Debunking Strengths Myth #1

Agreed, sometimes you just have to do it the best you can and learn from the results. Hopefully you are in an environment that fosters learning and allows risk taking in this format, under acceptable circumstances.

Also agree that at times, you just step up and get the job done. Where I see people struggle the most is when they take the next promotion for the sake of the promotion without consideration for what the position may require in skills or abilities.

The example of the expense report is very common, and it hits home personally. I have found that when I realized it really only takes a few minutes to complete it IF I do record mileage (2 seconds) each trip and make notes on receipts before putting them in my pocket then the monthly report takes just a few minutes.

Sometimes the toughest mental blocks, the things that stop us dead, are the easiest things for us to overcome!

You are right that we are not ignoring weaknesses as weaknessess come from our own choices.
If we choose our "most dominant" talents [potential] and the right role, we will get to our strength.
If we choose to make use our "most non dominant" talents [limitations] we will get to our weaknesses.
So knowing our weakness is also important to trace back our limitation and choose other roles according to our potential strengths.

In our book, Play to Your Strengths (to be published in December by Career Press; authors Sigetich & Leavitt) we encourage readers to first identify if their weakness is low-impact (inconsequential) or high-impact (career-limiting). If low impact, there are three great actions we can take: delegate it, purchase it, or ignore it. If we have a high-impact weakness, we need to gain sufficient knowledge and skill to perform it at an acceptable level, or choose a different role or career.

I have found the following to be very useful when developing staff

DEVELOP Your Strengths, (they will result in greatess productivity and enjoyment / fulfillment increases)

KNOW your Weaknesses (so you can work around or avoid them)

And DEAL with your Failures ( these need to be deakt with now or they could destroy anything your strentghs development might be achieving "A bull in a China shop" issue)

The strengths-based approach is a breath of fresh air.
Look at anyone who really excels (actor, musician, coach, manager, ceo) - they are doing what they love. They usually have a support network - formal or informal - around them to complement their natural talent, strengths.
It's a win all round!

One issue that isn't covered as much here is when the misapplication- or overapplication- of a strength becomes a weakness. As a manager this has always been a coaching focus of mine (your weakness is the "flip side" of your strength.) It is often easier for people to hear with less emotional baggage, too. As a Woo extovert like Suzanne, I know there are situations I need to ratchet down a bit to be effective.

One issue that isn't covered as much here is when the misapplication- or overapplication- of a strength becomes a weakness. As a manager this has always been a coaching focus of mine (your weakness is the "flip side" of your strength.) It is often easier for people to hear with less emotional baggage, too. As a Woo extovert like Suzanne, I know there are situations I need to ratchet down a bit to be effective.

During periodic development discussions with those who report to me, we talk about weaknesses. We decide whether the weakness can be overlooked as not being important or if it has to be dealt with to meet a condition of employment (example: completing expense reports accurately and on time). If critical to employment, we discuss and agree on what is the minimum accepted level of performance required in that area, set that as the target, gain commitment from the person and move on to emphasize strengths.

Brian, good article. Look forward to the series. With regards to weaknesses, often times I find two things with people I have managed. The first being their inability to acknowledge the existence of such a weakness. This effectively retards their path of development and prevents those who can help from doing so. The second being people's aspirations which makes them believe they are capable of performing at levels for which they are not quite ready. This sets them up for failure. I have a classic example of someone who shows both these behaviors - on the one hand, they cannot work without clearly defined standard operating procedures (SOPs) in their current role, yet believe they are ready to play a more strategic role which calls for higher skills in being able to make "method out of madness", planning, have long term vision, etc. A perfect opportunity is currently present for them to craft an SOP, if nothing else to help them in managing their current role better, yet they have made no effort to do so though they have the freedom to. The failure to do so itself is evidence of the fact that they cannot look into the strategic aspect of getting people to document SOPs that might be a big boon for new team members that might join the team in the future!

A big question, unaddressed in Brian's article, is how to tell the difference between an innate weakness and a false weakness caused by emotional issues. Everyone has "voices" inside such as their critic, a wounded child, a rebel who hates authority, etc. These inner selves create a persona that is highly distorted, and can cause us to act in a way that is much less powerful than we really are. That said, there really are natural talents and aligning with these is the most powerful overall strategy. Working with the emotional aspects of "self" can lead to a humbleness and self acceptance that makes it easier to admit weaknesses and seek help. I think this is called wisdom.

If organizations could find a way to blend the strengths approach with an aspect of Jim Collins' "hedgehog concept" might we be able to succeed in putting the "what to do about weaknesses?" issue to bed. In Collins' book Good to Great he talks about 'first who, not what.' I've always found this to be the key to making the weaknesses discussion irrelevant. For example, my consulting partner and I met whilst engaged in our "day jobs." After deciding that our combined strengths were pretty powerful we then engaged in a discussion around what we could actually do together. That conversation is qualitatively different from the one that usually occurs in business, where the focus for doing is frequently set before the discussion about people. Then it's more a question of "how do we make this happen with the people we have?" which inevitably brings up conversations of lack and weakness. That hasn't happened with respect to the hedgehog "who first, then what" approach that we took, for two reasons: 1) we only focus on work that plays to our strengths, and 2) whenever opportunities come to us that involve our top (and hence most motivational) strengths then we seek partners who might fit that need. Maybe this is a pipedream and only works with very small teams or partnerships, but it was obviously a factor in the great companies that Collins studied...