On being “Strong”
Posted on November 25th, 2011 by Paul McArdle – 3 CommentsMy twelve year journey with this company – seeing it grow its customer base, and product range, from nothing to be quite substantial – has been one of great learning for me.
Of my greatest areas of learning has been with respect to others within in the company. I have struggled, at times, due to my lack of prior experience and preparation.
For some time I’ve been pondering the apparent paradoxes across a variety of books and other materials I’ve read – with respect to the concept of Strengths and Weaknesses.
Where I have read this, it has been with respect to an individual’s own strengths and weaknesses – however I believe that the pointers that I’ve learnt are also applicable at an organisational level (where a strength is more commonly termed “competitive advantage”).
After quite a bit of reflection, it currently* seems that to be truly strong, an individual (or a company) needs to have the right combination of all three of the following factors:
* I say “currently”, as it seems that the learning journey I am on almost guarantees that my view will become even more nuanced in future.
1) What are the three factors?
It is my view that all three factors are needed – just one, or even two, is not enough.
Factor A) Alignment
In my view, this is where it all starts.
For a company such as ours, it starts with our customers. If we don’t understand, and deliver, what they really need, then what we have is certainly not a strength. This is why Customers First is our primary core value.
Individuals within our organisation who are not aligned with where our bus is headed just generate anarchy.
For an individual, I believe that the situation is the same. Every individual has their own customers – we each need to understand what our customers want and need. Identifying one’s own Life Mission was the most memorable part of “7 habits” for me.
Factor B) Predisposition
In my view, what the Gallup Organisation (and Marcus Buckingham) describes as “talents” would be more generally understood if they were called “predispositions”.
In our own company, we’ve experienced the dramas that unfold when a “Fixed Intelligence” mindset is turned towards a prescriptive view of “talents”.
Whether they are by nature or nurture is irrelevant. These predispositions are ways of behaving that we currently feel most comfortable with – and changing these behaviours incorporates a degree of discomfort (sometimes severe), which is one reason why people avoid change.
For greatest efficiency, we should be seeking to maximise each individual’s use of their predispositions.
In a bootstrapped company, this desire must be moderated by the fact that resources, and time, are limited - hence we all end up doing some things we don’t prefer.
Factor C) Deliberate Practice
As this book title says, talent is over-rated.
People with an internalised mindset of “Malleable Intelligence” understand this.
To really develop something into a strength, it requires a great many hours of concentrated effort, with particular focus on the 5 key elements of Deliberate Practice:
i. Designed specifically to improve performance
ii. Repeated a lot
iii. Feedback continuous available
iv. Highly demanding mentally
v. Can be not much fun (which is why it’s much easier if it is in an area of your predisposition).People who don’t pursue this dedicated practice are (at best) sub-optimal or (at worst) just incompetent. For enterprises in this position, in a market that keeps evolving, they risk becoming outdated as customer demands change.
2) What does this mean, in practical terms?
I’ve been reflecting on this message since our first business autopsy several years ago. Even at that time, we had a “half full, half empty” report card.
It’s become increasingly clear to me that (because we need all three factors working for us) some other things are vitally important:
(A) Determine what’s Core and what’s Context
Geoffrey Moore explained this very well in this presentation.
For us at work, “Core” is code for what the customer wants/needs. Our customers are those operating with reference to the energy sector.
Very few of us can decide, unilaterally, what’s Core. However, those who are successful do play a role in shaping what is Core.
(B) Focus on what’s Core
Understanding the difference between what’s core and what’s context allows us to choose what our approach should be:
i. In areas that are “Core”
We simply need to be the best.
It’s in these areas that it may be our weaknesses that are holding us back the most – as discussed in “What got you here, won’t get you there” and ”Don’t be that boss”.
If this is the case, then (despite the fact that we may not like it, and it might be hard) we simply must improve.
ii. In areas that are “Context”
This is where we can settle for being just good enough.
It’s in this area that the school of thought that says “don’t worry about your weaknesses” holds true – as discussed in books such as the “Focus on your Strengths” series, and the “Four Hour Work Week”.
These non-core areas are those that we can delegate, or outsource, or (perhaps) stop doing altogether.
Buckingham (p163 of Book 3) quotes Peter Drucker in stating that:
“the most effective organisations ‘get their strengths together and make their weaknesses irrelevant’ ”
In my view there is a big difference between making weaknesses irrelevant and just overlooking or ignoring them.
In other words, we need to improve to the point where we are just “good enough”.
Yes, they may never be an area of competitive advantage for us, but they should be seen as a “ticket to the game”.
For everyone to understand what’s core, and what’s context, within an organisation – that’s where alignment with mission, vision and values come in.
(C) Predispositions help
In this context, it is helpful to understand that predispositions certainly help – just as a current lack of predispositions can hinder.
They can tell us whether we’re going to have the staying power to last out the times that are not so rosy – when the dedicated practice is draining, and the grass is greener.
Hence we should certainly be aware of what they are for each of us.
However on their own the predispositions have not much value, and certainly aren’t a strength.
(D) Patterning can be changed
I’m not saying that it’s easy – just that it can be done. There’s an emerging amount of medical research that points to this fact.
For us as an enterprise, it means that (if our customers demand it strongly enough, and if the opportunity is large enough), then it’s possible for us to change what we’re patterned to do – be that our business model, or something else – to adjust to the new reality.
For each of us as individuals, it does mean that our predispositions can be changed, if we want to enough – and we’re prepared to put in the hard yards.
3) Other factors not discussed above
Of course, this is not the whole story (reality is always more complex than any model – though models are useful at times, so long as one keeps that paradox in mind).
There are a number of other factors that are important in ensuring that people can deliver results for us. These include:
(A) Integrity
Integrity is the foundation to any performance.
This was best discussed in “The Speed of Trust” – so well, in fact, that I’ve taken to giving a copy of this book to all new employees.
(B) Drive
Daniel Pink talks about this here.
It should go without saying that being able to sustain significant energy to focus on the task at hand is essential to achieving “success” (however each individual chooses to define that for themselves).
However, in numerous companies over 4 continents and 20+ years, I have seen plenty of people just plodding through their working week (or worse) due to a variety of different factors. This is disappointing for me, in a number of ways:
i. Economically, it’s clearly not maximising the outcome possible, and this approach also can’t help but negatively influence those around them.
ii. At a deeper level, it’s disappointing because it also cheats that person of the intrinsic rewards that come from operating in a state of what Mihaly Cziksentmihalyi called “flow”.
For us, our race is a marathon, not a sprint – hence the people we’re looking for are those who are able to maintain a good, steady pace, day-after-day.
(C) Resilience
A person’s overall ability to bounce back from adversity can be measured (sort of), and it certainly can be improved – as was discussed in “The Adversity Quotient” (reviewed by one of our former employees here).
This is another factor that’s important enough (at work and at home) to warrant providing a copy of this book to each employee.
4) Looking forward into 2012
We’re currently involved in one recruitment initiative.
As we look forward into 2012, and the efforts we’ll be investing to ensure we find (and attract) the other key people we’ll need on the bus, all of these principles will be at the front of our mind.
[...] to start the journey towards becoming great – it’s also implied, in what they write, that these other factors previously discussed factors were also [...]
[...] negative or neutral, depending on context and also the extent to which they have been nurtured, as discussed here previously (b)
[...] with these other books (in my view) I believe a big caveat is in order. Like the other books, the authors here zero in on only one of at least three factors [...]