Does Focusing on Strengths Give An Excuse For Ignoring Weaknesses?

What do you think about this one?

Have you noticed people making excuses for poor performance or ugly behavior by invoking the "It's just who I am" defense?

Phyllis Roteman over at The Learning Rap weighed in with a thorough and thoughtful comment on my post about Strengths, Weaknesses, and Employee Engagement. Here's what she said:

Hi Steve,

I saw strengths guru Marcus Buckingham speak last year. I also know that research (and common sense) confirm that focusing on peoples' strengths has a positive affect on morale, engagement and the bottom line.

But as with any approach (or new idea), focusing on STRENGTHS can go overboard in organizations, causing many negative side-affects. Some I've seen:

- Using the "strengths" research as an excuse for managers to avoid uncomfortable performance discussions with employees. ("Everyone knows that James is difficult to work with and shirks his responsibilities. No one wants to work with him and clients complain about him...but he's a really good analyst. Let's not rock the boat.")

- Hiding behind strengths as an excuse for bad behavior. For example, "I'm sorry that I snapped at you and called you a bumbling idiot. I have a short fuse. That's just how I am. Sensitivity is not my strength. You'll just have to accept that."

- Dumping mundane tasks (like paperwork, administration) on others because "it's not my strength." (For example, "Anne, you're SO GOOD at making the office coffee, cleaning out the pot and using the fax machine. Would you mind? I'm not good at that kind of stuff.") All jobs require doing some things we don't like, or aren't particularly good at...and most companies can't afford to give all of their employees an assistant to dump work on. Sometimes we just have to suck it up and do something, even though it's not our strength.

All of that said, I'm still a huge believer in focusing on strengths. I just get alarmed when I see a good concept spin out of control and become destructive. Phyllis

What's Happening With The Strengths/Weaknesses Thing?

First of all, what's happening is what Phyllis says is happening. There are probably a number of reasons why, but I think there is a phenomenon that gets played out--at least in American business circles--whenever the latest and greatest thing hits the scene. And it's this:

What is actually a Principle is adopted as a  Rule.

Instead of really taking time to understand all that lies underneath a principle, people run with the catch phrase and treat it as "the way." A book title becomes a buzzword that is then tossed around in meetings. It becomes problematic when the word doesn't have a shared meaning among the users. And that happens a lot. So it is with Strengths.

It's a lot easier to say "It's all about Strengths" than it is to live a life identifying and acknowledging our strengths; figuring out where we need to become at least adequate in some of our weaknesses; and respecting the people around us enough to behave unselfishly even when we "feel" like doing our own thing our own way.

When managers avoid uncomfortable performance discussions, they are showing disrespect for their employee. How can the person improve without hearing the truth, explore ways to change, and growing as a result?

When we hide behind Strengths as an excuse for bad behavior, we're really saying "I don't respect you enough to bother to honor you with good behavior."

And when mundane tasks are dumped on someone else because "I'm not good at it," then I better ask myself just how I'm using my position power. Is one of my less attractive "strengths" the inclination to take advantage of others' weakness?

What I find ironic as I write this is: we're talking about Strength, yet the insidious culprit is Laziness.

What to do?

1. Take time to learn the "why?" behind the "what." When you can explain a concept accurately using everyday language, you've got it. If you or colleagues around you are still discussing things using buzzwords, stop and ask for an explanation of the meaning. That discussion could lead to shared meaning and deeper understanding.

2. When you hear a "performance excuse" disguised as a reason, follow up by asking: "What are you going to do about that? It's impacting other people and that's not acceptable." It's amazing how we'll make changes once we are called on our behavior and not allowed to explain it away.

3.  Make really bad coffee and jam the fax machine.

Thanks again, Phyllis.

What stories and thoughts do you have on the topic? Add your experience to the conversation with a comment below.

Comments

[holly]

Wow, I really like how you made a distinction between principles and rules. I sometimes think that we like to reduce many things into a rule so that we can be in *robot mode* and not think; however, I think some of the best outcomes in problem solving is when principles have laid down the road and direction but offered enough flexibility so that rules can come out of it. I think principle can give birth to rules, but rules should not give birth to principles.

[Wally Bock]

Two observations Steve (and Phyllis).

First, there is never any excuse for the manager to avoid talking to people about performance or behavior issues. That's the manager's job.

Second, there's a corollary to the principle of building on strength. That's to make weakness irrelevant. In many cases that means you have to get "good enough."

[peter vajda]

Hi Steve,

I wanted to echo Phyllis' take on this. I think it's important to see a possible paradox in the "focus on strengths vs. weakness" school of thought, namely, that a person's strengths may also constitute the very reality beneath a perceived weakness. For example, a person who is so effective at being detail-oriented may manifest a set of behaviors that appear as nit-picking and over-analytical, just like a person who is a "strong leader" may appear as domineering, and overbearing to others.

For me, I believe we can improve on perceived weaknesses as well as provide the perspective and reasoning behind "backing off" a little on one's most favored skills and frameworks. Being too much of any one thing can have negative impacts if you consider any strength taken to its excess. Strengths, like weaknesses, have a duality. Often, as the saying goes, "Our greatest virture can become our greatest vice" when taken to extremes.

Also, from a coaching perspective (me) what happens when one is so blinded, preoccupied, even somewhat paralyzed (even unconsciously) by their 'weaknesses', that they can't fully appreciate their strengths? There are many people in the workforce, in my experience, who are living this experience.

It may be because they have been exposed to a fear based culture for a long period of time, or have been brought up to have a self-image or images, or beliefs, that are fear-based, or are based on the notion of "lack and deficiency" in some way, shape or form and have been told continually to 'fix their weaknesses' (many performance appraisal systems do this). So, in some cases, it may be necessary to start with resolving a weakness, then move on to strengths, or do both concurrently. Perhaps if the foundation is crumbling, attend to the foundation first.

Too, in a culture where ego-centricity, image, and narcissism is the name of the game, who wants to admit of "weakness"? So, we can focus on strengths, yes, to motivate and supposedly make folks feel good about themselves (possibly feeding that ego..hmmm), while not being self-responsible about working on parts of ourselves which, if approached consciously, maturely and honestly, could very well enhance both our relationship with our self and our relationships with others...giving us added "strength".

[Steve Roesler]

Holly, good to see you again.

Yes, I think what you are describing is an inclination to try to make almost everything programmatic. That works a lot better with things and repetitive processes than it does with people.

Once you've taken time to gain a deeper understanding of a principle, you develop the ability to recognize when and how to use it.

That leads to discernment and a mature approach to whatever the situation happens to be.

[Steve Roesler]

Wally, we're certainly in the same camp here.

Your insight about making weaknesses irrelevant was what I was hoping to convey with "we need to become at least adequate." Thanks for clarifying and emphasizing that.

As for your first observation, this is something that's become increasingly bothersome in recent years. I certainly can't speak for every company in the world, but I do work with a lot of the better-known companies and in a cross-section of industries. I'm finding that more and more managers are seeing their role as managing and tracking tasks and projects and not managing the people. It's not like the evil empire. It's simply a noticeable shift in how "management" is being defined by some and then being passed on. Here are a couple of things that are surprising to me:

1. A couple of years ago I got a call from a well-known major accounting firm. It turned out that the intended project was for me--and other consultants--to provide performance feedback to senior managers across the organization. I was so fascinated that I went to meet with them to find out what was going on. It was simple: The performance feedback process did not focus on how their immediate bosses experienced their performance. Instead, they used a 360-type tool to gather perceptions of performance. So let's go out on a limb and say "OK, that's their prerogative. It's their business." It's the next step that baffled me. How would I, as an outsider, do anything but help them interpret the information?" They were supposed to take the "feedback" and "use it to become more effective."

Maybe it's my own weakness, but I gotta tell you this: If my boss said something, I paid attention. If anyone else said the same thing, I got a cup of coffee and went back to whatever I was doing.

Are you--is anyone else--seeing this or am I, by freak chance, experiencing this in multiple organizations?

[Steve Roesler]

Hello, Peter,

I'm still enjoying the different angles with which you looked at the issue. Let me pick out one that gets to the heart of Phyllis' observation:

"Also, from a coaching perspective (me) what happens when one is so blinded, preoccupied, even somewhat paralyzed (even unconsciously) by their 'weaknesses', that they can't fully appreciate their strengths? There are many people in the workforce, in my experience, who are living this experience."

Perhaps that is what prompted the the Strengths "movement." Western business practice is inclined to focus on gap analysis and problem-solving--certainly important tools. But when it comes to focusing people on their perceived weaknesses as the major part of feedback, over time it tends to break people down instead of build them up (the supposed intention).

Perhaps like many "new" things, "Strengths" have to be taken to a one-dimensional extreme before truth and sensibility intervene.

[David Zinger]

Steve,

Dare I say it? A strong post and you've generated a lot of comments and discussion on it. Ah to find the balance out of buzzwords. I love a strength focus and feel it has been neglected but as the saying goes: be wary of the one book person.

In some ways, both strengths and weaknesses are only evaluative perceptions on experiences and it is so tough for us not to evaluate or categorize all the time!

Thanks,

David

[Steve Roesler]

Hi there, David,

As the Engagement Guru I was hoping you'd have a look at this as well as a comment.

Your comment about strengths and weaknesses being evaluative perceptions is a critical one. It's easy to objectify "goals achieved vs. goals attempted." But feedback on style and behavior is more indicative of the sender than the receiver. So the only thing we ever know for sure are the values and preferences of the person talking to us.

[Phyllis Roteman]

Steve,

What a great post (particularly because you mention me!).

: )

This whole discussion reminds me of other good "principles" run amuck in the consulting world. Like the DISC profile. I have clients make name badges with their DISC (or Meyers Briggs, or some other assessment) profile label so everyone else can see what "type" they are. That's fun and useful, but it often goes too far, when people start living self-fulfilling prophecies ("I'm impatient" or "I'm a plodder."). We all have some choice about how we want to be - or not to be. Profiles and assessments (strengths, personality types, etc.) are a good foundation for understanding ourselves and others, but are not "rules" for how we must function.

There was a funny article this week in the WSJ about feigning incompetence in the workplace...and how to use it as a strategy to manage time and get out of doing things you don't like. Anyone have the link? Phyllis

[Steve Roesler]

I didn't see the article, Phyllis, but it sounds like one worth tracking down. (And perhaps good fodder for a post).

Your reference to the mis-application of the DISC and MBTI, amongst others, certainly rings true. I think that's another topic for conversation.

The final sentence gets back to the issue of "excuses" that we started with:

"We all have some choice about how we want to be - or not to be. Profiles and assessments (strengths, personality types, etc.) are a good foundation for understanding ourselves and others, but are not "rules" for how we must function."

Thanks for carrying the conversation a step further.

[Shane]

It's important to point out weaknesses when they're impacting the work.

I usually find it's best to give someone direction in how to turn things around. Mind you, it's not about telling them how to fix things, it's just giving them some tools. A direction.

Then you let them step up to the plate and figure out how best to execute the changes themselves. If they have the capacity to change, they will. If not, well, then it's time to decide whether there's room enough in the boat for them

[Steve Roesler]

Sounds pretty sensible to me, Shane. I would add one thing: If they don't know how to do something, you probably need to show them how. The if they make the choice not to follow through, check the manifest on the boat.

[Viji]

Steve, The reward of good work is more work. This is what followed in many places. Nice post. Viji

[Steve Roesler]

Hi, Viji. I think I know what you mean. I guiess if more doesn't mean a lot of extra work but instead, longevity, that would seem to be a good thing.

[Viji]

Most of the time extra work Steve :) But it always added to our credibility. I don't say - they are trying to exploit us, but they are comfortable by delegating to those who are dependable. This is what I am facing at my place.

You are too positive :) Viji.

[Steve Roesler]

Well, I confess I did try to shine a little bit of a positive light on it--and you did say that your credibility is enhanced, which was the positive part.

I was thinking back over similar situations. Let's face it, when things need to get done, bosses instinctively turn to the people who they know will "make things happen." It gets tough when:

1. The good performers get stretched beyond a reasonable point

2. Other people who could become good with guidance and stronger management stop getting the opportunity

3. Those who don't respond to #2 are allowed to retain their jobs; and, at an equal or sometimes greater salary than the good performers.

I hope you are at least enjoying your high credibilty, Viji :)!

[Viji]

Thanks Steve, Yes, indeed. I enjoy it and take it as a credit always. Have a good day. Viji