you're reading...
business, lean thinking

Is it Better to Develop Strengths or Overcome Weaknesses?

It takes far less energy to move from first-rate performance to excellence than it does to move from incompetence to mediocrity. – Peter Drucker

Throughout my career, I’ve put a lot of effort into overcoming my weaknesses.  As a result of coaching and reading numerous books and articles on self-development, I have always viewed my weaknesses as barriers to success and something that I needed to work hard to overcome.  I’ve recently begun to wonder, though, whether focusing too heavily on my weaknesses took time that could have been better spent developing my strengths.

In The Effective Executive, Peter Drucker wrote that, by focusing on our weaknesses, the best we can achieve is mediocrity.  On the other hand, working to further developing our strengths can result in greatness.

Most people excel in the areas that motivate them.  Alternatively, weaknesses tend to come from the things in which people are not really interested.  Focusing attention on developing the things people either can’t improve or aren’t interested in improving can lead to frustration, stress, and an overall lack of motivation.

People are motivated when they are able to do meaningful work, learn and develop, and have fun.  And continually developing in an area of strength and utilizing the strength to contribute to an organization’s success help make this happen.

Addressing the Organization’s Weaknesses

It is obviously important to understand and continually close the critical skill gaps that exist within an organization.  Doing this effectively requires hiring the “right” people and continually making them “more right.”  One of the critical objectives of hiring is to put together a team where individual strengths complement one another and people are able to effectively cover each other’s weaknesses, but focusing the hiring process on minimizing the organization’s weaknesses, however, will never lead to greatness.

The performance review process in most organizations targets an individual’s weaknesses.  Although strengths are usually identified – although more in terms of results than the fundamental strength that led to the result – the individual is often expected to work on the weaknesses before the next review.  There is rarely conversation about how the person can further develop strengths during the coming year.

Knowing Your Strengths

Developing your strengths assumes that you know your strengths.  For most of my career, I have approached people and asked for feedback and coaching about my work, interactions with others, and overall performance.  Whenever I have these conversations, however, I try to get the other person to talk about the areas in which I need to improve – in other words, my weaknesses.  Lately however, I’ve tried to turn the discussion around and have asked for feedback on my strengths.  What I’ve found is that it puts the other person much more at ease and comfortable giving me the feedback I need to improve.

Although this has helped improve the conversation, I have found that it is important for the other person to know that I’m not looking for compliments.  I am looking for feedback on my areas of strength where, if I got even stronger, could greatly help the organization and my own career.

Like anything, this type of conversation takes practice to provide real value, so it is important to stick with it and be consistent about holding the meetings.

PDSA to Understand & Develop Strengths

To better understand strengths and weaknesses, Peter Drucker suggested writing down goals related to a specific objective or project.  After six months or so, he recommended returning to the list and reflecting on which goals were achieved and which were not.  After doing this over a period of time, a picture will start to emerge that identifies strengths and weaknesses.  In addition to showing strengths and weaknesses in execution, it will show how strong the person is in planning and selecting the right things on which to work.

This is closely aligned with W. Edwards Deming’s Theory of Knowledge and the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) Cycle.  Within a PDSA mindset, learning only takes place when the hypothesis is clear, which means that the person or team clearly and consciously understands the expected results from a given action or plan.  I believe Drucker’s advice deals with applying PDSA on a personal level to drive learning.

For this approach to be successful, I believe that the list must be remain personal.  As soon as something like this becomes public or part of a person’s performance review, there will be a tendency to skew results and show more success than really occurred and, as a result, interfere with reflection and learning.  Most organizations are not mature enough in their thinking for people to be truly open about their performance and, in particular, their weaknesses.

It’s Not All or Nothing

Focusing on your strengths does not mean completely ignoring your weaknesses.  This is not about developing knowledge or a particular skill.  It is about using knowledge and skills to be successful.  If you have a weakness that is interfering with success, the more you know about it and address it, the more successfully you will be.  The key, though, is to avoid spending significant time overcoming a weakness.  Once it is addressed to the point where it no longer interferes with using your strengths to be successful, stop worrying about it and refocus on your strengths.


About Gregg Stocker

Gregg Stocker is a lean advisor for Hess Corporation. He possesses over 20 years experience in a variety of disciplines including operations, manufacturing, human resources, quality, and strategic planning, and has worked in manufacturing, service, and oil & gas industries. He has extensive international experience, including successfully leading an $65 million business in The Netherlands. He authored the book, “Avoiding the Corporate Death Spiral: Recognizing & Eliminating the Signs of Decline,” (Quality Press, 2006) and was a contributing author to "The Lean Handbook," (Quality Press, 2012). Gregg is a frequent speaker and recognized expert in business and performance improvement having been interviewed on television, radio, and in a number of newspaper and magazine articles including The New York Times, Washington Post, BusinessWeek, and InformationWeek. Gregg has implemented change in organizations ranging in size from $10 million to more than $100 billion. He is a team-oriented leader who achieves results by improving teamwork, focus, and communication throughout the organization.


4 thoughts on “Is it Better to Develop Strengths or Overcome Weaknesses?

  1. Hi Gregg, great post and particularly useful for me now as I’m laying out my team’s and my own performance objectives for 2017. One point of clarification, you mentioned applying Drucker’s advice to lay out project goals to review in 6 months. By goals, do you mean skills or training goals to be applied to the project or do you mean KPIs for the project t? I can see how reviewing how successfully one applied a skill to a project to look for strengths and weaknesses but project KPIs seem like they would be harder to translate back to strengths.


    Posted by jd1ven | February 19, 2017, 12:32 pm
    • Hi Justice. Not knowing the specifics of the project, it’s difficult to answer, so I’m flying a little blind here.

      I guess you could actually do both in the same exercise. In the end, it is the success of the project that matters, so the kpis for the project are ultimately what you’re after. The reflection would be to (1) look at the project kpis to determine if targets were met – keeping in mind that if everything is on-track, the team may not have stretched itself enough (basically sandbagging the cost, quality, and delivery targets); (2) whether there were problems achieving the project targets, even if they were met. Here, you’re looking for overburden – whether the team achieved the targets by working long hours and/or burning themselves out; (3) whether the skills were applied effectively (i.e., did you run into instances where you lacked a skill that you could have foreseen early on, etc.).

      Does this make sense?


      Posted by Gregg Stocker | February 20, 2017, 10:56 am
      • Thank Gregg, that does make sense. I was speaking about projects generally, so your broad comments apply well. As a someone who knows enough about lean to be dangerous, I can see the temptation to “do lean” and training at the expense of the project kpis or business results. Obviously the needs of value delivery to the customer come first. Through your comment, I can see how we can take the development value of problem solving by reflecting more deeply on issues you highlight in bullets 2 and 3. First, start with delivering value! Then deepen the training.


        Posted by jd1ven | April 16, 2017, 12:58 pm


  1. Pingback: Learn how to build a healthy self-esteem? – hampden-booth - April 23, 2017

I'd appreciate your thoughts. Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 90 other followers

%d bloggers like this: