StrengthsFinder is a well-designed diagnostic (and coaching / talent management approach) that can be used to help individuals and teams become more successful, by focusing on people’s strengths, as opposed to their weaknesses. 
Created by the Gallup organization and based on the research of Dr. Donald Clifton, StrengthsFinder 2.0 is a book by Tom Rath that serves as a “wrapper” for an online personal assessment that you can take through StrengthsFinder.com. The original version of the book, Now, Discover Your Strengths was co-authored by Clifton and Marcus Buckingham, who has since left the Gallup organization to start his own gig. Overall, thumbs up. Very insightful and practical stuff.
Now, I won’t be discussing what’s great about StrengthsFinder, other than the words “well-designed,” “thumbs up,” “very insightful and practical” (above), and “brilliantly lucrative and well-executed book and consulting services marketing strategy.”
Rather, just as the StrengthsFinder test will give anyone their Top Five Themes of Strength, I will now proceed to pick out what I think are the Top Five Themes of Weakness of StrengthsFinder. ‘Cause I’m contrarian like that.
**LONG RANT WARNING***
**LONG RANT WARNING***
**LONG RANT WARNING***
THEME #1) ARBITRARY: The premise of StrengthsFinder is to use an inventory of 34 “themes” to help people discover their talents, which are defined as “naturally recurring patterns of thought, feeling, or behavior” that are “enduring and unique.” By understanding and harnessing one’s talents, a person can cultivate their strengths, which are defined as “consistent near perfect performance in an activity.”
In order to perform an activity, the authors say we must have knowledge (defined as “the facts and lessons learned”) and skills (“the steps of an activity”). However, when you get right down to it, what the authors relegate as “skills” that can be learned versus “talents” that are innate can, at times, seem a bit arbitrary. Furthermore, when describing a situation where a person achieved greatness in an activity outside their core themes of talent, the authors explain it away by describing how that person could have drawn on a different strength to get the job done. Finally, the test is opaque: You don’t get to see your numerical scores on individual themes, and in the standard version, you only get a list of the top five, or what they call your ”Signature Themes.”
(“Signature Themes” ..makes me feel like a new line of fragrance from Sean John… )
In the end, these 34 themes have an almost horoscope-like quality to them, especially since we the readers are advised to not look at just our top theme but rather to ”weave” or “braid” together our Signature Themes. With its black box survey algorithm, blurry definitions and distinctions, and its total lack of falsifiability, it’s impossible to prove or disprove anything about StrengthFinders. I’m actually tempted to do a comparison of the 34 StrengthsFinders themes and the 12 signs of the traditional horoscope. No, I didn’t even test high for ANALYTICAL on StrengthsFinder, but perhaps this is just a combination my IDEATION and INTELLECTION themes, and my being a GEMINI and having a moon sign of…wait… I forget…
StrengthsFinder exhibits many characteristics of the Forer Effect, namely, that people lend credibility to descriptions of their personality that are vague and generally applicable, especially when those descriptions appear to be tailored to them, authoritative (backed by science, ancient wisdom, surveys of 2 million people, etc.), and generally positive. Well, the idea of “strength” is positive from the get-go, and some of the 34 theme definitions are downright ebullient: “You know you will be judged not by what you say, not by what you think, but by what you get done. This does not frighten you. It pleases you.” Or how about this: ”Others may label you creative or original or conceptual or even smart. Perhaps you are all of these. Who can be sure?”
THEME #2) PERFECTIONIST: By defining a strength as “consistent near perfect performance in an activity,” and by laying down the opening premise that “Each person’s greatest room for growth is in the areas of his or her greatest strength,” the authors push an agenda which is fraught with difficulties in a world which is less than ideal. As Voltaire famously wrote, “Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien.” The perfect is the enemy of the good. No, depending on our circumstances, sometimes our greatest opportunity and room for growth is in an area that we’re not naturally gifted in. In fact, one of the things I like about the 34 themes in StrengthsFinder is that it provides some helpful descriptions of personality traits that one can and should learn from, even if it’s not a core competence. “Who is wise? One who learns from every person,” said Ben Zoma (one of my all time favorites). If, according to your StrengthsFinder profile, you score low on Empathy, Command, Self-Assurance, etc, etc. perhaps it would be a good idea to cultivate those abilities, especially in volatile market conditions that could see you needing them.
Buried in a few places in the books, the authors concede that one shouldn’t “forgo… weakness fixing” in the areas that they have marked-off as the exclusive domain of innate talent. Using the example of Empathy, they describe the effects of an empathy skills class as giving a “karaoke version of empathy” to someone who is not naturally strong in the Empathy talent theme. “Of course, a karaoke version of empathy can sometimes better than no version at all… Damage control can prevent failure, but it will never elevate you to excellence.” However one defines the term ”success,” the definition may include the idea of ”excellence” in it, but it definitely does not include its own reverse definition, i.e., “failure.” Those of us who “view failure as a kind of success” have in fact redefined true ”failure” as something else… perhaps, ”failure” for us means the inability to learn from imperfect outcomes. Or maybe we just ignore “failure” altogether. Regardless of the semantics, weakness-fixing does deserve a high priority of personal development plans and corporate training budgets. Strength building does too. Which brings us to the next weakness of StrengthsFinder…
THEME #3) UNBALANCED: The authors of StrengthsFinders, like many authors, wish to make a point. In the process, they make their point bigger than it needs to be. This is slightly annoying. Or maybe that’s just my BALANCED theme at play (just kidding, there is no such theme in StrengthsFinders, nor is there a SNARKY theme or an ORNERY BLOGGER theme ).
One way in which the authors overstate their case is by resorting to a straw man argument that most companies and talent management professionals (especially recruiters) seek well-rounded candidates for hire and promotion, and that these misguided professionals should be looking for exceptional candidates who have the unique strengths needed to excel in the particular companies and roles being filled.
The fact is, if you ever listen to the conversations of recruiters and hiring managers, you will hear talk about “perfect fits,” “square pegs” and “purple squirrels.” In the spectrum of “everyone should anything they set their minds to” versus “everyone should only do what they are really good at,” the world of corporate human resources is definitely skewed to the latter view.
StrengthsFinder is actually a pretty decent coaching tool (oops, I said I wasn’t going to give any more praise, there’s me with my FOX NEWS FAIR AND BALANCED theme swooshing around) and I include it in my consulting toolkit. But strengths-based management is also abused as a form of psychological pigeonholing — assign this type of person to this type of role because they have the innate talent for it. When combined with criteria such as prior experience and technical skills, the talents & strengths-based approach of selection and professional growth creates a hyper-specialization of the deepest kind.
The authors make numerous, valiant attempts to discourage pigeonholing and insist that, used properly, a strengths-based approach to talent development should have the opposite effect. Their arguments in the short section titled “Will I become Too Narrow if I Focus on My Signature Themes?” are only somewhat convincing and are overshadowed by the larger theme of “stop trying to make a fit that’s not there” and “do what your nature has made you good at…. and keep focusing on that.” Unfortunately, many managers who read the book will likewise use the 34 themes as just another way to categorize and commoditize their human “resources.” In fact, the authors (in Now, Discover Your Strengths) suggest creating a “theme inventory” of entire organizations and to map people and roles against that inventory. While well-meaning in their intent, the authors give less the less-nuanced reader a powerful tool for stereotyping themselves and others… it’s like handing out scalpels to non-surgeons.
I think this last point #3, UNBALANCED is actually two points: UNBALANCED and EASILY MISINTERPRETED. Or perhaps simply TOUCHING ON AN AREA THAT DAN IS OVERLY SENSITIVE ABOUT. No matter. On with the rant…
THEME #4) WRONG: Going back to the authors’ assertion that Empathy is an innate talent for which a true strength cannot be obtained through training, I must disagree. Empathy can be taught, provided the learner is willing, motivated and the instruction is done effectively and reinforced properly at a deep level. Life experience (post age 16) can help too. The StrengthsFinders thesis, with its definitions of STRENGTHS, TALENTS, SKILL and KNOWLEDGE, could be rendered as the following formula:
STRENGTH = TALENT (SKILL + KNOWLEDGE)
..where TALENT is a fixed variable, which has an overwhelming, multiplying effect on whatever learnable SKILLS and KNOWLEDGE are needed.
The firm I work for often uses a formula that has a similar structure:
EXCEPTIONAL PERFORMANCE = (KNOWLEDGE+SKILLS+PROCESS) MINDSET
…where all four variables K,S,P,M are learnable. The MINDSET variable includes things like attitudes, values and beliefs. Granted, this formula does not take innate TALENT into account, as the StrengthsFinder “equation” does, and both formulas don’t take things like LUCK and CIRCUMSTANCE into account. Add in all the disclaimers you want about life not being reducible to inane, contrived formulas, but there is a practical difference to all this formula nonsense: If my company gives a course designed to help people develop their empathy skills (and it does), the course does not just provide a bunch of techniques to emulate and create a “karaoke version of empathy.” Rather, the course helps participants develop an attitude and belief about empathy that will underpin the tactical things they need to do and say, in order to cultivate it. A person’s ability to be effective (or even “consistently near perfect”) in empathy is not dependent on a static variable of their brain circuitry, frozen at age 16. I have seen mature adults fundamentally change their ability in this and other areas of talent, areas that StrengthsFinders reserves for its 34 themes.
THEME #5) INCOMPLETE: StrengthsFinder, according to its technical appendix, captures personal motivation, interpersonal skills, self-presentation and learning style. It does not attempt to capture stuff outside of those areas — and in many cases, there can be important stuff. Also, it seems to miss some things that fall within the areas of cognition that it purports to cover.
The inventory of 34 talent themes is based on “over 2 million interviews,” with lots of granularity and distinction around talents that would come into play in the typical modern workplace. One gets the sense that if those 2 million interviews took place mainly in non-corporate settings (e.g. artistic settings, or even workplaces with a strong element of creative design), you’d get all kinds of other talent themes not covered by StrengthsFinder. What about an innate sense of Rhythm, Melody, Direction, or Spatial Organization? Within the area of visual design and rendering, there are any number of talents that come into play, some of which are included in StrengthFinders’ 34 themes (certainly ARRANGER, possibly CONNECTEDNESS) but if you’ve ever met someone with a talent at drawing or watercolor, you’d know there is more to doing it than just “the steps of an activity.”
But then, it’s too easy to nitpick (ANALYTICAL, DELIBERATIVE, COMPETITION, FOCUS), isn’t it? Wait, none of those were my Signature Themes, either…
* * * * *
Ideation: People who are especially talented in the Ideation theme are fascinated by ideas. They are able to find connections between seemingly disparate phenomena.
Input: People who are especially talented in the Input theme have a craving to know more. Often they like to collect and archive all kinds of information.
Learner: People who are especially talented in the Learner theme have a great desire to learn and want to continuously improve. In particular, the process of learning, rather than the outcome, excites them.
Intellection: People who are especially talented in the Intellection theme are characterized by their intellectual activity. They are introspective and appreciate intellectual discussions.
Adaptability: People who are especially talented in the Adaptability theme prefer to “go with the flow.” They tend to be “now” people who take things as they come and discover the future one day at a time.
I’ve got Ideation, Input, Learner, Intellection, and Includer. What a coincidence.
Are you a Gemini, too?
i get it. hook me on “attack!”.. then post big rants making sure ill have no time to comment.
once again.. im speechless. im yet again in a position where i spend a lot of thought and introspection on an issue come up with conclusions then find out there’s a book written on it with similar conclusions.
those strengthfinder ppl seem to be talking about the same thing ive been commenting about on this blog for weeks. except, they’ve got it down to a pseudoscience with formulas and top skills etc.. something i strongly disagree with.
one thing i do want to comment about tho: there are certain things you cannot learn effectively. You cannot learn to be charming. you cannot learn to be social. you cannot learn to be charismatic. and to some extent, you cannot learn to be empathic.
you can take courses and emulate, but in my experience, emulation is easily sniffed out, and “fake” is a difficult stigma to get rid of.
actually, what i said above is not 100% true. you can “acquire” those traits.. but not thru “courses” or “exercises”.. but it takes things like deeply painful experiences or major selfconfidence boost.. or any drastic personality changing experiences.
the bottom line is still simple.. someone who is antisocial, hates talking to people.. has no business being in sales or customer support etc…
someone who is self-absorbed, lacking self confidence, constantly self doubting, has no business being in caregiving situations… etc..
you cannot teach people to not be selfabsorbed. it takes some serious challenges in life.. and overcoming them.. to be able to start gaining those “strengths”.
from what u explain.. those strengthsfinder people are stuck in a static system. and people, fortunately are not static. “potential” is a word i didnt see used in ur entire post…
Yes, “potential” is what this stuff is all about — helping people achieve their desired potential. Thanks for bringing that up. Your comment has actually sparked some ideas for additional posts. But before I go and do that, let’s chat some more about StrengthsFinders :
One of the hidden strengths of StrengthsFinder is in the scores for all the areas of talent that fall between a person’s “top five” and “bottom five” themes, which Gallup doesn’t show you… at least not for the $20 fee. Of course, the survey authors would insist that a strengths-only philosophy demands this opacity. I say screw that, let’s pull back the curtain and see The Wizard… open source, baby!
While it may not have the scientific rigor of a particle accelerator, the StrengthsFinder tool does have some practical value in terms of talent management and professional development. Focus on what you do well… do more of it… do it even better… keep polishing. The authors strongly maintain, as you do, that some things such as true empathy cannot be learned. Other similar personality indexes/assessment tools say the same thing, although some of them allow for life-threatening-illness-new-religion-drastic-perspective-changing-quarter-life-crisis-event-type-things , just as you mentioned. But overall, these models maintain a similarly strong line about a person’s core personality being locked in their mid-to-late-teens. In my opinion, once you allow for the exception of profound existential experiences / desire to change as a way to reshape core personality traits , it all becomes semantics anyway. To quote a lawyer I once hired, “you can drive a truck through that loophole.”
I also think it’s important when thinking about this stuff to get past the theoretical extremes and deep personality disorders — people who are 100% antisocial or profoundly narcissistic or whatnot — and deal with the more usual case of the people who have some non-absolute, highly situational, and moldable tendencies. I’m talking about ordinary people – the people we meet every day in business – people who have variegated, diffuse strengths and weaknesses, but more importantly, who also have values and opportunities that they may choose to follow, according to their own free will.
Here is a fantastic recent article from the New York Times Magazine, by fellow Montrealer Steven Pinker. This guy gets it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11Genome-t.html
There’s more to all this stuff than just genes or other innate tendencies. The new book by Malcolm Gladwell is an important read too. One of its messages is that excellence also comes through lots of practice, luck and help from friends. On the surface that sounds trite, and it might be, but… well… just read the damn book.
I get worried when people start dictating that certain people “should,” “shouldn’t,” or “cannot” do something truly successfully, based on their innate tendencies. This is not because I believe that anyone can or should do anything, but because there are so many amazing examples that contradict any conventional wisdom about fitting square pegs in square holes. But rather than getting caught in the trap of describing famous people, let’s keep it a little more ordinary: you mention sales, specifically,
Leaving aside the straw man argument of the extremes (I’m going to unilaterally replace your word “hate” with “very very uncomfortable” ..and if you don’t like it, take it out on me in our next game of Attack), sales development is actually an area that I can comment on from direct experience – both as a manager and now as a salesperson and as an instructor at a consulting firm for some of the world’s top performing companies, dealing with all kinds of personality types. I’ll try to write a future post on some of the interesting things that happen in the world of sales, including sales performance, sales leadership, sales management, sales coaching, and sales training. For the time being, let me just note that I disagree with your business prescription. The real bottom line about salespeople is this: There is more than one way to sell, and more than one kind of salesperson. For many companies, the most effective and professional salespeople, who are most liked by their clients (who can sniff out “fakes” as you say) and who generate the greatest successes, are not the most naturally gregarious people… not by a long shot. Also, the “natural” personalities who succeed “effortlessly” in sales in one environment will completely fail in another environment. Finally, there are also many reasons why a person could be intensely uncomfortable talking to other people, and they themselves don’t always know what the reason for that is and how that might be best mitigated in their role as a salesperson.
As for your caregiving situation example, well, that’s a touchy subject… definitely an area with diverse opinions about what constitutes a “good fit” or even just plain old competency.
My challenge to you is this: When you factor all the other things that might influence a person’s success in an endeavor – their talents, their drive, their situation, their support, their timing, their commitment, their practice, their beliefs and guiding principles – might you consider that the thing we call “innate talent” is a very small piece of the outcome? In hindsight, it’s easy to look back at a person who is doing something very successfully and come up with all kinds of reasons why it’s “in their nature” or was “inevitable.” I suspect often times it’s just the bundling together of a whole bunch of stuff that isn’t necessarily a “top five signature theme.” In many cases, it’s the person’s sixth, seventh or tenth ranking “themes,” bundled together with some happy accidents (e.g., they were the best candidate available at the time and place of the opportunity) and 10,000 hours of practice, Karate Kid style, and all we observers can see at the end of this messy process is the resulting fluid, flawless execution.
So here’s my stance on this StrengthsFinders stuff… at least for today: Use a strengths-based approach to professional development as just one of many tools, and try not to dictate functional roles based on personality profiling. I think the authors of StrengthsFinders would mostly agree with this message, except for the “as just one of many tools” part.
before i make a lengthier post (with more thought into it), i’ll even add this to your point: a lot of times we might discover a strength we have by trying things we wouldn’t normally have thought of being good at it.
so unless one does the horizontal exploration, one cannot find his full potential.
on another note, talking about extremes is the only way to be able to connect social sciences to arithmetic (which i have to mention again, i strongly disagree with, even if i sing a similar tune as the strengthdfinders ppl).
in extreme cases, with extreme personalities, the variables drop. at least to an acceptable enough level where we can make postulates (“a clinically depressive should not work at a palliative care unit”). the “normal” people, the middle 80%, can not be categorized, patterned, branded, cuz their personality is way too fluid. way too balanced.
That’s an interesting point you make about using extremes to isolate variables. Historically, much of research on the mechanics of the mind has utilized situations such as twins separated from birth, lobotomies, etc. to limit the number of factors at play and uncover the underlying patterns and “rules” of human behavior. And yet, returning to the example at hand, what’s confounding is how, for example, you might say a person with no legs should logically not pursue a goal of running a marathon. We all know how that story ends, of course. We don’t know which people will achieve greatness by playing to their strengths, and which will achieve greatness by overcoming seemingly insurmountable odds, or even those middling bunch that try to overcome those odds, “fail” at the initial goal, but discover something else in the process.
I’ve been reading some Richard Feynman lately, and your issue with the “social sciences” is one he shared. Here’s a segment from a BBC interview hid did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EZcpTTjjXY
On the flipside, Feynman had a respect for the non-scientific world, and is quoted as saying: “I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.” I think that quote might be a bit out of context here — he was probably referring to problems of philosophy, faith, morality and other spheres. The dissection of human behavior, human drive and motivation, the discussion of where talent comes from and how it can be most effectively harnessed, is well within the sphere of the natural world that science tries to explain.
The first people to use bows and arrows didn’t wait until Newton worked out all the equations for understanding projectile motion. So tools like StrengthsFinder, with their lack of truly scientific rigor, can be effective nonetheless. Yet the audience craves an aura of statistics and science.
[...] Pecha-kutcha and other X-TREME POWERPOINTING is a topic I’ll save for a separate post. As for “Emotionally Intelligent Signage,” while that term may sound cool in a WIRED-techno-chic sort of way, a more accurate term for what Pink is describing would be “Empathetic Signage.” Of course, that sounds… emm… pathetic… so we’ll keep the meme as Pink has rendered it for marketing purposes, and quietly remind ourselves that Emotional Intelligence is a vast, evolving topic, of which this idea of “empathy” is just a part. (All pseudo-science rants are hereby directed to the StrengthsFinder comments thread.) [...]
you are right re: “innate talent”. it is definitely far from being the pivotal piece to success.
i wonder how much context has an influence on what the strengthsfinder style analysis can be useful for.
from a managerial point of view, when faced with the decision of who to assign to what position, i think it is reasonable to assume “playing for strengths” is the recommended course of action. assign the correct personality to the correct job. (as opposed to, assign them to the opposite jobs and expect them to change.)
In contrast, from a personal development point of view, working on the weaknesses would definitely be a much more productive exercise.
i agree things like should/shouldnt for career picking is definitely not recommended. in fact, i was advised at cegep career counseling that the career i picked today was a very bad idea for me. they based it on report cards, and choice of courses. i’m sure the logic was solid, but their data was not reliable. and it’s situations like this that worry me when it comes to “arithmetizing” social sciences.
Nicely put, well stated! Your distinction about context, management vs personal development, is quite sharp.
The manager looking for talent is like a prospector looking for gold. They can chisel away at any wall and hope gold will appear, or they can choose which wall to chisel against, based on what hints they can see, using their own experience, tools and talent as prospectors.
From a personal development point of view, my bias these days, when asked by people for career advice, is not to just have them figure out “what they’re good at that they also enjoy and can make money doing,” aka their “marketable strengths.” What I like to do is ask them what kind of environment they would most likely want to work in, be surrounded by, and then, based on the opportunities in the near vicinity, to test those waters. But that is just my bias at this particular time, and I am not a professional career advisor.
[...] No Daniel Tammet (A Meditation on the Number 18)Ricola ™ versus CVS “Natural Herb” Cough DropsTop Five Weaknesses of StrengthsFinder Translate Server Error — Would You Like Files With That? [翻译服务器错误. [...]
Yep it’s just a tool.
I’m for listing all the 34 themes in order 1-34 as the report with the top 5 reported fully (maybe extra $5).
FYI mine are Activator,Woo,Strategic,Futuristic,Command
My feeling is that otherwise the suggestion that it is just an intro for the $750 gig is always there.
Now Marcus Buckingham has started his own gig too.
Was he pushed or did he leave over creative differences??
my two cents worth.
[...] always think to be wary of things like this, and I think this blog covers the top weaknesses of something like the Strengthsfinder. Nevertheless, regardless of the “black box” quality of the strength theme process, I [...]
[...] People In The World: Those Who Think There Are Two Kinds of People In The World and Those Who Don'tTop Five Weaknesses of StrengthsFinder Advanced Skill-Will Diagnostics: Distinguishing Habits from Values, Incentives from [...]
I did enjoy this post
A thought for you: I think what this all boils down to for me is simply this: tests like Strengthsfinder give me a language to describe what I already know to be true about myself. The danger of this language is that new experiences may change me completely (and therefore I’d need help in articulating the different aspects of this “new” self). That said, its benefits, for most, seem to outweigh its costs.
Yes?
Thanks Katie — glad you enjoyed this post and were able to work your way through the comments thread!
Yes, your synopsis pretty much nails it. When we use a language, we structure our thinking according to its underlying assumptions. Yet, without language our thinking is muddled and inarticulate.
So I guess it helps us to be multi-lingual… and to be lifelong students of vocabulary.
It’s important to note that the developers of the StrengthsFinder assessment “do not call it a TEST!” As an “inventory” or “indicator” it is not intended to have pure construct validity. It is not measuring specific unique “behaviors” (constructs). It is a developmental assessment to be used in discussion and reflection with someone skilled to help the individual interpret the results of the assessment. It’s “theme” approach is appropriate for this and other instruments that serve the same purpose. Themes provide a range of “actions, attitudes, and behaviors” that are similar in a few particular ways but vary in how they are applied, in what situation, for what purpose, and to what outcome.
For more than twenty years I had differences of opinion with my graduate mentor who claimed in the area of personal development counseling that if an assessment was a precise as the constructs used in some clinical psychological instruments, it was like a horoscope. Developmental instruments like the SF are unique because if they are not approached with an understanding of their development and purpose and a thorough understanding of the technical manual (which is available for free) AND with appropriate instruction from experienced facilitators (better with MA/MS or Phd/EdD training) clients and students can gain a clarity and a personal understanding that is remarkable. Otherwise, negative evaluations that I read about the SF, career and psychological cardsorts, as well as assessment instruments like the Myers Briggs Type Inventory are all too common.
I’ve used the SF for six years with graduate students, professional counselors, faculty colleagues and private clients. I always suggest that those who take the SF and similar instruments take two to four months to “sit on the results”, discuss them with friends and family, and refer to their facilitator or counselor for clarification. For my students I suggest they take a full year of reflecting, reading and research to come to terms with their results.
One of my sayings is that “assessment results in and of themselves mean very little. It’s start of a discussion. As a career counselor and strengths consultant, its not what the assessment or inventory results are, it’s how the client/student relates to what it says.” And from what the client says we, can discover THEIR truth, potential as well as identify barriers in helping them identify their form of excellence.
Well said, Gregory!
I particularly appreciated your statement, “assessment results in and of themselves mean very little. It’s start of a discussion.” It reminds me of something Douglas Adams once wrote in his book Mostly Harmless, “It’s just a way of thinking about a problem which lets the shape of that problem begin to emerge.” Mind you, Adams was talking about horoscopes, not psychometric instruments… but I think he would have regarded the statement as applicable to both.
I’ve had a similar experience coaching other people who have their StrengthsFinder results in their hands and who ask me the question, “Yeah, ok, so now what?”
You might enjoy this other, related post: What Kind of a Personality Test are You?
[...] People In The World: Those Who Think There Are Two Kinds of People In The World and Those Who Don'tTop Five Weaknesses of StrengthsFinder Skill-Will Matrix Revisited: Taking the Employee’s Point of ViewSame Data, Different Graphs (aka [...]
[...] and Tithing, aka, The time has come, A fact's a fact, It doesn't belong to us, Let's give it backTop Five Weaknesses of StrengthsFinder Long Tail Survival Tip #1 : Strong Communication SkillsBiting the Bulletpoint, Part Two: Flowcharts, [...]
I really enjoyed reading the Top Five Weaknesses of Strengths Finder just like I enjoyed reading the book and not taking everything that was written there literally.I think that there are many things/skills that people can learn and many other things we can improve in ourselves. And then there are many other things we cannot learn, and many other things about ourselves that we cannot improve. Things are so relative. Everything depends on the person, on the way s/he is brought up, on the environment around him/her… I have so many ideas running through my head regarding this topic that it would take me a couple of hours to put all my thoughts together.
Thank you Vilma… please do share your other thoughts!
Ok, I will try to. A friend of mine gave this book to me about 10 days ago. One day before this book came to my hands, I was saying to myself that the best way to make a living is to do something that you enjoy doing (I had thought this even before.) The novelty was that I came up with the idea that the secret of happines at work is to do sth tha you are REALLY good at. In this case, success is guaranteed. So, when I started to read the book, I was thrilled because it was exactly what I was thinking one day before. I read it very quickly, because I was really enjoying it, but then I started not to agree with many things that were written there. And then, I was more excited to know that there’s a writing out there which does not agree with the ideas of the book. I read your article, and I was like “Wow” This is so smart, so well written, so thoughtful, so professional…”
I am from Albania, a small country in development, south east of Balkan / Europe. I will try to put my own thoughts with which I came as I wwas reading the book – before I read your article. They are:
1) The book a lot of emphasis on sb’s strengths, to the extend that sb should ignore his or her weaknesses. And I think that this is wrong. Being aware of our weaknesses – whether at the professional or behavioral level is very important. I started to think about people whom I know who think that they are perfect, when they are totally the opposite of that. Until 3 years ago, I thought I was perfect, until it came a time when I faced myself and I found out that I was not perfect at all! Also, there are people who are so proud do be very direct to people and that they are not afraid to tell people what’s on their mind, but when people are direct to them, they don’t like it at all and they overreact. So, people can learn self-awareness.
2) The book is mostly about masterminds! Nature has gifted some people with lots of talents, but not everyone is like that. In everyday lives we cannot always follow our passions. We have to take in considerations other things.
3) There are lots of people who have not been talented in an area, but due to a great zeal, people have mastered that skill and have excelled. Some cultures are like that. Also, there is a saying which says: “Only 1 percent talent, 99 percent should be work.” Actually, if you can do something that is out of your comfort zone, is more rewarding spiritually than when you are naturally talented in that area.
4) I thought that the authors are great businessmen! You had found the right words to describe the book. One of them was …brilliantly lucrative.
Ok, this is what I have for now. I thank you for reading my previous post, and for taking time reading this other one.
I apologize for any mistake in writing. For example:
1) The book puts a lot of emphasis…
Vilma, no need to apologize… your English is infinitely better than my Albanian. (Faleminderit për përpjekjet tuaja. Nëse ju nuk e kishte bërë këtë, unë do të duhet të përdorni Google Translate për të mësuar nga ju, dhe siç e dimë ato llojet e mjeteve nuk janë shumë të besueshme … edhe pse ata janë goxha të mirë, ndonjëherë.) So thanks again, for taking out the time to write out your reflections.
On your point #1) I like how you referenced self-awareness… seems like self-awareness is a required “meta-strength” if one is to do strengths-based developmental work… and true self-awareness doesn’t come from ignoring the weaknesses/critique points about ourselves.
This is not to say such critical self-awareness has to be overwhelmingly negative or demotivational. One of the things I find myself doing more and more, drawing from the field of Positive Psychology, is to uncover the “positive intent” embedded within a behavior and finding better ways to satisfy that intent. That and other nuances (such as “an overdeveloped strength can become a weakness in itself”) are some of the other things I’ve come to appreciate as I’ve continued to explore this topic in my talent development work. I’m a fan of some of Marcus Buckingham’s post-Gallup work, too.
Anyway, the saying you quoted made me smile: “Only 1 percent talent, 99 percent should be work.”
There’s a song refrain along those lines:
This is ten percent luck,
Twenty percent skill,
Fifteen percent concentrated power of will,
Five percent pleasure,
Fifty percent pain,
And a hundred percent reason to remember the name
I am a collector of song lyrics. So, thanks for these nice lines. In my culture I would hear that quote a lot, the one of 99 % vs 1 % – not that I apply it. When I was younger, I was more willing to do different jobs to challange myself. Now I want to do only what I am good at. But, I appreciate people who are courageous and challenge themselves by trying different things. I think that’s what makes strong living.
This is such a broad topic and I still have thoughts running in my head, but the writing cannot catch the speed of my thoughts. Plus, I should organize them. Anyways, it was valuable sharing thoughts with you.
P.S. Your Albanian is great!
)
Thanks for posting for this wonderful article, I have managed to share it, please do create more valuable posts like this one.
Let’s Talk Personality
My unique combination seems to also make me automatically skeptical about these things. Well that, and a lot of statistical training that helps me better understand the way data is often data mined in non-valid ways. More than that though, it did have the quality of a horoscope. At the end of it I read off my top five, and was left with the feeling that I already knew that about myself. I’m curious about people that are so self-unaware that this information would be life changing.
I’m at a cross-roads in my life and I got the book and took the test so I would get a better insight on what professions I would be happiest in, because perhaps there were a few that I might have misconceptions about. And, I would like to work with like individuals that are drawn to such professions. I didn’t get that. I’m sure I would if I paid the $550 to sit down with a consultant. If I don’t know where I can maximize my strengths in combination, then WTF?
That and the fact that there’s no algorithm designed to combine the top five into an amalgam. For example, my top three are:
1. Strategic 2. Ideation 3. Individualization
That’s true, so how do I find the right industry or position that blends contrary strengths like:
4. Activator 5. Command
I’m left with the same issue I had before. I realized already that academia wasn’t for me, because it’s filled with people with my first 3 strengths, but annoyingly absent of my latter 2. The same with my time in the military, and business; full of the latter 2, and depressingly missing the first 3. I had decided to get my MBA and manage research to try to combine them, but would I be happy with that decision? Or, would I just waste a lot of time and money to prepare and train for an idealized position that doesn’t really exist in the numbers necessary for me to have a shot at getting it? After reading the book and taking the test, I’m no closer to an answer.
Thanks for sharing this, Rick, you seem to have an excellent understanding of your own strengths. I particularly enjoyed your characterization of the academic vs. military and business worlds. I once heard someone describe the difference as follows: “In business, you try to make the biggest possible statement with the least amount of evidence. In academia, it’s the reverse.”
So let’s call your other (undocumented) strength as Moderator,” as in, “Everything in moderation.”
Rather than analyzing your way into a new career path via an assessment instrument, you sound like the kind of guy who might want to just try out different working environments, even as a volunteer, in order to figure out where you would be most comfortable. Based on the opportunities available to you, which working environments and organizational cultures are the best fit for you? Functional role aside, what is your ideal named target list of potential employers? Also, if you were to start your own company, what would that look like?
[...] D. (2009, January 10) Top Five Weaknesses of StrengthsFinder. Meme Menagerie. Retrieved from http://danspira.com/2009/01/10/top-five-weaknesses-of-strengthsfinder/ Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]