at work I highly trust.

  • I have someone at work I talk to about personal challenges.

  • I have someone at work I talk to about professional challenges.

  • I can always rely on my coworkers.

People with different strengths see workplace friendships from different perspectives. Some seek out emotional connection. Others are drawn to intellectual partnerships, shared wins or pragmatic support.

Importantly, our study finds that no single talent or domain holds the key to meaningful, productive relationships at work. Our strengths shape how we drive value for ourselves and our organizations through partnerships at work — not whether we can.

Individuals who lead with Relationship Building or Influencing themes like Positivity®, Communication®, Developer® and Maximizer® generally have the highest rate of strong agreement to these items. Those who lead with Strategic Thinking or Executing themes like Analytical®, Deliberative®, Intellection®, Consistency® or RestorativeTM tend to report lower agreement.3

Without looking deeper, we might wrongly assume some strengths lead to better workplace relationships than others.

The difference lies in perception: Someone high in Positivity or Empathy® might view their relationships through a naturally optimistic or emotionally attuned lens. On the other hand, someone high in Analytical or Deliberative may approach relationships more cautiously or critically — not because they don't value connection, but because they evaluate it differently.

This distinction matters. In our analysis, instead of asking who scores highest overall, we asked: Which types of workplace relationships stand out most for each strength?

Using a method called relative importance regression, we estimated the average marginal correspondence of each of the eight relationship items to each of the four CliftonStrengths domains (Executing, Influencing, Relationship Building, Strategic Thinking).

This approach helps us understand not just how people relate to different aspects of workplace relationships overall, but also which aspects resonate most deeply for people who lead with different strengths.

Workplace Relationships Across Domains

Strengths set different baselines for how people experience connection, but the foundational patterns of what resonates most are remarkably consistent. Across almost every domain and theme:

  • Statements about trust, helping each other and doing great work as a team stand out as relational high points.

  • Statements about having someone to share personal challenges with, or having coworkers that are always reliable, often fall below the norm — even for those who lead with Relationship Building themes.

But shared patterns don't mean identical experiences. The results of a relative importance regression analysis demonstrate meaningful differences in how people express, interpret and prioritize connection at work.4

These nuances reveal the relational fingerprint of each strength, showing that individuals often take very different paths to achieve the same outcome of doing great work with others.

Executing

For people who lead with Executing themes, relationships come alive when work comes first.

  • The strongest predictor of the Executing domain was working well with their coworkers to do great work.

  • In contrast, having someone at work to talk to about personal and professional challenges emerged as two of the least influential predictors.

People who lead with Executing themes tend to build relationships through reliability, shared goals and consistent follow-through. They often form strong bonds with colleagues who help maintain clarity, structure and momentum toward results. In their view, close partnerships are most valuable when they directly contribute to getting the job done well.

Trust and emotional openness may develop more slowly for these individuals. Vulnerability tends to be reserved for rare, well-earned relationships forged through shared experience. In the workplace, this can mean that while they are dependable teammates, deeper personal sharing may be rare or take more time to develop.

Influencing

For people who lead with Influencing themes, relationships often thrive when there is energy, momentum and opportunities to make an impact.

  • The strongest predictors of the Influencing domain were having a lot of strong personal partnerships, having someone at work to talk to about professional challenges and having a friend to share new ideas with.

  • In contrast, being able to always rely on their coworkers emerged as one of the least influential predictors.

People who lead with Influencing themes often build relationships through active exchange such as sharing ideas, discussing challenges and engaging in conversations that shape direction. Openness comes naturally when it reinforces credibility, influence or the ability to rally others around a goal.

At the same time, they may be less likely to feel their coworkers are equally dependable or collaborative, and they are less likely to feel others on the team are carrying their weight. This can lead to a connection style that is more strategic than reciprocal, where alignment with the vision takes precedence over intimacy or reciprocity.

Relationship Building

For people who lead with Relationship Building themes, workplace connections are anchored in trust, support and emotional openness.

  • The strongest predictors of the Relationship Building domain were having someone to talk to about personal challenges and being able to always rely on their coworkers.

  • In contrast, having someone to talk to about professional challenges emerged as one of the least influential predictors.

People who lead with Relationship Building themes focus on cultivating trust and emotional safety, investing in relationships where authenticity and support can flourish. They are naturally attuned to the emotional climate of their teams and often serve as the steady, connecting presence that keeps groups cohesive.

While they may not always seek frequent idea-sharing or a wide range of work partnerships, they excel at deepening the quality of connection in the relationships they do prioritize. This depth helps create an environment where others feel valued, heard and supported.

Strategic Thinking

Individuals who lead with Strategic Thinking themes are most energized by workplace relationships that support mutual dependability and thoughtful contribution.

  • The strongest predictor of the Strategic Thinking domain was having someone to talk to about professional challenges.

  • In contrast, having someone to talk to about personal challenges emerged as one of the least influential predictors.

This pattern suggests that people who lead with Strategic Thinking themes tend to approach workplace relationships as opportunities to discuss ideas and concepts related to work. While they may not lean heavily into emotional openness or large-scale social bonding, they often find connection through intellectual alignment, dependable systems and collaborative problem-solving.

They may be selective in how and when they share personal matters, preferring relationships built on shared thinking or purposeful contribution. This doesn't mean trust is absent — it simply develops through demonstrated competence, thoughtful dialogue and the exchange of ideas.

What This Tells Us

Across all four domains, the way people define and experience relationships at work is consistent with their dominant talents — whether that means valuing reliability, momentum, emotional closeness or intellectual alignment. These patterns show that connection at work is not a fixed formula but a dynamic mix of trust, openness and shared purpose, expressed differently by each strengths profile.

The next section explores how these differences appear in practice, using a select-all-that-apply measure to capture the specific qualities people see in their closest workplace relationships.

  • 3 See Appendix B for % strongly agree for the eight workplace relationship items across individuals who have each CliftonStrengths theme in their top five.
  • 4 See Appendix C for the full relative importance regression analysis by domain and theme.

What Do Best Friends at Work Look Like in Action?

When we asked respondents who already have a best friend at work to tell us more about that relationship, we moved beyond definitions and into specifics. Using a “select all that apply” list of behaviors and qualities derived from decades of Gallup research on friendship, participants described how their best friend at work shows up for them.

Across people who lead with each of the four CliftonStrengths domains — Executing, Influencing, Relationship Building and Strategic Thinking — all best friend qualities showed up at a similar rate, highlighting that certain expressions of friendship resonate no matter the talent profile.

However, the presence of specific themes within each domain in someone's top five can tip the scales, making some relationship qualities more or less likely to appear in someone's best friend at work.

For example, individuals with Futuristic®, Positivity or Relator® were more likely to say their best friend gives them confidence to take on greater challenges. In contrast, those with Harmony® were less likely to select this behavior to describe their best friend at work.

Nuanced patterns emerged for other items, too, such as people with Woo® in their top five being more likely to say their best friend at work is someone who stands up for them, and those with Communication and Empathy being more likely to say their best friend at work is someone who makes work fun.

These variations reveal how individuals with different dominant CliftonStrengths might gravitate toward different types of people to be their best friend at work.5 Table 1 below summarizes significant differences in respondents' rate of selecting each option to describe their best friend at work based on the strengths that appear in their own top five.6

Table 1
placeholder

Some of our work friends will naturally match our pace, style or way of thinking. That's natural and energizing, and it helps us have an easier time understanding each other. But if all our closest work friends think just like us, we can miss out on fresh perspectives and creative sparks.

Intentionally connecting with people whose talents complement — and sometimes challenge — our own is undoubtedly valuable. These relationships help us see opportunities or solutions we'd otherwise miss by looking through only our own strengths' lens. The research presented above is intended to help leaders, managers, coaches and individuals understand how to build friendships with people who offer complementary strengths.

What This Tells Us

This interplay between talent and friendship provides a more nuanced view of how people's strengths influence what they value and notice in their closest work relationships. The findings reinforce that a “best friend at work” is not just a feeling, it's a set of behaviors and interactions that can be influenced by our talents. While some qualities, like trust and support, are valued across the board, we tend to gravitate toward different types of friends at work based on our own dominant strengths.

  • 5 This research is based on the strengths of the respondent, not the strengths of the best friend at work they are describing.
  • 6 See Appendix E for the full table of quantitative results.

Tying It All Together

Why Work Friends Matter

Work friendships are powerful drivers of engagement, safety, innovation and performance. Yet our research shows there's no one “right” way to build them. The insights we gain about ourselves, and others, from CliftonStrengths reveal not just how we think and work, but also how we connect and the conditions that make us feel supported.

Across thousands of responses, four key relationship themes emerged: trust, personal connection, shared experiences and collaboration. But these take different forms. For some, trust means vulnerability and sharing; for others, it's reliability and shared standards. Some bond over lunch and laughter, others through tackling challenges side by side. And some prefer to keep personal and professional lives separate — proving that connection at work can show up in many ways.

Our analysis revealed that while every employee can benefit from teamwork and mutual support, individuals who lead with different CliftonStrengths bring their own perspectives to how they experience and express workplace relationships, influencing the unique paths they take to build trust, foster connection and contribute to shared success.

What This Tells Us

Work friends don't just make the day more enjoyable, they fuel engagement, performance and wellbeing. Some of us create trust through consistent delivery, others through shared ideas, encouragement or emotional support. The most effective teams embrace this variety by making space for every style of connection to thrive.

Across definitions, domains and day-to-day behaviors, one finding is clear: There is no single blueprint for what a best friend at work should look like. While trust emerged as the universal foundation, the ways it is expressed — through personal connection, professional partnership or tangible acts of support — are shaped by individual preferences and strengths.

Understanding these differences allows leaders and coaches to create environments where diverse forms of connection can flourish, ensuring that every employee has the opportunity to build the kind of relationships that help them thrive at work.

Appendix A: Qualitative Theme Summary

Using a blend of thematic coding, topic modeling, and cluster analysis, we identified the most common themes respondents described when defining, in their own words, what a best friend at work really is.

Friendship at work shows up in different ways — for some, it means deep personal connection and sharing life outside the office, while for others it’s rooted in professional trust, honesty and loyalty. Across all perspectives, trust stands out as the foundation of these relationships, followed by personal connection, shared experiences and mutual collaboration that strengthen both wellbeing and performance. Ultimately, best friends at work don’t follow a single formula, but consistently provide dependable support, growth and a sense of belonging that extends beyond job roles.

Table 2
placeholder

Appendix B: Workplace Relationship and Support Items

Respondents were asked to reflect on key aspects of connection and support in the workplace by indicating their level of agreement or disagreement about workplace relationships and teamwork. The eight items below were chosen based on major themes derived from previous Gallup research demonstrating key principles of productive friendships at work.

Table 3.1
placeholder
Table 3.2

Percentage of respondents who strongly agree with statements about workplace relationships based on top five themes.

Appendix C: Domain and Theme Analysis

Relative Importance Regression (technical summary):

Relative importance regression is a family of methods used to determine how much each predictor in a regression model contributes to explaining the outcome. For this analysis, we used scores on the eight workplace relationship items that respondents rated on a 5-point scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) to predict average scores for each CliftonStrengths domain and theme. When predictors are correlated with one another, as they are in this instance, it can be difficult to know which variables are most responsible for a model’s explanatory power.

Relative importance regression addresses this by considering all possible orders and combinations in which predictors could be entered into the model and averaging their added contribution across these scenarios. This ensures that each variable’s share reflects both its unique influence and its overlapping role with other predictors. The result is a set of values that sum to the total variance and can be interpreted as the relative importance of each predictor in explaining the outcome. In other words, relative importance regression helps quantify “who deserves the credit” in a model where multiple factors work together.

The goal of the analysis here is not to build a robust predictive model for each theme; the themes measure content areas that are much broader than the workplace relationship topic alone. Rather, the goal here is to show the aspects of workplace relationships that have relatively more or less salience to each theme, and thereby aid in the understanding of how different people may form or value workplace relationships.

Percentages in parentheses indicate items with negative relationships to the domain or theme score. It is important to note that domain scores are reverse-scored. Measures are scaled to 100%.

Table 4.1

Executing Domain

Item Relative Importance
Personal Challenges 36%
Professional Challenges 17%
Work Well Together (13%)
Share New Ideas 12%
Highly Trust 9%
Strong Personal Partnerships 6%
Help Each Other 4%
Always Rely On 3%
Table 4.2

Influencing Domain

Item Relative Importance
Strong Personal Partnerships (47%)
Professional Challenges (16%)
Share New Ideas (13%)
Always Rely On 12%
Personal Challenges (5%)
Highly Trust 4%
Work Well Together 2%
Help Each Other 1%
Table 4.3

Relationship Building Domain

Item Relative Importance
Personal Challenges (52%)
Always Rely On (25%)
Professional Challenges 7%
Highly Trust (4%)
Help Each Other (4%)
Strong Personal Partnerships 4%
Share New Ideas 3%
Work Well Together 3%
Table 4.4

Strategic Thinking Domain

Item Relative Importance
Personal Challenges 51%
Strong Personal Partnerships 12%
Work Well Together 10%
Always Rely On 8%
Share New Ideas 6%
Professional Challenges (5%)
Highly Trust (5%)
Help Each Other 3%
Table 5.1

Achiever

Item Relative Importance
Strong Personal Partnerships 40%
Work Well Together 18%
Share New Ideas 15%
Always Rely On (10%)
Personal Challenges (8%)
Highly Trust 4%
Help Each Other (4%)
Professional Challenges (2%)
Table 5.2

Activator

Item Relative Importance
Strong Personal Partnerships 25%
Share New Ideas 24%
Professional Challenges 16%
Always Rely On (13%)
Personal Challenges 10%
Highly Trust 5%
Work Well Together (3%)
Help Each Other 3%
Table 5.3

Adaptability

Item Relative Importance
Personal Challenges 36%
Strong Personal Partnerships (19%)
Always Rely On 15%
Help Each Other 11%
Highly Trust 7%
Work Well Together (6%)
Professional Challenges (4%)
Share New Ideas 3%
Table 5.4

Analytical

Item Relative Importance
Personal Challenges (66%)
Work Well Together 10%
Always Rely On (7%)
Share New Ideas 5%
Strong Personal Partnerships (4%)
Professional Challenges 4%
Highly Trust 3%
Help Each Other 1%
Table 5.5

Arranger

Item Relative Importance
Strong Personal Partnerships 38%
Share New Ideas 17%
Work Well Together 13%
Highly Trust 12%
Always Rely On 6%
Personal Challenges 5%
Professional Challenges 5%
Help Each Other 4%
Table 5.6

Belief

Item Relative Importance
Share New Ideas 38%
Always Rely On 13%
Strong Personal Partnerships 12%
Highly Trust 10%
Work Well Together 9%
Personal Challenges 8%
Professional Challenges 6%
Help Each Other 4%
Table 5.7

Command

Item Relative Importance
Always Rely On (44%)
Personal Challenges (20%)
Share New Ideas 14%
Professional Challenges 12%
Help Each Other 4%
Work Well Together (3%)
Highly Trust (2%)
Strong Personal Partnerships 2%
Table 5.8

Communication

Item Relative Importance
Strong Personal Partnerships 30%
Personal Challenges 27%
Professional Challenges 16%
Share New Ideas 15%
Highly Trust (6%)
Always Rely On (3%)
Work Well Together (3%)
Help Each Other 2%
Table 5.9

Competition

Item Relative Importance
Always Rely On (39%)
Strong Personal Partnerships 20%
Share New Ideas 18%
Personal Challenges (9%)
Professional Challenges 5%
Work Well Together 5%
Help Each Other (3%)
Highly Trust 2%
Table 5.10

Connectedness

Item Relative Importance
Personal Challenges 29%
Always Rely On 20%
Professional Challenges 13%
Work Well Together 13%
Share New Ideas 9%
Highly Trust 7%
Help Each Other (5%)
Strong Personal Partnerships (4%)
Table 5.11

Context

Item Relative Importance
Professional Challenges 32%
Work Well Together 25%
Personal Challenges (13%)
Highly Trust 9%
Help Each Other 8%
Always Rely On 5%
Share New Ideas 4%
Strong Personal Partnerships 3%
Table 5.12

Deliberative

Item Relative Importance
Strong Personal Partnerships (42%)
Personal Challenges (23%)
Share New Ideas (10%)
Always Rely On (7%)
Highly Trust 5%
Professional Challenges (5%)
Work Well Together (5%)
Help Each Other 3%
Table 5.13

Developer

Item Relative Importance
Personal Challenges 48%
Share New Ideas 13%
Highly Trust 10%
Always Rely On 10%
Professional Challenges (7%)
Work Well Together 5%
Strong Personal Partnerships (4%)
Help Each Other 4%
Table 5.14

Discipline

Item Relative Importance
Work Well Together 38%
Always Rely On (18%)
Professional Challenges 16%
Strong Personal Partnerships 9%
Help Each Other (8%)
Highly Trust (6%)
Share New Ideas 3%
Personal Challenges 1%
Table 5.15

Empathy

Item Relative Importance
Personal Challenges 75%
Professional Challenges 7%
Share New Ideas 5%
Highly Trust 4%
Always Rely On 3%
Strong Personal Partnerships (3%)
Work Well Together (2%)
Help Each Other 1%
Table 5.16

Consistency

Item Relative Importance
Strong Personal Partnerships (43%)
Work Well Together 25%
Help Each Other 16%
Always Rely On 6%
Professional Challenges 4%
Share New Ideas (3%)
Personal Challenges 3%
Highly Trust 2%
Table 5.17

Focus

Item Relative Importance
Always Rely On (28%)
Personal Challenges (17%)
Professional Challenges 15%
Work Well Together 14%
Share New Ideas 9%
Help Each Other (8%)
Strong Personal Partnerships 8%
Highly Trust (2%)
Table 5.18

Futuristic

Item Relative Importance
Professional Challenges 22%
Share New Ideas 22%
Strong Personal Partnerships 18%
Always Rely On (16%)
Help Each Other (9%)
Personal Challenges (8%)
Work Well Together (4%)
Highly Trust 2%
Table 5.19

Harmony

Item Relative Importance
Help Each Other 23%
Personal Challenges 20%
Work Well Together 17%
Always Rely On 16%
Strong Personal Partnerships (12%)
Highly Trust 6%
Professional Challenges 5%
Share New Ideas (3%)
Table 5.20

Ideation

Item Relative Importance
Work Well Together (39%)
Personal Challenges (22%)
Share New Ideas 18%
Help Each Other (7%)
Always Rely On (5%)
Strong Personal Partnerships 5%
Highly Trust 2%
Professional Challenges 2%
Table 5.21

Includer

Item Relative Importance
Strong Personal Partnerships 29%
Always Rely On 18%
Share New Ideas 17%
Personal Challenges 11%
Work Well Together 10%
Professional Challenges (7%)
Highly Trust 5%
Help Each Other 5%
Table 5.22

Individualization

Item Relative Importance
Strong Personal Partnerships 25%
Highly Trust 19%
Share New Ideas 17%
Professional Challenges 12%
Personal Challenges 12%
Always Rely On (7%)
Work Well Together 6%
Help Each Other (3%)
Table 5.23

Input

Item Relative Importance
Professional Challenges 28%
Highly Trust 26%
Always Rely On (16%)
Personal Challenges 14%
Share New Ideas 5%
Work Well Together 5%
Strong Personal Partnerships (3%)
Help Each Other 3%
Table 5.24

Intellection

Item Relative Importance
Strong Personal Partnerships (32%)
Highly Trust 23%
Professional Challenges 14%
Always Rely On (12%)
Personal Challenges (6%)
Work Well Together (6%)
Help Each Other 5%
Share New Ideas (3%)
Table 5.25

Learner

Item Relative Importance
Personal Challenges (33%)
Highly Trust 28%
Work Well Together 18%
Help Each Other 6%
Professional Challenges 5%
Always Rely On (4%)
Strong Personal Partnerships 3%
Share New Ideas 3%
Table 5.26

Maximizer

Item Relative Importance
Highly Trust 30%
Strong Personal Partnerships 24%
Share New Ideas 16%
Professional Challenges 7%
Always Rely On 6%
Personal Challenges 6%
Help Each Other 5%
Work Well Together 5%
Table 5.27

Positivity

Item Relative Importance
Strong Personal Partnerships 28%
Personal Challenges 22%
Share New Ideas 14%
Always Rely On 11%
Highly Trust 8%
Professional Challenges 6%
Work Well Together 6%
Help Each Other 4%
Table 5.28

Relator

Item Relative Importance
Help Each Other 24%
Highly Trust 23%
Work Well Together 14%
Share New Ideas 14%
Personal Challenges (10%)
Always Rely On (7%)
Strong Personal Partnerships (6%)
Professional Challenges 4%
Table 5.29

Responsibility

Item Relative Importance
Work Well Together 34%
Personal Challenges (24%)
Highly Trust 13%
Help Each Other 8%
Share New Ideas 8%
Always Rely On 5%
Strong Personal Partnerships 4%
Professional Challenges 3%
Table 5.30

Restorative

Item Relative Importance
Highly Trust (30%)
Strong Personal Partnerships (29%)
Always Rely On (12%)
Work Well Together (8%)
Help Each Other 6%
Share New Ideas 6%
Professional Challenges 5%
Personal Challenges (5%)
Table 5.31

Self-Assurance

Item Relative Importance
Personal Challenges (35%)
Share New Ideas 29%
Strong Personal Partnerships 20%
Professional Challenges 5%
Highly Trust 5%
Always Rely On (3%)
Work Well Together 2%
Help Each Other (1%)
Table 5.32

Significance

Item Relative Importance
Always Rely On (30%)
Share New Ideas 26%
Strong Personal Partnerships 20%
Professional Challenges 9%
Personal Challenges (7%)
Work Well Together 4%
Highly Trust 2%
Help Each Other (2%)
Table 5.33

Strategic

Item Relative Importance
Always Rely On (30%)
Share New Ideas 26%
Strong Personal Partnerships 20%
Professional Challenges 9%
Personal Challenges (7%)
Work Well Together 4%
Highly Trust 2%
Help Each Other (2%)
Table 5.34

Woo

Item Relative Importance
Strong Personal Partnerships 33%
Personal Challenges 29%
Share New Ideas 14%
Professional Challenges 11%
Highly Trust 6%
Always Rely On 3%
Work Well Together 3%
Help Each Other (2%)

Appendix D: Summary of Relative Importance Regressions by Theme

Table 6 summarizes the results of these relative importance regressions for each CliftonStrengths theme. The “highest expression” column lists the items with the strongest positive association with the indicated theme. The “lowest expression” column lists items that either have the lowest importance, or high importance with a negative coefficient — both signifying aspects of workplace relationships with less relevance to the indicated theme.

Table 6
placeholder

Appendix E: Best Friend Descriptors

Table 7.1

Percentage of respondents with a best friend at work who selected each phrase to describe their best friend at work based on respondents' top five themes.

Table 7.2
placeholder

Methodology

Results are based on a survey conducted Nov. 9-Dec. 01, 2023, with 9,527 employed adult (18+) respondents from an opt-in sample of individuals who previously completed the CliftonStrengths assessment and expressed an interest in participating in future Gallup research. Sixty-seven percent of respondents reside in the United States, and the survey was fielded in English. Each section of this report is based on a subset of respondents who participated in the survey:

What does it mean to have a best friend at work?

Results from this qualitative analysis represent n=1,182 respondents who were randomly assigned to answer the question: “In your own words, what does it mean to have a best friend at work?”

How do CliftonStrengths shape our workplace relationships?

Results from this quantitative analysis are based on n=7,638 respondents who answered all eight of the workplace relationship items that were used in the relative importance regression.

What does a best friend at work look like in action?

Results from this quantitative analysis are based on n=581 respondents who agreed or strongly agreed they had a best friend at work and were randomly assigned to answer this question: “Earlier in the survey you indicated that you strongly agree or agree that you have a best friend at work. The next set of questions are about this person. Does this person do any of the following? Select all that apply.” The margin of sampling error at the 95% confidence level for this section of the report is ±4.1 percentage points for response percentages around 50% and is ±2.4 percentage points for response percentages around 10% or 90%. Margins of error are larger for subgroups, such as individuals with a particular theme in their top five strengths.

Copyright © 2000, 2026 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. CliftonStrengths® and each of the 34 CliftonStrengths theme names are trademarks of Gallup, Inc. 

Download the Powerful Partnerships Report

Fill out the form below to get instant access to Gallup’s white paper on why work friends matter. We will send you a copy of this full report straight to your inbox.

(*) Required

By clicking the button below, you agree to have your information processed, transferred and stored on servers in the United States. Review Gallup's to learn about our commitment to your privacy and how we use your information.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for your interest!

Click the button to download Why Work Friends Matter: Unlocking Powerful Partnerships With CliftonStrengths®.

Get more ideas for using and developing your CliftonStrengths by browsing our latest CliftonStrengths articles, videos, podcast episodes and other resources.