A recent article at the Harvard Business Review website, written by a recognised expert in psychometric testing Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, offered five counterpoints to the currently popular strengths-only approach.
1. No evidence of success
There is no scientific evidence to suggest that completely ignoring people’s weaker points represents a successful strategy. On the other hand, there is evidence indicating that people’s performance can be improved on the basis of constructive criticism or appropriate coaching aimed at strengthening areas of weakness.
2. Misleading impression of competence
It is true that a strengths-only approach can help people recognise where their real talents lie; the problem is that everything is relative so that without a general yardstick for comparative purposes, the information is not always very useful. The net effect is that everyone is praised in some way, regardless of whether or not they deserve it.
3. Ineffective use of resources
Praising every employee may seem like a good idea in principle; in practice, however, the Pareto effect applies: 20% of employees account for 80% of output or profits. This runs counter to the strengths-only line, which implies that all staff play an equal role.
4. Too much is toxic
Too much of anything is a bad thing. Characteristics previously considered assets are then viewed in a negative light. Many candidates for leadership fail due to an inability to rein in their potentially harmful character traits. Donald Trump is an example of someone who overplays his strengths to such an extent that they become weaknesses.
5. Not dealing with real issues
Supporters of a strengths-only approach display an optimism not supported by reality. It therefore seems more logical to work on combatting people’s weaknesses rather than promoting their own sense of well-being.
-at-