The IDB Project is a series of posts sharing summaries, snippets, and takeaways from INSIDE DRUCKER’S BRAIN (Jeffrey Krames)
CHAPTER EIGHT
Auditing Strengths
“Most organizations take their employees’ strengths for granted and focus on minimizing their weaknesses. They [identify] ‘skill gaps’ or ‘areas of opportunity,’ and then pack them off to training classes so that weaknesses can be fixed. But this isn’t development, it is damage control. And by itself damage control is a poor strategy for elevating either the employee or the organization to world-class performance.” — Marcus Buckingham & Donald Clifton (2001)
Psst … decades before Marcus Buckingham became the poster child for “building upon strengths, not weakness,” Peter Drucker heralded the cause. In THE PRACTICE OF MANAGEMENT (1954), Drucker actually launched the strengths movement by writing:
“Nothing destroys the spirit of an organization faster than focusing on people’s weaknesses rather than on their strengths, building on disabilities rather than on abilities. The focus must be on strength.”“One can only build on strength. One can achieve only by doing. Appraisal must therefore aim first and foremost on bringing out what a man can do … a man should never be appointed to a managerial position if his vision focuses on people’s weaknesses rather than on their strengths.”
“One cannot do anything with what one cannot do. Once cannot achieve anything with what one does not do … Appraisal must therefore aim first and foremost on bringing out what a man can do.”
Drucker revisited the concept of strengths-based development with a must-read Harvard Business Review article (MANAGING ONESELF, 1999). He updates his stance by writing:
“Most people think they know what they are good at. They are usually wrong. More often, people know what they are not good at - and even then more people are wrong than right. And yet, a person can perform only from strength. One cannot build performance on weaknesses, let alone on something one cannot do at all.“Waste as little effort as possible on improving areas of low competence. It takes far more energy and far more work to improve from incompetence to low mediocrity than it takes to improve from first-rate performance to excellence.”
Also in MANAGING ONSELF, Drucker explains how “measuring feedback analysis” is the best way to discover your strengths. He encourages executives to, at the time they make a key decision, write down the expectations they hope come from that decision. Then after nine or twelve months, compare the actual results with the written-down expectations. It’s a process that worked for Drucker to identify areas he excelled and areas where he struggled to meet expectations.
From my experience, a more scientific way to identify one’s strengths is to use the StrengthsFinder test from Gallup. This online test formed the basis for NOW, DISCOVER YOUR STRENGTHS (2001) and for Tom Rath’s STRENGTHSFINDER 2.0 (2007).
Next, Chapter NINE of the The IDB Project.
Good read johnmoore.
If one focuses on strengths, then the weakness will still be there. Building one's strengths can only offset the weakness to a point. Therefore, does this also place emphasis on the need to align yourself with others who complement you (i.e. where I am weak, you are strong)?
The drive to overcome our (non-destructive) weaknesses seems more narcissistic than helpful.
Posted by: DUST!N | December 16, 2008 at 01:18 PM
@John - I am enjoying the IDB project and am also a proponent of the Strengthsfinder evaluation. I found it to be very accurate and very indicative of the strenghts I possess, namely competition and communication.
Thanks for sharing this series!
Posted by: Ryan Stephens | December 16, 2008 at 02:49 PM
This is probably one of the first times that I disagree.
This way of thinking is complete bunk and is the reason why the majority of this world is filled with one-dimensional people that believe their intelligence and abilities are predetermined by something other than ourselves. Pitchers can't hit because they don't receive the proper training, nor are they forced to practice.
Consider the person, the employee, as the brand itself—of course you promote the strengths, but does this mean we should not improve the brands weakness. Suppose I have a laundry detergent that smells great and I promote that fact, only thing is, it doesn't clean so well. Does this mean I should make the scent stronger (increasing my strengths) and not work on it's cleaning ability (improving my weakness).
I hope I don't sound too Gladwellian...
HAVE A GREAT HOLIDAY!
Posted by: rich | December 16, 2008 at 03:05 PM
Dear Mr. Rich,
I have slight hitch with your disagreement.
I agree that weakness needs attention and there is no way we should not direct our energies to improve them.
But "Change" is prerogative of leadership and not management.
Mr. Drucker is talking about managing... "getting things done, effectively"... so that requires focus on strength. Things that needs to be done with what we have.
Change is a long term thing and that requires leadership focus.
I hope i was clear in what i said..
Have a great life !
Posted by: Bhartendra | December 18, 2008 at 01:18 AM
Before you cast your board into the strengths-based leadership wave (albeit a long-lived wave), check out "The Perils of Accentuating the Positive," Hogan Press, publishing January 2009.
Here's a bit about it from CLO magazine: http://www.clomedia.com/executive-briefings/2008/August/2337/index.php
Full-disclosure, my firm is publicist. But I've also worked with a number executive development experts who share the view that playing to your strengths short-circuits true development and is often the cause for derailment.
Posted by: 100th Monkey | December 19, 2008 at 02:11 PM