Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

The Perils of Accentuating the Positive

A conversation with Rob Kaiser, author

Rob Kaiser was "nearly seduced by the feel-good messageof the strengths movement." But today, he coachesexecutives, researches leadership versatility and writesextensively about the dangers of over-emphasizing ourstrengths.Kaiser recently edited "The Perils of Accentuating the Positive," a book that bringstogether leading thinkers to critically evaluatethe fad known as "strengths-baseddevelopment." He shared some of the book'skey ideas — and the evolution of his views — in a recentinterview with CCL.

CCL: What are the dangers of the strengths-basedleadership ideology? What's wrong withaccentuating the positive?

KAISER:

The biggest danger is buying into the seductivebelief that you can focus on your strengths and leave therest behind. Weaknesses matter and they have realconsequences. It may be your strengths that get youahead, but it is your weaknesses that get you in trouble.Second, maximizing your strengths runs the risk of turning them into weaknesses byoverdoing it. This was a key finding in the original CCL studies of derailment — manyof the weaknesses that got executives fired were, ironically, their strengths taken tothe extreme. For instance, deep technical expertise can turn into a narrowperspective. A hard drive for results could become insensitivity and burning peopleout.The third danger is that sticking to what comes naturally can lead to stasis andstagnation. One of the things that separates the best from the rest — in business, insports, in the arts — is an unquenchable thirst for learning. Mike Lombardo once saidthat the closest thing he knew of to a silver bullet for succeeding in management isthe ability to learn how to do what you don't know how to do.

This year forour Premiumsubscribersof

LeadingEffectively

, welaunched a new serviceof interviews with avariety of thoughtleaders who'll offerdifferent perspectiveson topics related toleadership. Featured inthe February issue isRob Kaiser, author andexecutive coach,discussing “The Perilsof Accentuating thePositive.”

CCL: Strengths-based development caught on quickly in the last decade.Why? What explains the popularity and appeal?

KAISER:

The time was really right for the message. First, think about the go-go, ga-ga "bet-the-farm mentality" that propelled the economic growth of the last 10 years.Everyone from banks to publicly traded companies to private borrowers seemed tobe taking on far more risk than was prudent. Notice the similarity to the strengthsphilosophy? In both cases, it is a focus on upside potential and a denial of downsiderisk.There was also a more general cultural readiness in the West for the strengthsmovement. Since the 1960s, there has been a trend toward doing what "feels good."We have downplayed the hard work it takes to achieve at a high level. We make rockstars out of executives, and everyone wants his or her 15 minutes of fame. Theeasier, the better. Related to all this, Western culture has become increasingly self-absorbed.I also think the labor economy has played a role. The fascination with engagement,recruitment and retention reflects the fact that talent is harder to come by.Companies have had to be more responsive to the needs, wishes and desires of employees than in the past. A strengths-based talent management philosophy feelsbetter because you avoid the unpleasant stuff in dealing with weaknesses andperformance problems.

CCL: What are the good points of the movement? What value should we takefrom it?

KAISER:

I initially thought of the strengths philosophy as a needed correction to thetraditional approach to performance appraisal and talent management, which waskind of punitive. The helping professions in general were based on a disease model— fix what's broken. Of course, that's only half the story. A healthier modelrecognizes that there is more to the story than a lack of disease. So I applaud thestrength movement for pointing out how the good life is about more than theabsence of weaknesses and other problems. But the needed correction seems tohave become, as it so often does, an overcorrection.

CCL: Why should leaders and people in development roles take a morebalanced view?

KAISER:

First there is simply the common-sense point that weaknesses matter andit is foolish to ignore them. Simply put, weaknesses matter because they matter toother people. You may be all right with the fact that you may, for example, come ontoo strong. But it is offensive and demoralizing to other people.Second is the pragmatic case: if you look at today's leaders and consider theircurrent strengths, we don't have enough leaders with the right strengths for ourorganizations to sustain high performance. There is really good data on this point: If we tell managers to play to their current strengths, they and their employingorganizations will get left behind.

And that's the problem: Rather than staring self-satisfied into the mirror to find whatmakes us great as individuals, we need to be looking over our shoulder and seeinghow the competition is hungry, not self-satisfied. The developing economies aregaining ground not by playing to their strengths, but by developing strengths,shoring up the fundamentals like math and science and bringing a healthydissatisfaction to their status quo.

CCL: Talk about how "strengths become weaknesses" and how leaders canavoid overplaying a strength?

KAISER:

There is no such thing as an unalloyed blessing; merely possessing astrength is not nearly as important as how you use that strength. And the danger is"the bigger your hammer, the more everything looks like a nail." So you find plentyof cases where managers lead with their strengths, when the situation calls for anentirely different approach.Bob Kaplan and I have found in our research that the majority of managers overdocertain leadership behaviors tied to their natural strengths. Like the take-chargemanager who crowds everyone else out. That is the first cost of overkill — overdoingit. The second cost of overkill is that overdoing your strengths virtually guaranteesthat you will also avoid or make too little use of opposing but complementary waysto lead. So the take-charge manager who comes on too strong also fails to delegate,empower and include other people.The best way for leaders to learn to avoid overplaying their strengths starts withfeedback about which strengths they tend to take too far. Simply ask people withwhom you work closely, in an open and inviting way, "Do I tend to take anything toofar?" Second, learn to respond more mindfully, rather than out of habit. If we don'treally think about what we are doing, we gravitate to what comes naturally —whether the situation requires it or not.

CCL: Your book is eye-opening for anyone who has been focusing on theirstrong points. How does one begin to re-evaluate his or her development?

KAISER:

Begin with a competent assessment of your current performance. And thisinvolves a balanced view — you at your best, you at your worst, including how youmay get carried away with your strengths. Second, carefully define what successlooks like in your current position as well as the next position you aspire to. Wheredo the strengths align with success? What weaknesses could undo the potential? Inwhat areas are you really untested? And what may not be a problem now, but couldcause a problem in a larger role down the road? Finally, what strengths are workingfor you now, but could become no longer relevant or even a detriment in a largerrole?

CCL: How did you become the voice to counteract an overblown strengthsmovement?

KAISER:

I don't know that I am "the voice" so much as a guy trying to bringtogether all these other great thinkers who are concerned about the hype and thehoopla in the strengths fad. But I suppose I have had a lot to say.