StrengthsFinder in the Workplace: Leveraging Employee Strengths
This paper examines how the StrengthsFinder assessment framework can be applied to workplace management by identifying and leveraging distinct employee strength profiles. Drawing on Buckingham and Clifton's foundational work, the paper argues that no single decision-making strategy is superior; instead, organizations benefit from assembling balanced teams whose members' varied strengths compensate for one another's weaknesses. Through a comparison of two hypothetical employees in a personal haircare company — one with a significance orientation and one with a "Woo" orientation — the paper illustrates how managers can deploy each employee's strengths most effectively. The analysis supports a situational leadership model focused on strengths rather than deficits.
- Introduction: StrengthsFinder and Decision-Making: StrengthsFinder categories and diverse decision-making styles
- Situational Leadership and the Strengths-Based Approach: Strengths-based model as situational leadership framework
- Employee Comparison: Significance vs. Woo Orientations: Contrasting two employee strength profiles in practice
- Applying Strengths in Practice: Woo employees diversifying decisions and motivating teams
- Conclusion: Balancing team strengths for organizational success
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses concrete hypothetical examples (Employee A and Employee B) to ground abstract StrengthsFinder concepts in a realistic organizational context, making the argument accessible and applied.
- Consistently ties employee strength profiles back to a specific industry (personal haircare), which gives the analysis focus and coherence throughout.
- Avoids deficit-focused thinking by explicitly arguing that teams should be structured to offset weaknesses through complementary strengths, which aligns cleanly with the theoretical framework being applied.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied theory analysis: it introduces a theoretical framework (StrengthsFinder / situational leadership), then tests it against two contrasting cases. This compare-and-contrast structure allows the writer to show how the same framework produces different managerial recommendations depending on an employee's strength profile — a core move in applied organizational behavior writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by introducing StrengthsFinder and its implications for decision-making diversity, then reframes the framework as a form of situational leadership. The central section compares two hypothetical employees — one significance-oriented and one Woo-oriented — analyzing how a manager should engage each. A brief synthesis paragraph addresses how Woo employees contribute to team dynamics before a short conclusion reinforces the strengths-based management philosophy.
Introduction: StrengthsFinder and Decision-Making
The StrengthsFinder assessment classifies employees into a number of critical strength-based categories, such as employees who thrive on competition versus employees who seek harmony with others. 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 in order to motivate moving the organization forward (Sorenson & Crabtree, 2001). Just as all organizations must make many different types of decisions on a regular basis, they must have a diverse range of employee strengths from which to draw in order to maximize their efficacy.
Situational Leadership and the Strengths-Based Approach
Implicit in the StrengthsFinder design is the idea that there is no 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 the various strengths and weaknesses of its employees. The StrengthsFinder approach is thus a form of situational leadership, rather than an approach that seeks to apply a one-size-fits-all formula to all leadership needs.
What is particularly unique about the StrengthsFinder is that the focus of the model is on an employee's strengths, not on what they struggle with on a daily basis. The authors of the original StrengthsFinder design, Buckingham and Clifton (2001), consider it a mistake to assume that everyone can be competent at everything and that the objective of every organization should be to address employees' weaknesses. The strengths of different employees can instead be used to balance out the weaknesses of others. The focus should always be on creating a workplace filled with teams that are balanced, so that the different strengths of different team members can counteract one another's weaknesses. This can be seen in a comparison of two employees at a hypothetical organization that sells personal haircare products.
Employee Comparison: Significance vs. Woo Orientations
When managing a hypothetical Employee A, who is gifted with a significance orientation, the manager should be aware that this employee has a strong desire to appear "very significant" in the eyes of other people (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001, p. 114). Given that the personal care industry derives part of its popularity from supporting people's desire for esteem in the eyes of others, this employee could provide valuable insight into that 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. She holds a conviction that she can "take charge and make things happen" (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001, p. 114). Including this employee on a team undertaking a project that requires quick action — such as a time-sensitive product launch — would therefore be very useful. Such employees should be encouraged to use their decisiveness effectively, deploying their interpersonal knowledge about self-esteem drivers while narrowing down potential courses of action into a relatively focused 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). Because of their broad circle of influence, these employees can be very useful in offering their perceptions of a variety of perspectives that exist both within the organization and among the public at large. By encouraging them to share insights from their wide sphere of influence, the organization can benefit from their interpersonal expertise. For an organization that is based in part on understanding what motivates people to build their self-esteem, having someone with a Woo orientation on a team composed of people with different personal strengths is invaluable.
Conclusion
A thorough analysis of employee strengths is essential for an organization to thrive. An organization is only as strong as its people. Managers must develop an in-depth understanding of both the character and the skills of their employees, and employees must cultivate some degree of self-insight as well. It is equally important to recognize how to counterbalance the different weaknesses of various employees, rather than dwelling upon them. As Buckingham and Clifton (2001) argue, the goal is not to make everyone competent at everything, but to build effective teams in which complementary strengths create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
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
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.