If you recently applied for and landed a new job, then you know there are a series of standard practices that happen between the time you apply and the job offer; you likely completed an application form, sent a copy of your resume and maybe a cover letter, and you probably attended at least one interview.
However, what you may or may not have completed is an additional practice that is becoming increasingly more popular...a selection test.
At eQ, we’ve been proponents of selection testing for years. Why? Because they provide invaluable insight into whether the candidate will be able to cope with the intellectual demands of the job, but more importantly how well the candidate will work with others on a team.
Recently, I had the opportunity to read Strengths Finder 2.0, a quick read by Tom Rath, based on the research of Dr. Donald Clifton and the Gallup Organization. Rath focuses much of the book on the idea that we, as a society, spend too much time focusing on our weaknesses and trying to make them stronger, rather than recognizing our strengths and trying to capitalize on them. In an attempt to shift our focus, Rath refers to a wealth of data collected over the last 30 years (more than 2 million completed surveys) and 34 “themes of human talent” or "strengths " as defined by Gallup.
While the goal of this book is obvious, to help readers identify their “unique” strengths and then use those strengths to improve, it got me thinking…what is a strength really? According to Rath, a strength is defined as, “consistent near perfect performance in an activity.” And to take it one step further, he believes that people excel by maximizing strengths, not by fixing their weaknesses.
So...in order for something to be a strength, you have to not only execute it perfectly (or near perfectly), but you must do so on a regular, consistent basis. Sounds about right. BUT, the more I thought about it, the more I questioned the validity of this definition. If the only way to excel is to maximize your strength, what are you maximizing, or improving, if it’s already deemed as flawless? I mean, if I already perform a task perfectly, every single time, how do I get better at it?
Here’s what I mean – say, for example, you want to be proficient in blog writing so that one day you can say it’s a strength. But right now, you only write blogs on an inconsistent basis (kind of like me), but when you do write them – they’re AMAZING! You get tons of comments and link backs, and increased traffic to your site, all the wonderful things that equal a successful and strong blog. But like I said before, you don’t do it regularly…does this mean that blog writing isn’t your strength?
Well, according to Rath, it would NOT be!
However, I think that it would make it a strength – one that has room for improvement. This is the part where you can maximize your strength (make a focused effort to be more consistent) to truly excel. Similarly, the theory works if reversed – say you write 1 blog every day, but they aren’t all always home-runs… then you’d have the opportunity to become a true master by slowing down and really focusing on the content to ensure you get it right, every time.
So, in short, I agree with Rath that in order to truly excel, you must focus on your strengths, not your weaknesses, but I cannot concede that strengths are that black and white.
