Understanding Dynamics of Talent Themes - "Contrasting Themes"

by Dries Lombaard

"Contrasting" means "to differ strikingly".

When we apply it to the understanding within the Talent Theme descriptions, the term "Contrasting themes" is used when we compare two themes that are completely "opposing" in nature when it comes to all three elements of thinking, feeling and behaving. A theme is only contrasting in nature when it finds itself on clear opposite ends of a scale when it comes to thinking, feeling and behaving patterns.  General differences in themes do not qualify them to be contrasting.

What is important when talking about "Contrasting Themes" is to take into account that no two Themes in the CliftonStrengths assessment are incompatible to appear as a pairing - either dominantly or as Non-Patterns.  Therefore, even though certain themes appear to be "opposing" in nature, it is absolutely possible for a person to have both those themes in, for instance, their Top Five - although it is rare. 

Within the CliftonStrengths Assessment, these so-called Contrasting Themes will, in most cases, also be found on opposite clustering ends of the Full 34 Sequence Report - thus if one of the themes is dominant, you can expect the other to be close to a Non-Pattern, or at least lower on the list.  Again, this is not set in stone as you may encounter people where this is not the case.  (For interest’s sake, a great example of a well-known person, within the Strengths Movement, with dominant Contrasting Themes is Marcus Buckingham, who has both Futuristic and Context in his Top Five.)

What are some examples of "Contrasting Talent Themes"?

It is also important to understand what the essential contrasting attributes are within two themes that "push" against each other, thus causing them to be contrasting.  Some themes could be contrasting to more than one other theme - although in different attributes. 

Some obvious examples of "Contrasting Themes", and their essential contrasting attribute(s), include:

• Futuristic and Context
• Future mindset or historic mindset
• Command and Harmony
• Confrontational or conflict avoiding
• Empathy and Analytical
• Emotional or Rational
• Discipline and Adaptability
• Structured or unstructured
• Communication and Intellection
• Verbal processing or intellectual processing
• Consistency and Individualization
• Factual fairness or individual fairness
• Deliberative and Positivity
• Pessimism or optimism
• Deliberative and Self-Assurance
• Risk-averse or risk-taking
• Maximizer and Includer
• Excluding (selective) or including (indiscriminate)
• Maximizer and Restorative
• Strengths-building or weakness-fixing
• Relator and Woo
• Introvert or Extrovert
• Ideation and Consistency
• Creative or unimaginative
• Connectedness and Analytical
• Intuitive or factual
• Competition and Harmony
• Win for one or win for all

Important:  Do not simply assume that two themes will be contrasting in sequence on a report.  If you only have the Top Five results of the CliftonStrengths Report, you should never attempt to predict that another theme will be much lower down in the sequence simply because it is contrasting in nature.  

What is the impact if a person has two contrasting themes pairing dominant?

First of all, when this happens, it is obviously rare.  But there is nothing wrong with the person!  In actual fact, in most cases it "broadens the spectrum" of someone thinking, feeling and behaving in a specific manner.  

For instance, someone with a dominant Deliberative and Self-Assurance will have a natural energy and need to be both cautious and to engage with risk. At times, this may cause some inner conflict within them, or even be confusing to others.  Confusion in others may come from the way someone invests energy in contrasting aspects on both ends, or have the capacity to do so.  When someone is unaware of the impact of talent, energy and need, other people may experience them as uncertain or even insecure.  This is simply because it is so rare to find people with these "seemingly opposing" attributes. 

When contrasting themes are mismanaged, it may actually lead to uncertainty and inner confusion.

When well managed, it is a thing of beauty to experience how someone plays a wide scope within a specific arena.  For instance, with Deliberative and Self-Assurance, they will cover all the necessary bases before engaging in risk, giving people both certainty as well as the excitement of risking the new. The typical "calculated risk taker".

At the end, if themes are complementary, contrasting or super in nature of dynamics, it is all about how you manage the energy and need.

Well managed talents become a strength.  Mismanaged talents become a detriment.

-->

Understanding Dynamics of Talent Themes - "Complementary Themes"

by Dries Lombaard

"Complementary" means combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasize the qualities of each other or another. 

When we apply this definition to the CliftonStrengths Talent Themes, a case can be made that any combination of themes that may combine will have a complementary effect on each other.  This is true.  However, when we apply the term "Complementary Themes", we indicate that it is a combination of two or more themes with similar characteristics that therefore emphasize the qualities of each other.

Talent Domains

The first important understanding regarding complementary themes lies within the four Talent Domains, namely the "Executing, Influencing, Relational and Thinking" Domains.  

Within these Domains, you can always regard themes to be strongly complementary.  This is due to the similar characteristics they share within a Domain, which point to a similar type of energy and need within the themes.

In my previous blog post I explained the effect of "Super Themes".  At times it is easy to confuse "Complementary Themes" with "Super Themes".  An easy way to distinguish the difference is to keep in mind that although all Super Theme combinations are complementary of each other, not all Complementary Themes will be Super Themes. (See previous post).

When can we regard a combination as "complementary" in nature?

As a rule of thumb, it is helpful to ask yourself if two themes "seamlessly attach" to each other when they both appear as dominant themes in a profile.  The complementary aspect comes in when both (or more) of the themes align well in terms of the energy and need they share, but on top of that one of the themes adds a very specific aspect that the other theme lacks, thereby complementing it.  

For example: 

Input and Ideation.  

Both are Thinking Themes, the one (Input) adding the researching aspect of gathering information and sharing it, whilst the other one (Ideation) brings strong creativity and fresh thinking to the mix.  The complementary nature here is that Input would have a creative and fresh approach to its research because of Ideation, while Ideation would tap from the researching energy of Input in order to add information to its creative process.

Positivity and Includer.

The theme of Positivity brings the energy, hope and vibrancy to the mix, which will complement Includer with its need to include everybody and not leave anyone behind, and also to be included.  This complementary nature will mean that Positivity will reach more, where Includer will have a lot more energy and vibrancy in its including nature.

Activator and Maximizer.

Both themes are strong Influencing, they therefore share the need to create response and reaction.  Activator will be strongly motivational and fast out of the blocks, adding speed and energy to the launching of Maximizer to take people or things to the next level of excellence.  Maximizer will complement Activator in the sense that it will probably be more selective in who it activates, being strong on backing the strengths in individuals and projects first.

Complementary Themes can also play across the Domains:

Developer and Maximizer.

Where Maximizer is impatient in nature and drawn towards influencing more people (groups), Developer is very patient and loves the one-on-one development in small steps rather than giant leaps.
In this sense it is strongly complementary.

Analytical and Arranger.

The need of Analytical is to gather and work from a clinical factual base of verifiable data and facts. Add this to Arranger and you get a specific approach to the organizational brilliance of Arranger, where they make sure they have the right data and facts and then organize accordingly.

Again, as you will notice, any theme combination can be complementary in nature - even the so-called Contrasting Themes (next post).

But where two or more themes add strong complementary dynamics in enhancing each other, they will be regarded as being "Complementary Themes".

Also, as always, do not regard the above descriptions as an exact science.  Always keep the individual, and human, element in mind that comes from the person owning the themes.

Understanding Dynamics of Talent Themes - "Super Themes"

Understanding Dynamics of Talent Themes - "Super Themes"

by Dries Lombaard

The amazing online assessment tool by Gallup, namely "CliftonStrengths" (previously "Clifton StrengthsFinder"), has been my tool of choice for more than a decade, as a means for the accurate assessment of personal talent and potential.

Throughout this time, I have discovered many dynamic angles that can be applied when you analyze the 34 Theme Sequence of a person. 

In this blog, I will describe three terms that we use to help coaches identify dynamic interactions between specific talent themes.  These are "Super Themes", "Contrasting Themes" and "Complementary Themes".

Super Themes

We refer to two (or, in rare cases, more than two) talent themes that combine within a person's dominant themes (usually Top 10) as "Super Themes" when the two themes are:

• so similar in all their attributes (thinking, feeling and behaving) that you may find it challenging to spot the differences between the two themes;
• similar in their nature to the extent that there may only be one or two specific attributes that distinguish the two themes as different in nature; and
• enhanced strongly, with both a similar energy and need within each other.

For example:  Input and Learner.

People often ask what the differences are between these two themes.  They seem to be extremely similar in nature in the thinking, feeling and behaving patterns.  They also share similar energy and need patterns. Things like reading, studying, learning and sharing of knowledge are elements shared strongly by both themes. And furthermore, you very often find these two themes pair up in a profile - either both being stronger or both being weaker.

When studied more intently, one will see that there is one very clear difference between Input and Learner.  Input has a need and energy for information (gaining and sharing), whereas Learner has a strong need and energy for application, especially to obtain relevant and useful skills that can be applied.

When these two themes combine, like they very often do, they have a dynamic effect on each other that accelerates the energy and need in both - as if they are "feeding" off each other inter-dynamically. This causes Input to be stronger because of the dynamic relation to a strong Learner, and Learner to be strengthened by the dynamic strong influence from Input.

Another example:  Achiever and Responsibility.

These are extremely similar talents.  Both need to work hard, finish well and take on a lot.  Both love to be trusted with goals and responsibilities.  They have very similar energy and needs.

When you look closer, you will see that there is, however, a difference.  Achiever is mainly energized by clear goals and the regular achievement of tasks.  Responsibility finds its energy to deliver a task, completed fully, to someone, and then get feedback on it.  

For Achievers the mere completion is feedback - therefore they love making lists and ticking items off as they proceed.

Responsibility is much more personal in nature.  They want to know who needs something done, by when, and how exactly they need to be supported.

You can therefore come to the conclusion that the main difference between Achiever and Responsibility is the presence, or absence, of emotional drive within the execution.  For Responsibility, it is very personal.  They have a lot of emotion invested in the way they deliver and how they support, as well as in the feedback they receive. 

Achievers are less involved on an emotional level - for them it is simple:  give me the goal, and the deadline, and I will finish it. Done.

I often find that both Achievers and Responsibilities will work hard and finish well - but Responsibility will lie awake at night, wondering if they did everything as expected and if their work is up to standard.  Responsibility is not released when the job is completed, but only when someone releases them on delivery - most often with a mere "thank you".  Then they feel that their job is done.

So, you can see that when these two combine (as they often do), it creates an extreme executional drive towards achievement and delivery. Therefore this energy as a Super Theme combination should always be managed well.  

(For the management of these talents, refer to this article on Achiever and this one for Responsibility).  Also read this if you have a strong Responsibility talent. 

The "art" of Strengths Coaching relies a lot on your ability as a coach to spot the dynamics between themes.  Therefore I would like you to see if you can identify why the following themes are seen as "Super Themes" rather than mere strong complementary themes.  See if you can identify which specific characteristic separate these as two different themes.  

• Achiever and Focus
• Achiever and Competition
• Consistency and Belief
• Adaptability and Strategic
• Analytical and Deliberative
• Includer and Woo
• Command and Self Assurance
• Empathy and Individualization

Are there any others you could identify? 

All interpretations as well as the terms "Super Themes", "Complimetary Themes" and "Constrasting Themes" are that of the author,  acquired through years of Strengths Coaching experience, and it is not verified, acknowledged or  or scientifically tested by Gallup Inc, the developers and owners of the CliftonStrengths assessment. The Theme Names used, like "Achiever", "Responsibility", "Input",  "Learner" etc are registered trademarks and the intellectual property of Gallup Inc.  The author has no affilliation with Gallup Inc.

Put Theory Into Practice: Use Your Self-Awareness To Regulate Your Responses

- by Kelly Mannel, published on forbes.com

A friend of mine has a new puppy. He’s adorable, as puppies tend to be. He’s also a terror — as puppies tend to be. Jumping, barking, chewing shoes — you name it, he’s doing it.

My friend read every dog training book she could find. She took her pup to a training class. Her house is full of toys and every training gadget in the store. But the dog’s behavior is still, shall we say, less than ideal.

“I don’t know what’s wrong with him,” she recently said to me as the puppy jumped all over me.

Once I extricated myself, I started asking questions. "What did the trainer say to do when he did this?" She told me the process. “Are you doing that?” I asked (although I knew the answer, from recent experience).

“Well, no,” she admitted. “But he’s just a puppy! All puppies jump.”

It's easy to hear other people’s stories and find the error in their ways. Of course this dog wasn’t behaving! She isn’t being consistent! She’s not following the trainer’s advice! She’s not practicing with him!

But think for a moment how often we do this with our own behavior. We read the book, we go the class, we buy the gizmos. We gather all the info and learn all the techniques. And then we put it all on the shelf and go back to business as usual.

Putting Self-Awareness To Work 

In working with clients on their emotional intelligence, I see this phenomenon often. Typically, the disconnect comes between self-awareness and self-regulation. A client will do the hard work of developing self-awareness: recognizing the way they appear to others, learning their triggers, naming their emotions and identifying patterns in their reactions. All good stuff.

Then we get to self-regulation. This is where we put our new self-awareness knowledge to work. Self-regulation involves managing your emotions, your reactions, your impulses. It means recognizing your triggers and changing the way you react. It means practicing self-control, adapting to new situations, striving to improve, and remaining persistent even when faced with setbacks.

Self-awareness is only helpful when you take that knowledge and act on it. That doesn’t mean just informing people around you about your triggers and tendencies and expecting them to work around you. It means using your developing self-awareness to identify and change those behaviors and tendencies that aren’t serving you well.

Psychologist Daniel Goleman, the "father" of emotional intelligence, calls self-regulation “the quality of emotional intelligence that liberates us from living like hostages to our impulses.” That may sound dramatic, but there's a growing body of evidence to support self-regulation’s critical role in success and leadership.

Ronald E. Riggio and Rebecca J. Reichard of Kravis Leadership Institute, at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, Calif. use the term "emotional control," but the meaning is the same: “Leader emotional control is positively associated with leader impression management and effective leadership under stress.” The Annual Review of Psychology identifies inhibitory control and self-control as core "executive functions," which it defines as “skills essential for mental and physical health; success in school and in life; and cognitive, social, and psychological development.”

What does that mean in your daily life? It means that you will be a more effective and impactful spouse, parent, friend, employee and manager if you can control your emotional responses to situations and consistently communicate and behave in a way that is consistent with your goals and values.

Four Steps To Developing Self-Regulation 

Acknowledging self-regulation’s importance is one thing. Implementing it in your life is another. If you’re looking for concrete ways to work on this for yourself, here are some ideas:

• Identify alternative responses to triggers. Look back at your list of triggers. For each trigger, write down your usual emotional response and its implications. For example, being interrupted when you’re working may be a trigger. Your usual response might be to feel frustrated and annoyed and then snap at the person who is interrupting you. Then, afterward, you feel guilty and have difficulty getting back to concentrating on your work. Now identify an alternative response. Be specific; list practical behaviors you can use to use to prevent the trigger or change your response. For example, you might close your office door and post a sign asking not to be interrupted. Or you may practice a polite but clear phrase you can say in response to an interruption, following a deep breath and a count to 10.

• Practice your alternative responses. It may make sense for you to address one trigger at a time. Write down your alternative response and post it in the location where the trigger typically occurs. If you often get triggered in traffic, for example, post it in your car. If you often get triggered in meetings, jot it down on your notepad to remind you.

• Embrace mistakes. Despite your best efforts, there will be times when you mess up. That’s inevitable. Don’t think of them as mistakes, but as opportunities. Use those experiences to learn more about yourself, to become even more self-aware and identify ways you might be better at self-regulation the next time. Maybe you need to try another alternative response. Maybe you need to think more about your triggers.

• Continue. Like every other aspect of emotional intelligence, this is an ongoing process. You will get better at it, yes. But you are never done learning and growing.

All human beings have impulses. Some are useful —others, not so much. Through self-awareness and self-regulation, we can learn to identify those impulses that are hurtful and work to replace them with something more helpful.

Can I Use StrengthsFinder to Make Hiring Decisions?

By Louisa Warren, Senior Practice Consultant, Gallup Wouldn’t life be simple if we could just treat the Clifton StrengthsFinder as a wonderful menu, from which to pick and choose our new recruits -- to work with, to be our friends or even our life partners? Surely it would be better to have a “reading” of someone’s strengths before we take a risk on getting to know them? Well, yes, it would -- but there are serious and dangerous pitfalls if we mistakenly use the Clifton StrengthsFinder as a selection tool.  


A Developmental Tool: Talent Is Raw

Tempting as it is, we have to remember that the Clifton StrengthsFinder is a developmental tool; it gives a broad picture of someone’s talents, and only they can develop them into real strengths. This happens through dialogue with others and over time. We can never pick up someone’s StrengthsFinder profile and claim that we know that they have a talent for X and therefore it means Y. Now, clearly, common sense tells us that certain themes do make people more likely to be good in certain areas, but each person must have the right to describe what their own talents look like -- uniquely -- and how they would react in a certain role. Never assume, never presume.  


Recruiting Managers: No Dream Themes

Imagine you were looking for someone who would be a good manager. You might think someone with Learner and Developer has to be a good bet -- don’t they? In reality, someone having strong Learner talent may mean that a person is only interested in their own progress and learning; it tells us nothing about their capacity to share that learning with others. Even someone with Developer may be a person who is a broadly helpful and encouraging, but they might not be right for a manager role. What if they have no knack for communicating these ideas to others or considering implications of actions beyond development? You see how complicated it can get. Your dream candidate may reach specific outcomes, but will likely get there based on his or her unique set of talents, not the prescribed “best way” you attempt to define by searching for specific combination of themes.  


Predicting Success: Strengths Tell Us How, Not What we Do

Gallup has structured interviews that are developed through the careful study of excellence in a role, and these interviews are rigorously tested to make sure they predict the potential for high performance on the job. These interviews tend to measure a restricted number of attributes, with proven links to the role. Whereas Clifton StrengthsFinder has thirty-four themes and sometimes behaviors overlap. Imagine if you decided to look for someone who is ”well-organized.” Looking at the themes, you might pick Discipline. Yes, that person is likely to be good at organizing their own time. But can they organize others’ too? An Arranger, whilst retaining flexibility, can also be an excellent organizer -- they move the plan around, but they still get things done, often with and through others. Someone with Focus may structure their week (rather than their day) and, to the casual observer, look “organized.” As might a Maximizer -- efficiency is often their watchword, so this will drive them to be very organized when they want to be sure to get as much done as they can in the day. Even Achievers often make lists, so they have the satisfaction of ticking off each task as they achieve it. But picture someone with high Achiever and low Discipline -- they might start the day with a list, but as they get more and more involved in their work, they are getting a lot done, but oh dear, where did they leave that list? If you had chosen someone for a position because they had Achiever and you thought, “They get a lot done so they must be organized,” you might be disappointed when you find that certain details got overlooked in their push for high productivity in other areas. When it comes to selecting the right person for a role, certainly talent plays a part. We should always keep it to broad discussions about the type of role and, above all, the key is that the person themselves must be a part of that discussion. Legal, Ethical and Fair: Development and Selection Are different Arts in a Similar Science


When you find yourself tempted to use StrengthsFinder for recruitment, ask yourself, “Can I defend my decision if someone challenges me and says, ‘How do you know someone with that strength [or combination of strengths] is more productive in the role?’ How objective am I really being? Have I even allowed the individual to have a say in how their strengths work for them? Am I truly being fair?”

Even if you think the answer to some of these questions is “yes,” one thing remains indisputable: the StrengthsFinder tool has not been validated as a predictive measure of success in a given role. It has amazing potential when it comes to starting conversations about strengths and helping people to achieve excellence in their roles -- once a fair and objective assessment system has been used to put them there in the first place.
 
Gallup’s work in talent-based hiring is grounded in more than 40 years of research.