Strengths, Weaknesses, Your Team, and You
 Subscribe to the Three Star Leadership Blog |
| The Working Supervisor's Support Kit is a collection of information and tools to help working supervisors do a better job. It's based on what Wally's learned in over twenty years of supervisory skills training. |
| Follow me on Twitter |
| For weekly tips and resources pointers, check Wally's Three Star Leadership Letter |
| Find out more about having Wally speak to your company or convention. |
| Find out more about Wally's coaching services. |
 |
In the last few years, "strengths-based" leadership has become the Curly Washburn Solution of the day. You may recall that Washburn was the grizzled old cowboy played by Jack Palance in City Slickers.
Curly told the city slickers that there's a secret of life and it's "one thing" [Hold up index finger here.] "Strengths-based" leadership has become the one thing you could do that would not only improve team performance, but probably cure curvature of the spine and childhood obesity.
When we find something good there's a tendency to a) pick the parts we like and ignore the rest and b) to see it as magic. There's a predictable sequence of adoption.
A bunch of people adopt parts of the new idea uncritically. Simple diagnostic instruments (see StrengthsFinder) provide an armor of "science" to protect the concept. Criticism subsides.
Then some academic studies appear, debunking the magical properties of the concept. Bret Simmons wrote recently about one of those studies in a post titled "Strength-Based, Individual Leadership. How Does It Affect Your Team?"
This is a good time to step back, look at the strengths issue and drive a few stakes in the ground about what works and what doesn't. Here goes.
Every boss has two jobs. One is accomplishing the mission through the team. That's where a focus on team performance, rather than simply individual strengths pays dividends. The study that Bret discusses indicates that very thing.
But a boss's other job is to care for their team members. One part of that is helping team members grow. And that's where a focus on individual strengths can pay dividends. By helping individual team members develop their strengths, a boss can build the capacity and efficiency of the team.
There's another issue, too. Most articles make the case for concentrating on strengths or concentrating on weaknesses. But the most effective bosses deal with both.
I'm channeling Peter Drucker on this, specifically advice he gave in his best book, The Effective Executive. The idea is to build on strengths and (wait for it) make weaknesses irrelevant.
You can make weaknesses irrelevant by turning them into strengths, at least in theory. In my experience, the best you can hope for is to get "good enough."
You can also make weaknesses irrelevant by removing the need to a specific person to do the things they're not good at. Maybe it doesn't have to be done at all. Or, maybe someone else on the team can do it.
That's where the "accomplish-the-mission" and the "care-for-the-people" objectives come together. It's part of how effective bosses manage teams.
Boss's Bottom Line
Help your people be more successful by helping them develop their strengths and make their weaknesses irrelevant.
Help your team be more successful by developing the most effective mix of task assignments.
Wally's Working Supervisor's Support Kit is a collection of information and tools to help working supervisors do a better job. It's based on what Wally's learned in over twenty years of supervisory skills training. Click here to check it out.
Categories: Boss, Building on Strength
Tags: Supervision Boss Management Leadership
Good points, Wally. Business concepts, like sheets, need to be changed from time to time.
Reply to this
I like that line, Heath. Thanks for sharing it.
Reply to this
I always love how you see through the fog and boil things down to the bottom line. Its when things are taken to extremes that they get distorted and can be more harmful than good. Such is the strength based "movement." I wish folks would learn to run as fast as possible from anyone that claims to support their approach to management with "a mountain of evidence."
I think we should always care about our weaknesses, but as you point out so well, they don't always have to matter.
Well done, Wally.
Reply to this
Thanks for the comments, Bret. I love the point about how, when things are taken to extremes, we almost always get in trouble.
It's also to cherry-pick the parts of an idea we like and forget the rest. Many advocates of strength-based leadership, for example, appear to think that weaknesses can be ignored.
Then, there are things we haven't addressed here. Strengths that are developed at the expense of other things can become weaknesses. And there's a difference in the way people receive and interpret commentary on their strengths.
There was an excellent post on this by KenNowack on the Results vs. Activities blog last year. It was titled "HRD Shams #3: Leveraging Your Strengths." I can't do the post justice in a summary, so click over and read it for yourself.
Reply to this
Very interesting thoughts on strengths based leadership.
Managers, leaders and organizations have to play to their people’s strengths and see that they win each day. Team members should smell success everyday in whatever they are doing. These small victories build self-confidence over a period of time and makes them capable of handling larger assignments. I call this “eventual strength building”. While proper utilization of team members is important too, assigning them tasks without thinking about their capabilities and strengths is a sure way to failure - both for the team member and for the manager.
An extension to the above is to manage their weaknesses. I prefer to have people with complementary skills on a project. Ideal team composition is where weaknesses of one member is complemented by strength of another team member.
Reply to this
Thanks for those thoughtful comments, Tanmay. I think there's a few degrees of difference between project management and other management on this issue. With project management there's usually a sunset date or deadline, and that tips the balance for the manager more toward using complementary skills and away from developing team members. Art Petty had an insightful post on this a couple of weeks ago titled "Learning to Lead in a Project-Focused World."
Reply to this
Wally - This is a great post. I like "strengths-based" management because people feel more successful when they're working with their strengths. And I know that for me personally, there are certain weaknesses that are innate, and based on watching my parents, seem to be genetic. I'm never going to get good at those things. I do think it's important to work on them to get "good enough" like you mentioned above. But I'll get a better ROI with my time if I work on improving the areas where I already do well.
I like to tell supervisors that it's their job to help employees to capitalize on their strengths and manage their weaknesses.
Reply to this
I like how you put that, Darcy. Thanks.
Reply to this
I love the concept of working with strengths and collaborating with others whose strengths are your "weakness". Although I have undergone Strengthsfinder testing I am not sure that is is necessary . What is important is that bosses are capable of recognising the individual strengths of their team members and work with that knowledge. Crucially they also need to be willing to do this and I believe that this will be a measure of their "strength" as a boss especially when they are clear on their own areas of weakness.
Great discussion.
Thanks Wally!
Reply to this
Thanks, Jackie. The best use I've seen of the StrengthsFinder is to give team members a common language for understand what each does well.
Reply to this
I agree with what Jackie mention, different people have their own strengths and weaknesses. For an organization to succeed it must harness the strengths of its people so that they do amazing things.
A leader or organization who knows how to harness the strengths of its people will win against their competition who does not value their employees. I read that in a essay about good organizational leadership.
Reply to this
Thanks for sharing that, Judith. Could you share what essay you read?
Reply to this
Wally - well stated! I agree that for any given job, team members should be accountable to attain a certain level of competency. Aside from this core level, leaders should then allow them to utilize their innate abilities in a way that collectively makes the team stronger.
Reply to this
Good point. I've found that most people on most jobs need to do three or four core tasks reasonably well. Beyond that, there's lots of things that individuals bring and that they can contribute to the team.
Reply to this
Strengths based leadership makes me cringe. Too often I've seen it used as an excuse for not working on a weakness that if improved would accelerate performance.
In choosing development focus areas the mistake is made when leaders starts the process by analyzing their own strengths and weaknesses. Rather they should start by analyzing the key competencies required of their current job or desired future role.
Some of your weaknesses (or strengths) may be immaterial to the role you have or the future role you want. Spending valuable development efforts on strengths (or weaknesses) could be a waste of time if they don't directly apply to the job you have or the job you want.
I'm aligned with developing strengths, they should be part of your development planning. But start with key competencies required first ... then don't be a fool and ignore weaknesses that might derail your performance.
Reply to this
Thanks for that thoughtful comment. If you use "strengths" as an excuse for not addressing weaknesses, you're not pursuing a productive course. And I agree on analyzing competencies. Sometimes that means you realize that a particular job or career path is not a good one for you.
Reply to this
Good article-
but.....I'm not quite sure I'm buying the concept of "ignoring employee weaknesses" barring from the old adage-you (boss) or your team is only good and efective as your weakest link.
An effective leader is the shephard of the team providing constant feedback (good bad or indifferent), but all employees are accoutnable just as bosses and upper management.
Also, disregarding employee weaknesses or deficienties just "SUNK" the performance review ship which evaluates not only merits and accomplishments but alos examines areas of perforamnce that need to improve.
Reply to this
Thanks for adding to the conversation. If you're the boss and you ignore weaknesses, two things will happen. You will be less likely to accomplish your mission. And you will not be caring for your people by helping them grow and develop.
Reply to this
Good read Wally-
After reading your post I thought of the old phase, “only as strong as the leakiest link”. I wonder why this approach isn't taken more seriously in the business world?
People might say it’s easier to focus on the strong members of the team rather than trying to help your weaker members’ reform better.
Maybe if more focus was placed on the lesser achieving members, the team as a whole would function better.
Reply to this
Thanks, Mike. "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link" is surely true for chains. But it's not true for teams. In the team context, the statement assumes that there is some overall measure of "strength." But there isn't. And each team member is strong and weak in different areas. One of the arts of management is using those strengths and making those weaknesses irrelevant so that the team performs at its best.
Reply to this
Its so true that every boss has the job of accomplishing the mission through the team. That's where a focus on team performance, rather than simply individual strengths pays dividends. Leading at the edge means playing to win as an individual, as a team, and as an organization. Companies that create a leadership development culture excel because they become talent magnets by always providing people with opportunities to learn, grow, and build leadership competencies. Regardless of their professional and organizational roles, all top leaders must understand how leadership, culture, and operational effectiveness are closely intertwined to achieve outstanding results. Drawing on the latest studies of high performance leadership from the world of business, sports, education, hostage negotiation, music, theater, and personal achievement, we will translate this cutting-edge knowledge to the real world of leading especially in times of change and transformation. At the IMD OWP 2010 you will learn what leaders in the top companies, who are known for their outstanding leadership cultures, do so successfully to continue leading at the edge.
Reply to this