Strengthsfinder Training Tools

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 is thus a form of situational leadership, rather than an approach that seeks to apply a cookie cutter formula to all leadership needs. 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 eyes of others, this employee could provide insight into this psychology. The employee is also likely to be highly motivated by the ability to distinguish herself, whether as a sales representative or in determining how to sell as many products as possible to potential customers. The employee has a conviction that she can “take charge and make things happen” (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001, p.114). Including the employee on a team which has a project which requires quick action would thus be very useful, such as a time-sensitive product launch. Such employees should be encouraged to use their decisiveness in an effective way, both deploying their interpersonal knowledge about self-esteem drivers as well as being able to narrow down potential options for actions into a relatively narrow framework.
In contrast, a hypothetical employee B with a “Woo” orientation would excel in “winning others over” (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001, p.116). As any manager knows, building an effective team can be extremely challenging. One critical question to ask this employee is, “How wide is the circle of friends and associates from whom you solicit advice?” (Sorenson & Crabtree, 2001, par.5). These employees, because of their circle of influence, can be very useful in offering their perceptions of a variety of perspectives that exist both within the organization and the public at large. By encouraging them to share their insights from their wide sphere of influence, the organization can benefit from their interpersonal expertise. Again, for an organization which is based in part on understanding what motivates people in terms of building their self-esteem, having someone with a Woo orientation on a team consisting of people with different personal strengths is invaluable.
This is in stark contrast to achievement-oriented employees; woo employees should be encouraged to diversify the options they offer to a team, in terms of decision-making potential. Rather than finding one marketing channel or one potential customer for a product, a Woo employee might speculate on how the product could be approached in different markets, to ensure a tailored approach to a diversified base of customers. Woo employees can also be relied upon to generate interest about projects on an internal basis because of their skill in being able to motivate others and draw people into their sphere.
Conclusion
A thorough analysis of employee strengths is regarded for an organization to thrive. An organization is only as strong as its people. Managers must have an in-depth understanding of the character as well as the skills of employees and employees must have some insight into themselves. It is also important to recognize how to counterbalance the different weaknesses of various employees, rather than dwelling upon them.
References
Buckingham, M. & Clifton, D. (2001). Now, discover your strengths. Gallup.
Sorensen, K. & Crabtree, S. (2001). A talent for making decisions. Business Journal. Retrieved from: http://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/394/talent-making-decisions.aspx