Ever since the publication of a couple of books on the subject of discovering and leveraging one?s strengths by some ex-Gallup employees, there has been some needless debate on this subject. Shorn of technicalities, the central premise of these books, and all literature espousing the points of view contained in these books, is that ?You can never be really good at what you are not good at, but you can get damn good at what you are already good at.?
Therefore, what a waste of time trying to fix your weaknesses! Instead, go about building on your strengths! The authors argue that organisations spend a great deal of time trying to help people fix weaknesses, when instead they should be trying to get them to build on their strengths and find opportunities for leveraging them. The authors also quote the examples of Bill Gates, Tiger Woods, Warren Buffet, and a few others to justify their theory and argue that one can reach exalted heights of success simply by focusing on what you are good at.
The entire theory is full of fallacies:
1. Organisations have in reality been often accused of placing people in roles based on what they are already good at while completely ignoring their weaknesses. Most real-life managers have never had the time for developing people. They have instead leveraged people for what they were good at. Identifying weaknesses and helping people overcome them has been the exception rather than the trend. The emphasis on ?all round? development has been relatively recent.
2. While it is true that you cannot get really good at what you are inherently not good at, you cannot leverage your strengths unless you get to acceptable levels in crucial skills. Proponents of the strengths theory acknowledge this, but have relegated this to a footnote level. Organisations emphasise on working on weaknesses largely from a perspective of getting to acceptable levels on some of these crucial competencies. Those who have no skills in team working will find it difficult to drive strategy in a firm, however gifted they may be in strategic thinking.
3. The examples of Bill Gates and others is misleading, assuming that success has a decipherable formula. There are hundreds of popular books on recipes and shortcuts to success, and it is proven beyond doubt that besides making the authors financially successful, they achieve little else. For those interested in the story behind the success of Bill Gates, I would refer you to the book titled ?Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives?, by Leonard Mlodinow. Most runaway success stories, including that of Bill Gates, are little more than a rare sequence of a few chance events.
4. It is not too easy to figure out what you are really good at and having discovered it, even more difficult to make a living out of it.
So, where are we?
The problem with most popular theories is they tend to espouse an extreme position to draw attention?a typical ?brand recognition strategy?. Therefore, when you come across such popular theories, draw on the concept but do not lose your balance and become a blind devotee. In this context, the basic premise that you will never be damn good at what you are not inherently good at is generally true. And that is it.
Therefore, what should you do?
1. Try and therefore pick roles that play to your strengths. Never pursue roles that call for doing things that you are not good at (or not interested in) day in and day out, however attractive they may be financially.
2. Do not ignore fixing life-threatening (or career-limiting) weaknesses.
It is important to remember that in most issues related to human behaviours (or for that matter for most things in general), the key is moderation. Extreme positions are rarely true?they are usually branding gimmicks.
The author is MD & Global Head of Human Resources at Amba Research. These are his personal views
