Leadership: Rethinking the Notion of Strengths & Weaknesses
Posted on March 24, 2023 by Donald Stuart Chappell, One of Thousands of Leadership Coaches on Noomii.
There is a thin line that separates strengths and weaknesses, and that is because they come from the same source.
For as long as I have been in management, one of the more durable of the interview questions used on employee selection panels has gone something like this: “Please name at least one of your strengths and discuss how it aligns with the requirements of this position and name one of your weaknesses and discuss what measures you have taken to improve upon it.” On the surface, not a bad question. Virtually all of us perform better than average in some areas, or have consistently exhibited behaviors that have been deemed to be exceptional; and every single last one of us perform worse in one or more areas, or have consistently exhibited behaviors that have been deemed undesirable or counterproductive. Setting aside the likelihood of a job candidate replying to this question with an accurate assessment of either (but especially the latter), attempting to discover what someone does especially well and what they do not do so well before you hire them is a justifiable endeavor. However, it is not the purpose behind the question that I have a problem with, it is the premise behind it; and I think that premise is a byproduct of the more general notion that parts of an individual performer can be separated into “good” and “bad” and that those parts can then be targeted separately for either encouragement, in the case of the former, or discouragement, in the case of the latter.
I do not think that is how we are ‘wired’ as humans; or, at least, I am convinced that is not how I am wired; nor how any of the hundreds of employees I have managed; nor any of the clients I have coached. Instead, I think, like love and hate, there is a thin line that separates strengths and weaknesses, and that is because each are tied to the same traits and attributes that combine to make us who and what we are. For example, one of my more predominant behaviors is that I attempt to obtain my objectives as quickly as possible (without deliberately cutting corners, that is). I suspect that this particular behavior is a manifestation of both trait(s) and attributes(s) and, not surprisingly, this behavior—which I describe as a combination of reactiveness, efficiency, impatience, and recklessness—has been a major component of some of my more notable successes and my more notorious failures. Applied in a manner that consistently and enduringly produces results deemed positive, the behavior is interpreted as a strength. Conversely, when applied in a manner that regularly results in negative outcomes, the behavior is interpreted as a weakness. When correlated with what is considered one of my strengths, the trait/attribute likely manifests itself in such behaviors as: quickly and regularly responding to stakeholder inquiries, completing a major project ahead of schedule, promptly addressing negative employee performance, and providing needed resources without delay. When linked to what is perceived as a weakness, the trait/attribute likely manifests as: being too aggressive or pushy when attempting to obtain information from a third party, moving through something so rapidly I inadvertently pass over important details, too quickly losing my patience with someone or something I view as an obstacle, and generally behaving in a manner that causes others to view me as a high-strung nuisance (that last one was painful to write).
It matters that we move away from viewing ourselves and others as comprised of separate ‘good’ and ‘bad’ parts and toward viewing those parts as not parts at all, but rather as different pours of the same brew; that is, as different-but-equal manifestations of who and what we are. Why it matters is that it fundamentally alters how we should attempt to reinforce and replicate the former (strengths) and minimize the frequency and impact of the latter (weaknesses). If you view what someone does well and what they do not do well as products of the same source(s), instead of attempting to isolate the ‘bad’ product from the ‘good’ product and addressing only the former, you attempt to discover the source(s) of both to determine the factors that contribute to making the product manifest as one or the other (that is, as either a strength or a weakness). For example, a discussion about the negative outcomes associated with my desire to expeditiously obtain my objectives would also involve how that same trait/attribute is associated with many positive outcomes, which would then lead to a discussion about the difference in the factors for each; which, hopefully, would then evolve into a discussion about how, in the future, I can use my new knowledge about how certain factors can produce certain types of outcomes to either maintain my current course or to alter that course. Ultimately, the aim here is to address the whole of a person as much as possible—which, by the way, helps avoid the sh** sandwich conundrum—while still meaningfully addressing the undesirable behavior and outcomes.
*For a more nuanced take on this topic, please check out the corresponding episode on The Introspective Leader Podcast. Co-hosted by Stuart, The Introspective Leader Podcast delves into the ideas and practices that will help you become a more effective and respected organizational leader!
