Play Your Strengths Exercise

Based on the article "How to Play Your Strengths", tap into unrecognized and unexplored
areas of potential within yourself by using this 4-step process:

Step 1: Identify Respondents and Ask for Feedback Collect feedback from a

variety of people inside and outside work
Step 2: Recognize Patterns Search for common themes among the feedback, add
to the examples with observations of your own, organize all the input into a table
Step 3: Compose your Self-Portrait Write a description of yourself that
summarizes and distills the accumulated information
Step 4: Redesign your Job Redesign your personal job description to build on what
you are good at
Based on the 2-3 key key strengths that you identified, create an action plan:
• How will you build on those strengths for personal success
• Also, identify ways in which you can utilize your strengths to create success for
team members

In collaborative groups, it’s often the non-expert, the outlier, the oddball, or the
person who isn’t in charge who has the most innovative and important thing to say.
You have to structure ways to hear that person or you will always drown him or her
out. I call this “collaboration by difference.” It’s a way of hearing the dissident or
disruptive voice. And if you don’t do it, you get groupthink.

In 2002, I cofounded HASTAC with others working in the areas of digital media and
new ways of learning. We have about 8,500 members worldwide. They’re
academics, coders, programmers, artists, and entrepreneurs. It quickly became clear
that if we were going to work together successfully, we had to find new ways of
collaborating, teaching, and learning. Here are three tips we use to make
collaboration by difference happen.

First, air out differences democratically. Explore your differences, but don’t attribute
them to a particular group or person. For instance, if we are working with a team of
three Koreans and three Americans, we’ll give everyone two index cards. On the
first, each person writes a perceived opportunity and challenge about collaborating
with the other group. On the second, each person writes an opportunity and
challenge that they believe they themselves offer.

People don’t write their names or their group. We collect and shuffle the cards and a
facilitator reads each aloud without identifying who is saying what about whom. It’s
always interesting because by the time you read through, it turns out both sides are
worried and excited about the same things. It’s a great attention device focusing not
on the differences, but on the opportunities and challenges of all the individuals
working together.

Second, let non-experts talk first. We do a lot of work in schools on learning in the
digital age. And if it’s a two-hour meeting, the first hour we ask to hear only from the
students. We’ll have the teachers, the trustees, and administrators, the parents
there, but they have to start the meeting by listening to the kids. The adults realize
that these kids know lots more than they, the adults, know about the opportunities in
the digital age. Flip the relationship between the expert and the novice and you’ll
hear some things you would never have thought of.

Third, ask what you’re missing. When we meet, we always have a point where we
stop and ask, “What are we missing?” It’s always one person’s job to tell us what
we’ve missed. Now no one knows ahead of time whose responsibility that will be.
The person running the meeting literally pulls the name out of a hat. So it makes
everyone pay attention because you don’t know if you’ll be called on.

Inevitably, we realize we’re not as clear on something as we thought we were. It

often derails the conversation, but it turns out we were heading in the wrong direction
and it was a good thing it was derailed.

Collaboration by difference is about shaking up your old habits, about structuring a

way of listening to the quiet voice, and adopting methods that force you to examine
what you think you know so that you can find the bugs. And you need a system, a
structure to it, because unless you rig it, collaboration can lead to groupthink, not
true innovation.

 In group meetings, non-experts, outliers, and people who aren't in charge may
have the most important contributions to make. If the meeting leader doesn't
allow such dissidents or disruptive individuals to be heard, the meeting could
suffer from groupthink—that is, everyone agrees with one idea (not
necessarily the best idea) to preserve harmony.
 There are several ways to ensure that dissident and disruptive voices get
heard. One way is to explore group members' differences openly by having
people articulate the opportunities and challenges they anticipate regarding
collaborating with one another, as well as the opportunities and challenges
they believe they bring to the group.
 Another way is to let non-experts talk first in a meeting; they know important
things that the experts don't yet know.
 Yet another way is to randomly select an individual to step in at some point
during a meeting and tell the group what it has missed in its deliberations.

Apply

 The next time you're leading a group or team meeting, start by giving each
person two index cards. On one of the cards, have people write what they see
as an opportunity and a challenge about
 collaborating with one another. On the other, have them write an opportunity
and challenge they believe they bring to the group. Instruct them not to put
 their names on the cards. Collect the cards, shuffle them, and read them out
loud. As a group, identify and discuss the differences and similarities in the
responses.
 When you're planning a group or team meeting, be sure to invite people who
aren't experts in the topic to be discussed at the meeting. During the meeting,
let these non-experts talk first. Document insights, perspectives, and
suggestions offered by the non-experts, then compile them with wisdom
received from the experts.
 Before starting a meeting, write the participants' names on separate slips of
paper. Put the slips in a bowl. During the meeting, as you sense that the
group may be arriving at a decision, pull a random name out of the bowl and
ask that person, “What have we missed?” As a group, use this person's
response to consider whether the group is really ready to make a decision.

Discuss

 During meetings we lead or attend, how often do non-experts, outliers,

oddballs, and not-in-charge individuals contribute to the discussion? If such
dissident and disruptive voices are seldom heard
 during meetings, how does this impact the quality of decisions made during
the meetings? For example, have we seen a higher incidence of groupthink in
meetings?
 What steps could we take to ensure that dissident or disruptive voices get
heard during meetings? For example, what do we think about trying the three
techniques described in the video: exploring differences written on index
cards, letting non-experts talk first during meetings, and designating someone
to tell us what we've missed when we approach a decision during meetings?

I think if you have a culture where dissent is difficult or disagreement is difficult,

you’ve got a big problem because any organization is going to make mistakes and
those mistakes need to be fixed as quickly as possible.

So, one way or another, you’re going to have to find a way where mistakes are
revealed, exposed and then corrected. I’m fascinated when I look, for instance, at
Pixar, there’s this collegiate environment, but people are able to disagree with each
other and criticize each other’s work because they’ve developed a language. They
call it “plus-ing.” So rather than spending all this time to say, “Hey, I really love what
you’re doing, it’s really great work, blah blah blah” before you finally get to the
criticism - which people have long since ignored because you’re wrapping it in all this
fluff.
Divergent and convergent thinking are the two types of thinking that we need to do
when we're solving problems that are hard and difficult and need new solutions.
Divergent thinking is that type of thinking that--where you're looking for new ideas.
You're looking to open up your mind to new possibilities.

Convergent thinking is the type of thinking that involves analysis and making
decisions. Both divergent and convergent thinking are critical to solving problems in
new ways. The challenge is that we tend to be better at, more practiced at, more
schooled at convergent thinking than divergent thinking. And we need to be more
deliberate about using some time to think divergently to come up with new ideas.

Think of divergent thinking like putting your foot on the gas pedal and convergent
thinking like putting your foot on the brake. What happens if you put your foot on the
brake and then the gas pedal, the brake and then the gas pedal, the gas pedal and
the brake? You go nowhere. You create a jerky car.

What we need to do is think divergently for a while, put our foot on that gas pedal
looking for ideas, and then think convergently around making decisions around those
ideas, finding out what's good about them and understanding how we want to move
forward.

The challenge in organizations is that in meetings, in our own heads, we mix up

divergent and convergent thinking. You sit in a meeting and somebody has an idea.
And somebody else says, "Well, that idea is too expensive." A second person has an
idea. And someone else rejoins, "That would take too long to do." A third person has
an idea. And someone else says, "We tried that last year, and it didn't work." And
pretty soon, it's guaranteed, no one is ever going to have another idea--ever.

Neurologically speaking, we all have something called "negativity bias." That is, that
part of our brains th

Instead you get straight to the criticism but you express it very positively. You just
say, “Well, that’s great, and wouldn’t it be even better if we did X? Wouldn’t it be
even better if we did Y?”

In a very positive way, very honest and direct, “Wouldn’t we improve if we did it this
way?” Rather than getting fussed about whether the work as it exists is good or bad.
It doesn’t really matter whether the work as it exists is good or bad. Can it be made
better?

We walk this fine line because people hate to be criticized. They can fold up. They
can go into denial and they can shut out dissenters. So you need that dissent, that
disagreement, that criticism, but you have to find a way of making it and wrapping it
in a way that will be accepted and listened to. So be specific, targeted, focused but
also positive.

Review

 Many managers assume that dissenting views and contrary perspectives are
most valuable during the planning stage of a business effort. They believe that
once planning ends and execution of the plan begins, there should be no
dissent.
 But dissent is just as important in the execution stage. That’s because people
can make mistakes during that stage. To help ensure successful execution,
others must be able to point out the mistakes and offer dissenting views.

Apply

 The next time you’re executing a plan, remain open to dissenting views.
Remind yourself that dissent is just as important during execution as it is
during planning. That’s because people can make mistakes during execution.
To ensure success, others must be able to point out mistakes and offer
dissenting views.
 The surgeon referenced in the video made a compelling case for the
importance of dissenting views during execution of surgical procedures. Think
of additional examples related to your own organization where presentation of
dissenting views during execution of a plan would be critical.

Discuss

 As we’re executing plans in our organization, how might we remain open to

dissenting views about what we’re doing, so that mistakes are caught and
corrected in time?
 What are some examples of situations in our organization where presentation
of dissenting views during execution of a plan is especially critical?

Practice Convergent and Divergent Thinking

n your next team meeting try to practice convergent
and divergent thinking using this tool while
brainstorming for ideas or finding solutions to any
problem.
How did this exercise help you and your team
become more open to diverse ideas?
What are your 2-3 key takeaways from this section?