Cross-post from my Cisco Blog: Strengths Finder 2.0

A few thoughts about the Strengths Finder 2.0 book/website, created by Gallup and promoted as a tool for people to uncover their talents.  A thing we've been asked to do for the team.

StrengthsFinder 2.0

I've looked over and participated in a few other types of "self-improvement" programs, such as Covey's 7 Habits of Highly Successful People, and have found them to be moderately useful in identifying two things - behaviors that get in the way of being successful/happy/productive, and relationships that do the same thing.  SF2 focuses on the individual, rather than the community they are in, though they do attempt to draw some conclusions about the ways in which you might interact with others. The "pitch" is that rather than focus on areas where you need to improve, you should instead focus on areas where you possess "natural" strengths, and develop them to the fullest.

This seems tailor-made for modern audiences, who may be predisposed to tune out negative viewpoints or suggestions that they are less than practically perfect in every way. From a marketing standpoint, A+. "Sure, everyone has areas they aren't strong.  But by focusing on areas where you have gifts, you can more fully be the person you are!"

My initial reaction:

That being observed, there is something to the idea that positive feedback is key to happiness, and that you will be more successful in anything if you are playing to your strengths.  Constantly focusing on areas of weakness can be tough on morale!

The process for SF is fairly simple, and should be familiar to anyone who has taken a "personality" based course - they ask you dozens of questions, you give quick, gut-level responses, and this reveals the inner truth of your soul, for a given value of truth.  In Gallup's formulation, you are simultaneously presented with two propositions - "I love to learn" - and "I love to get work done" for example.  You have five seconds to choose from the range of  "Strongly Agree / Agree / No Opinion / Agree / Strongly Agree."  This makes it tough if you believe you are someone who loves to learn AND loves to get things done, but for the most part I didn't come across too many of those "I love kittens / I love puppies" questions where you shake your head, as if someone can't love both.  (NO, you must Choose!!!!)

After about 30 minutes of this, you are presented with a report of findings about your 5 Themes of Strength.  There are 34 available strengths that you might fit into, from "Achiever" to "Woo": each one has particular features, discussed in the book and online, and interacts with the others in diverse ways. For me, what did I learn?

My Top Five Themes:

Learner:  "A great desire to learn, and want to continuously improve"  Check.

Activator: "Can make things happen by turning thoughts into action.  Often impatient."  Check.

Ideation: "Fascinated by ideas.  Able to find connections between seemingly disparate phenomena."  Check.

Input: "Craving to know more. Like to collect and archive all kinds of information." Check?  I do like to know how lots of different things work.  Sure.

Strategic: "Create alternate ways to proceed. Faced with any given scenario, they can quickly spot relevant patterns and issues."  And, Check.

Those all hit on something I recognize about myself.  I might have thought something about Adaptability would have made the top 5.  But I look through the list of 34 and I see another six or seven that I could definitely see rising to the top if I took the test on a different day.

The basic test, then, passes the "Does it work?" test - yes, given 75 answers to "what kinds of things do you identify about yourself", it can kick out themes which I recognize about myself.  Maybe I am a bit more introspective than most people, but this doesn't surprise or much impress me - the answer to the next question, would.  The next question is, of course, "So What?"

And here, I think, is where any online, automated process is going to have the most trouble.  What you get in your report is a series of pre-fabricated sentences that are strung together to make some form of sense.  "Instinctively, you have acquired valuable skills and knowledge."  Really?  It was instinct, and not a choice?  Ok, for being written by an algorithm it isn't awful.  The report uses short, punch sentences with "You do X" and "You are likely to Y" structures, and then, at the end of each section, asks "As you read this personalized insight, what stands out to you?  What would you like others to see most in you?"

This, again, plays to the "You will like this product because it tells you things you like about yourself." Which triggers my cynical instinct, making me remember that "Products which have unsubtle, feel-good marketing at their core are probably up to no good".  That doesn't mean there is no value here.  I don't think there is anything wrong with checking in on yourself every couple of years, and in fact doing so is probably a good thing.  This method has the advantage of getting people involved who might be reluctant to hear negative things, or worry that they are being asked to do this as an excuse to find flaws with themselves.

For me, I enjoy this kind of exercise - as much as a way to see what the product is doing as to learn anything about myself.  And, not for nothing, I have noticed since I did this that I am paying more attention to giving positive feedback to the people around me for things done well.  i'll take as my key understanding the reminder that people including myself) respond better to praise than to criticism.