The StrengthsFinder test classifies employees into a number of critical strength-based categories, such as employees who thrive on competition versus employees who seek harmony with other individuals. Both types of employees can be useful in many organizations but may deploy different decision-making processes due to their different strength sets. For example, an employee whose great strength is soliciting input may need and desire a great deal of information before making a decision (Sorenson & Crabtree 2001). An employee who is deliberative by nature may need more time to exercise the strengths of his unique faculty in making decisions while an employee who is an activator can make a contribution by narrowing down the range of potential decisions to a fairly limited selection to motivate moving the organization forward (Sorenson & Crabtree 2001). Just as all organizations have to make many different types of decisions on a regular basis, they must have a diverse range of employee strengths from which to draw to maximize their efficacy. Implicit in the StrengthsFinder design is that there is no one, single, superior decision-making strategy. Rather, there are many. What is critical is that these strengths are deployed for the benefit of an organization and an organization must embrace a different mix of strengths to balance out different employees’ strengths and weaknesses. The StrengthsFinder approach...

What is particularly unique about the StrengthsFinder is that the focus on the model is an employee’s strengths, not upon what they struggle with on a daily basis. The authors of the original StrengthFinder design, Buckingham & Clifton (2001) consider it a mistake to assume that everyone can be competent at everything and the objective of every organization should be to address employees’ weaknesses. The strengths of different employees can be used to balance out the weaknesses of others. Always, the focus should be on creating a workplace filled with teams that are balanced, so the different strengths of different team members can be counteracted by one another’s weaknesses. This can be seen in a comparison of two employees at a hypothetical organization which sells personal haircare products.
Employee Comparison

For example, when helping a hypothetical employee A, who is gifted in the strength of a significance orientation, the manager should be aware of the fact that this employee has a desire to seem “very significant” in the eyes of other people (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001, p.114). Given that the personal care industry in part derives its popularity from the fact that it supports people’s desire for esteem in the…