Stop Focusing on Your Strengths
Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, professor at University College London and Columbia University and CEO of Hogan Assessments, explains how the fad for strengths-based coaching may actually be weakening us.
SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Welcome to the HBR IdeaCast from Harvard Business Review. I’m Sarah Green Carmichael. Today I’m talking with Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, the CEO of Hogan Assessments and professor of business psychology at University College London and Columbia University. He’s also a regular contributor to HBR. Tomas, thank you so much for talking with us today.
TOMAS CHAMORRO-PERMUZIC: It’s my pleasure.
SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So for several years now, the coaching industry has really focused on this idea of developing your strengths. So this is the idea that instead of looking to shore up your weaknesses, instead you find out what you’re good at and you focus more on doing more of that. And this has gone over the last, I don’t know, I’d say maybe 10 years, from being counter-intuitive to being somehow the conventional wisdom. We all know we’re supposed to focus on our strengths.
But you have really raised some questions about that in a recent piece you wrote for HBR, on HBR.org. The first criticism you pointed out was there is actually no scientific evidence that this approach works. So I thought we could just start there. Is it true that there is really no scientific evidence for this approach at all?
TOMAS CHAMORRO-PERMUZIC: Well you know, that’s a question that has a very short answer, which is yes, it is true. So we could stop there or I could waffle on for a little bit longer.
The first thing to say is that there is some confusion over what people really mean when they talk about strengths-based coaching or strengths-based development intervention. If you understand this loosely, and what you mean is that it is wise to leverage a person’s talents, skills, or assets to make them even better at what they’re already good at, and maybe even find roles or jobs that are compatible with their inherent talents, I don’t have anything against that.
And there is a lot of evidence showing that to some degree, talent is really personality in the right place. That when you match people to environments or roles that are congruent with their skills, knowledge, and assets, they will do better. And that’s almost so intuitive that it’s pointless to discuss it.
At the same time, if we really look at what’s innovative and what was the controversial and original claim of the strengths movement 10 years ago, the idea that we might be better off ignoring our weaknesses or our faults, there really is no scientific evidence. By which I mean empirical evidence published in peer-reviewed journal articles that demonstrates the superiority of that method, vis-a-vis coaching interventions that actually also take into account people’s weaknesses.
SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Well and one of the challenges that you have pointed out with that approach is that it could give people a false sense of competence, or a false belief in their skills, if you only focus on their strengths. Explain a little bit what you mean by that.
TOMAS CHAMORRO-PERMUZIC: Sure. First, it’s important to understand that even the smartest, brightest, and most brilliant individuals have a dark side. They have certain elements of their personality, of their typical behaviors, that are quite counterproductive. And if those tendencies are left unchecked, no matter how smart, competent, and talented they are, their careers at risk of derailing.
Over the past 10 years, very much since the strengths movement has been introduced and become so popular, there has been a lot of scientific evidence on the toxic effects of people’s dark side. The whole area of counterproductive work behaviors and antisocial behaviors at work shows that it is often the most brilliant and talented people that engage in unsocial or counterproductive work behavior.
So that’s number one. So we are not good off or better off by ignoring potential derailers.
But the second point, which is very important, is that the way that the strengths-based movement has approached their take on strengths is not by looking at normative data, not by looking at how good you are in comparison to your peers, or your groups, or any kind of normative benchmark. They evaluate strengths in comparison to each other.
So to give you a very simple example, let’s assume that we’re looking at how good a communicator you are, how hardworking you are, and how creative you are. Now it might be that compared to normative groups or the average person in the population, you’re actually quite weak in all of those things. Now most tools and assessments designed to find your strengths would simply pick up the thing that you are best at.
So I might tell you, Sarah, you really are a communicator because you’re even worse at the other two things. But that doesn’t make your communication skills a strength. You really have three things that you should develop if you want to compete with others.
So that’s what I meant by giving people a false sense of security. Everybody has something that they are better at, but it might be that they’re still not very good at that. And I think we benefit more from telling people that than from pretending those are strengths.
SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Well and I think what you’re saying there gets to the heart of what I think can be very uncomfortable for some managers, which is it’s much more fun to deliver positive feedback than critical feedback. Especially if it’s really hard to find something positive to say.
So in that case, you might have to tell someone, listen, you don’t really work very hard, you’re not a very good communicator, you’re not very good at managing your stress. And you try to think of something nice to say to sort of balance it all out. But it’s hard to put some of that negative stuff out there and not be able to leaven it.
So in a way, it’s more fun to focus on your strengths, it sounds like.
TOMAS CHAMORRO-PERMUZIC: Absolutely. And it’s not just more fun, it’s also easier. For the person, it might be more interesting and easier to focus on developing their strengths further. And certainly, we know that there is usually a match between interests and talents. So most people are good at the things they enjoy, and they enjoy the things they’re good at.
But what if those things are not really of interest to the organization? And what if coaches, or practitioners, HR managers, or leaders are only indulging in this approach because they don’t have the courage, let’s say, to give people the bad news and to tell them what they need to hear, as opposed to what they want to hear?
And we could take that even further and say that there might be, in the world of coaching, many people who even keep and retain their clients because they spend a great deal of time telling them what they want to hear and that they’re great. And that might have good short term effect, but it’s that populist approach that doesn’t really help develop people to the next level of their careers.
SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: And you’ve also talked about the problems with– to follow up a little bit on the problem of the coaching industry and populist approach– the strengths-based approach is one that I think does sell well. And theoretically, people seem to apply it to everyone in their organization because everyone has something that they’re better at than other things, whether or not they’re objectively good at that thing at all.
So in a way, it seems like partly, what you’re contending with here is the popularity of this as a business. Not so much as a theory that’s been tested. But it seems like a product people want to buy.
TOMAS CHAMORRO-PERMUZIC: Yes. And they want to buy it and I think that much of the industry of this paradigm, if you like, has been evaluated just through face validity. In response to my recent blog, there have been a lot of readers who said, well I’m a certified strengths coach, and I’ve been using it for a while, and I find it brilliant, and my clients love it.
Well people also love a lot of things that are fairly unhealthy for them in the long run. But that doesn’t mean that they’re excellent and we should prescribe them. And certainly, the burden of proof is on those who are claiming, as the strengths-based movement did in its original form, that focusing on people’s faults and weaknesses is disadvantageous.
Now that really runs counter to the science. There are lots of meta-analytic studies and large scale studies that show that coaching interventions, which also focus on tackling faults or weaknesses– in other words, helping people bridge or reduce the gap between their ideal self and their actual self– are effective. And they can improve behaviors and even trait-like dispositions by 30% or 40%.
SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Well I want to ask you a little bit about what happens when you focus on those weaknesses but first, I want to ask, because I think so many weaknesses are overdeveloped strengths, what happens when you focus on your strengths too much and you overdevelop them? I almost have in my mind an image of a body builder who has all arms and no core strength. What happens when you focus on one thing and develop it so much that it actually ends up becoming a weakness?
TOMAS CHAMORRO-PERMUZIC: That’s a great analogy even though, and I’m not an expert on the subject, but I’m sure that good body builders would claim that they aim to have a perfect harmony, and to work on each and all of their muscles, so that they are perfectly in proportion like a Greek or Roman statue.
Now in the realm of psychological qualities, skills, talents, et cetera, or if you want to use the popular term “strengths,” we can also think of how overused strengths may become weaknesses.
Think of an employee or an individual who is very driven and ambitious. If we developed their ambition and drive even further, they might just become greedy. Or somebody who is very socially skilled, if they develop their social skills even further, they might become almost Machiavellian and manipulative. People who are very creative can become odd and eccentric, and people who are already a little bit confident, if we make them even more confident, they might become arrogant or overconfident.
And when you get to these extreme ends of any traits or dispositions, you can see how things that were positive qualities, strengths, or even career weapons, start becoming liabilities.
SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Well and then the flip side of that is working on your strengths, and working on those liabilities, and actually trying to shore up the areas where you are weaker. How do you suggest that people go about doing that? And what should ideally happen if you do that successfully?
TOMAS CHAMORRO-PERMUZIC: I think there is no universal formula that we can give other than a formula that is fairly simple. Somebody once said the models are either useful or accurate but never both. I think if we really tried to come up with a comprehensive detailed model, it wouldn’t be useful because it will be too complex.
But there are really just three steps at any point in time. I think step number one is gain self-awareness, whether through a 360, a coach, a personality assessment, feedback from your subordinates if you’re a leader. Ask them what you are doing wrong and what you could be doing better.
A lot of the times we don’t request this type of feedback and that generates positive feedback almost by default. Because everybody tries to be civilized, kind, and nice in the workplace. And too many times, whether you’re a manager or an employee, you end up telling others that they’re great and they’re nice, when in fact they’re not. And that doesn’t help them.
So giving accurate feedback and requesting accurate feed that also focuses on your potential faults and gaps is essential.
The second step is to come up with a pragmatic but useful goal-setting program that targets specific behaviors that you need to change. We’re not looking here for a personality transplant, we’re looking here for specific things that could make you more effective as a leader, as an employee.
And the third step is just hard work. There isn’t any other recipe. Persistence, drive, determination to achieve those goals. And then you repeat the feedback seeking process to see whether the new 360 or the new feedback you get from others is more positive. And that will inevitably include some information or some level of feedback as to what you were not doing well in the first place.
So, “Have I improved?” Which inevitably means, “Are my derailers or my toxic tendencies now in check?”
SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So that was very useful. It may not have been complete but I will agree with you that it was really useful. I’m wondering if you do want to do something with your strengths, is there something you can do with them that is OK in your view, or that the science would support? Whether that is improving them a little bit but not focusing on them too much, or something else that you could do with them.
TOMAS CHAMORRO-PERMUZIC: Absolutely. I think the first thing is obviously to be absolutely sure that you have actually successfully identified your strengths. And again, any definition of strength or talent has to take into account the individual’s position, vis-a-vis a group or the organization. I mean, the question really is not what your best at in comparison to your other skills or abilities, but what you’re good at compared to everybody else in the world or an organization.
Once you do that then yes, to the degree that there is a clear link between your strengths and job performance, and even better, if those are aligned with the goals of the organization. So don’t just choose the things that you are interested in. Choose things that affect job performance and actually have a benefit for the organization. Then yes. Getting better at those things won’t harm you.
And the analogy we can use here is– I don’t know, you can pick any sports you like. But I remember when Andy Roddick was working on improving his serve, even though his serve was already the killer weapon. Well he got better at serving during his career and yes, he ended up winning more points against Roger Federer and Nadal with his serve. But he really just started beating them when he also improved his backhand or his volley.
So I think too often we think of things as either/or and in categorical terms. And I understand that in today’s world, where people are deprived of attention and everything is short-spanned and almost ADHD-like, it’s easier to think in terms of either/or and categorical terms. But there is no reason to state, and there is no evidence to state that focusing only on your strengths while ignoring your weaknesses is a bad thing.
And we shouldn’t also assume that focusing only on your weaknesses will make you better. You should really try to do both.
SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Tomas, this has been a wonderful conversation and very helpful. Thank you again. I really appreciate it.
TOMAS CHAMORRO-PERMUZIC: It’s a real pleasure, as always, Sarah. Thank you very much.
SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: That was Tomas Chamorro-Permuzic. He’s a regular contributor to HBR and you can find his essay on this topic and many more at HBR.org.