An Epiphany of the Obvious - Cowboys and old dogs

Let's cut to the chase - building on strengths is a better way to raise performance than just eliminating weaknesses. Is that not obvious? Yet look at corporate life and see how much time is spent plugging weaknesses, individual and corporate, and how little spent on building on strengths.

While cost cutting can have a positive short term impact on profitability we know it is limited and not the way to build long term success. Why then do we treat our human capital as if we are continually cost cutting?

This train of thought was triggered the other day when I was asked to look a "StrengthsFinder 2.0". On the face of it this is a small book one can buy from Amazon for less than £10. in it is a code that gives access to an online assessment tool. The tool looks to identify your five top themes or strengths and then refers you back to the book and other online resources to help understand your strengths, develop them and use them. It claims to be based on many years of research and is apparently wow'ing corporate America.

I took the test and was struck that after 30 years of receiving corporate training around management and change, this was the first to really major on strengths. Previously, the tools ( Meyers-Briggs, Discovery, LIFO, Belbin, etc etc ) would be used to feedback to individuals and teams with the focus heavily loaded on shortcomings, weaknesses and differences.

I am sure this is not what the creators of these tools intended, but I contend it is how they are more often used. The tools are being used to solve a problem and that problem must be about weaknesses, or so it is easy to think. Similarly how many performance management systems really focus on strengths and developing them. More often than not one is told what one needs to do to fit in, how not to be different, how to adapt to everyone around you (NLP?) and be a good team player. Where do they value the individual over fitting into some stereotype?

Not only does this make a mockery of claims about diversity, it also misses huge engagement and performance opportunities. When was the last time the chair of a meeting asked for dissenting views instead of grasping perceived agreement and rushing to the next item? Daring to differ or show an alternative perspective can be seen as being difficult, off message and not part of the team.

It reminds me of horses whisperers ( see Robert Redford in the film, but the book is better! ). If you have not read the book or seen the film, then let briefly explain. In order for a horse to be ridden, the common wisdom is that it has to be "broken". This is where a cowboy breaks the will and spirit of a horse physically by forcible riding it and showing supremacy. This is a very macho activity and one that relies on strength and courage. In short they break before they build, forcing common behaviours upon an individual horse.

An alternative is a horse whisperer. These people have a quieter, gentler approach. They look to understand a horse, to develop an empathy and forge a bond. Moving to the stage that the horse agrees to / accepts being ridden. The horse has not been broken in any way, instead it has been enticed into behaving, albeit subtley and I would suggest is better for it.

While there are relatively few whisperers, you can mass produce cowboys ( even if you do lose a few along the way with some horses ) and process many more horses by breaking them. This may appear efficient in the short term, but primarily it is expedient.

How many cowboys do we have in management? How much are they limiting performance? I guess the test is to see how many teams amount to something greater than the sum of the parts; I would suggest relatively few.

Of course building on strengths and embracing diversity is harder on a manager. He/she would need to build a portfolio team rather than build clones; they would need heightened tolerance and understanding when they too are being chased for short term delivery. The problem is that many rounds of short term performance soon look like sub standard long term performance, but hey, by then the manager will long gone, having ridden off to another sunrise somewhere.

I am not sure if I am an old dog or indeed if these are new tricks for me. I have long built teams and developed their members, creating opportunities and supporting ambition. The difference now is that I have a tool to help and a clearer vocabulary.

I would issue this challenge:

> Take a look at yourself and identify your own strengths ( maybe use StrengthsFinder? ) - look at yourself differently.
> Next look at your team and do the same for each.
> Consider if you are allowing each to play to their strengths, if not can you change things so theta are?
> Look at your team as a collection of talented individuals and not as a set of imperfect clones.

Lastly consider if your team is greater than the sum of it's parts? If not then now is the time to do something about it.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad