There is now a vast amount of evidence showing the best way to deliver high performance is by building on employees’ strengths. Despite this persuasive case most organisations continue to focus on individuals’ weaknesses and/or try to make them “good at everything”.
Why this completely irrational strategy?
Rosanne’s comment is a plausible one. Sheer inertia results in many retrograde organisational practices and actions. However there are doubtless other causes. For example if you look at the personality traits or at least behaviours which organisations value they tend toward the critical rather than affirming. In the research on Myers Briggs types to be found in large companies the “T” preference is much more common than “F” especially in supervisory roles. People who report this way are more likely to critique, less likely to praise. It is not that such individuals never focus on Strengths it is just that their awareness is more acute for what needs to be corrected.
Most of the senior managers we work with and coach are Myers Briggs “T”s. While not naturally inclined to major on strengths they can all learn to put more emphasis on what people are good at and how to capitalise on this. Once a manager has started to focus more on strengths the pay off in terms of engagement and results makes it motivating for them to persist. Perhaps one day enough individual leaders will work this way that organisational habits will follow?
September 18, 2009 at 2:50 pm |
This is a very thought provoking blog, Kevin. Why indeed do organisations not spend precious time and resources maximising their talent? Possibly because it is the way it has always been done!
February 1, 2010 at 6:01 pm |
Rosanne. I am glad that we have been using a Strengths focus in a lot of our work recently both with individuals and teams. You certainly get a range of initial reactions from individuals don’t you? Many people “get it” immediately. They see the sense of tapping into a person’s accessible and readily devlopable resources. The illogic of concentrating on weaker areas which people are less motivated to deploy and which have less potential anyway is obvious to them. However, for a sizeable minority of people it at first seems almost wrong to be so bullish about strengths and to give relatively little attention to addressing weaknesses. As people read these entries on Strengths I wonder what their gut reaction is?