Inward and Outward Talent Themes

There are definite "inward" and definite "outward" directing talent themes. With this we mean that some themes tend to be more reflective, and others again more interactive. Some themes tend to give you the energy and desire to be outspoken, interactive with others and visible. Other themes have the direct opposite effect: it is weakened by interaction, but strengthen by quiet reflection and introspection.

Sometimes it is not clear if a themes is "inward" or "outward", and one needs to look at the dynamics between the theme and other themes to determine its state.

Personality plays a very important role in this. If you are introvert or extrovert is a determining factor in most instances, although people could well adapt to a specific environment or situation with ease.

"Inward" talent themes usually includes themes like Intellection, Ideation, Belief, Consistency, Deliberative, Empathy, Individualization, Analytical and Context.

"Outward" talent themes couls include themes like Woo, Relator, Achiever, Activator, Command, Communication, Self Assurance, Competition and Maximizer.

Although the above is not exact, and depends a lot on factors of inter dynamics, it could give you an indication and explanation on your inward or outward tendencies within relationships or interactions, and help you to understand and manage your emotions and actions in this regard.

Strengths & Talents: The Facts

By Dries Lombaard
Director:  Strategic Engagement; Strengths Institute

We often come across people that are very misinformed about the Strengths Movement. When they have some kind of platform, they then (sometimes intentionally) spread dis-information about some core principles within the Strengths Based approach.

Here are some statements you might encounter - and our reaction to it:

A Strengths Based approach is a "feel good", lazy approach that gives people the excuse to sidestep hard work. This causes leaders to stagnate.
Not true. Nowhere will you find anyone within the Strengths Movement, be it Gallup, Marcus Buckingham etc, who will deny the importance of hard work for success. In fact, we often quote the research done by Malcolm Gladwell in his book "Outliers", where he states that successful people put in an average of 10'000 hours of hard work in order to obtain success or fame. Any true leader will understand this to be true.
As soon as someone discovered their talent themes, the need to shift their energy and hard work towards that area in order to be successful. The problem is that hard work which is directed towards your weaknesses simply prevent failure, but wont lead to sustainable success. In order to be sustainably successful and fulfilled and have energy and passion to continue, you need to focus your hard work daily towards who you are - that is, towards your talents.

When you focus on your strengths, you stop learning.
Absurd statement. A true learner will never stop being a student, and someone who just does not study and learn, will find it very hard to start. The truth is that the more you discover about strengths - especially your own, the more you learn. It daily opens new and exciting angles within your work and life and your unique contribution towards it. And, because of the dynamics between strengths, you cannot simply approach it as a flare that you shoot up. The challenge lies within learning and applying it every day. When you focus on your talents and are serious to turn them into strengths, you START learning.

Good leaders has strengths and no apparent weaknesses.
Oh boy, how inaccurate this is! Just a non-leader will ever believe that a leader has no weaknesses. A true leader are very aware of his or her weaknesses, but does not let it pull them down. They do not waste energy on it, bu manage it well. They delegate wisely, outsource economically, borrow from others' strengths and know how to fill their gaps. They also know that they need to work very hard in order to keep their talents at a strength level.

Spending too much time on your strengths, turns it into a weakness. Any strength that is overused becomes a weakness.
You cannot spend too much time on your strengths - just as you cannot spend too much time being you. Also, strengths development has everything to do with how and where you use it. In the strengths movement we have a saying: "A well managed talent becomes a strength - but a mismanaged talent becomes a detriment." It's about how you manage your talent themes that turns it into strengths. Without this, talent will only stay mere potential. It is not an overused strength that becomes a weakness, it is a mismanaged one, mostly because of projection or judging.

Your strengths must be ignored if it is not what is needed by your organization or employee.
Everyone understands that you cannot operate or function within the zone of your strengths 100% of the time. Nobody claims that not to be true. But successful people create an environment over time where they get to function within their talent zone MOST of the time. Obviously you sometimes need to bite the bullet and just grind ahead with the task at hand. But if you do that most of the time - or worse, all of the time - you can be assured of you and your employee to be on the losing side over the long haul. Remember that a weakness is not something you do badly, just as a strength is not something you do well. Those are skills. A strength is something that energize you, and a weakness is something that weakens you. And being energized most of the time is the target to aim for!

Visit our Website at www.strengths.institute

10 Opinions on Performance Reviews

There’s been a lot of buzz the last few weeks around the topic of performance reviews. Much of it has
re-surfaced as a result of a recent New York Times article by Tara Parker-Pope about the mental health risks of performance reviews.

She quotes UCLA Professor Samuel Culbert, who wrote the book “Get Rid of the Performance Review” and the October 20th 2008 Wall Street Journal article with the same title.

Both of the articles are interesting reads, and make compelling arguments. However, neither are the first to suggest the notion of getting rid of performance reviews. There was a book called "Abolishing Performance Appraisals"written back in 2000, and Deming called out the practice as one of his “7 Deadly Diseases” backing the early 1980s.

I’ve even heard that there was an ancient secret society formed within the Catholic Church whose mission it was to wipe out performance reviews. Look for the upcoming book by Dan Brown and the movie with Tom Hanks.

I’ve already written a couple posts about the topic. One of my all-time favorite posts (albeit perhaps overly cynical) I ever wrote was back in January 2008, called “10 Ways to Screw up a Performance Appraisal”.

I followed up that up with a much more constructive, but still snarky posted called "A No Bull- #$%! Performance Review Process”.

If you read both posts, you’ll get a good idea where I stand on the issue. I hope I've offered an alternative that makes sense, as opposed to just whining about it.

Since I've written those posts, I've thought about the topic of performance reviews some more, and for the most part, I'm still in the same place. Here are my latest 10 completely unscientific and biased opinions on performance reviews:

1. Most, if not all, managers hate writing them and hate delivering them. They hate them because it’s so hard to come up with new things to write about “communication” every year, they are time consuming and tedious, and delivering feedback about a performance issue is about as fun as getting a root canal.

2. Despite of that, a lot of managers, maybe even most, put a lot of work into the process, try to do a good job with them, and play by the rules that are handed to them. Despite the watter-cooler & blog horror stories, the majority of managers are not complete morons.

3. Employees love getting positive reviews. They actually do take them home and show their family and hang them on the refrigerator. However, very few people enjoy or respond well to “constructive feedback”. Basic human fight or flight mechanisms take over. It doesn’t matter if it’s delivered once a year or once a day, it still feels the same. So if it’s not outstanding, employees hate them too.

4. No one should be immune from being evaluated, judged, graded, or scored. I don’t buy those philosophic arguments about power, status, human rights, etc… That’s part of life and being accountable. I always find it interesting when tenured academics write about the evils of performance reviews. In general, teachers and professors don’t like being evaluated or held accountable to begin with, so of course they can come up with all kinds of passionate arguments why no one else should.

5. HR managers are often the worst offenders when it comes to either not doing them or doing them poorly, yet the most vocal critics of managers who do them poorly (according to their unrealistic standards).

6. If you decide to try to “fix” your performance review system, be careful what you ask for. The solutions designed by well-meaning task forces, consultants, academics, HR, and rouge managers are often worse than the problems you’re trying to fix. They do, however, make very nice PowerPoint presentations.

7. Performance appraisal software can help make the process more efficient and effective – or make it all worse. It all depends on who’s doing the configuration.

8. Peer or multi-rater assessment are OK for developmental purposes, as long as the results are seen only by the individual being assessed. They have no place in performance appraisal – that’s the manager’s dirty job. Oh - and self-directed work teams? Good luck with that one.

9. "Experts" (often trainers or HR) usually overstates the reasons why they “have” to be done. It’s for “legal” reasons, employees “deserve” them, it’s “your job” as a manager. Really? Ask the expert exactly how many court cases the company has lost because of a missing or poorly written performance review. As if they would be willing to survey employees to see if they how much they contribute to performance or job satisfaction. Ask for some research that proves the ability to do good performance reviews has anything to do with leadership excellence. Ask for data that shows how doing or not doing performance reviews has ever improved the companies’ bottom line. You’ll be sure to get scowls or blank stares.
I'm not saying there really are some good reasons - I'm sure there is even some credible research - but more too often heavy-handed, uninformed arm-twisting is used instead of valid reasons. It's OK to step back and ask "why?"

10. At the end of the day, we’d be better off getting rid of the complicated forms and mandated practices, and just practice good day-to-day management and leadership. Under performance should still be documented, great performance should be recognized and rewarded, employees should get feedback, we should be held accountable, goals should be established, career and development plans should be discussed, and merit pay should be based on performance.

OMG, does all of this sound like performance management? Maybe, but please don’t make us fill out a damn 16 page form every year. Let's either do it right or not do it at all.

How about you? Have any opinions on performance reviews? (-:


- from www.greatleadership.com

Visit our Website at www.africanmosaic.com

Workplace Pet Peeves

Employees would rather deal with gossiping co-workers than with colleagues who have poor time management skills, according to Randstad, a leading staffing firm and workforce solutions provider. The company’s new Work Watch survey, conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs among more than 1,000 employed U.S. adults, revealed the top three workplace pet peeves to be: people with poor time management skills (43 percent), gossip (36 percent) and messiness in communal spaces (25 percent).

The results show a slight, but interesting, shift in employee sentiment on this subject since the last time Randstad conducted a similar survey on workplace pet peeves in 2007. In that survey, gossip ranked as the biggest workplace annoyance, followed by others’ poor time management skills and messiness in communal spaces.

“The economic occurrences of the past 18-plus months seem to also have impacted what annoys people at work,” said Eileen Habelow, senior vice president of organizational development for Randstad. “Whether it is budget cuts or staff layoffs, employees are being asked to do more work with fewer resources, which directly affects how they view their time in the office. Employees are looking for ways to increase their value at work, so it would only make sense they would be a bit bothered by coworkers who they believe are having an impact on their time, and, possibly company productivity.”

Other workplace pet peeves making the 2010 list include: loud noises (21 percent), potent scents (20 percent), overuse of personal electronic devices in meetings (15 percent) and misuse of email (12 percent).

Since the original Randstad survey on workplace pet peeves was conducted in 2007, social media use, whether for personal or professional reasons, has exploded onto the scene. Additionally, America experienced a presidential election and a recession, each spurring a number of political hot button issues. These events prompted Randstad to add two additional choices for respondents to consider when identifying their top workplace pet peeve. Interestingly, social media use and political conversations didn’t rank in the top six selections of respondents pet peeves. A comparison follows.

Top Workplace Pet Peeves 2010

1. - Others’ poor time management skills
2. - Gossip
3. - Messiness in communal spaces
4. - Loud noises
5. - Potent scents
6. - Overuse of personal electronic devices in meetings
7. - Political conversations
8. - Misuse of email
9. - Personal use of social media sites during work hours

Peeves About Time Management

So what, exactly, do employees find most annoying about colleagues time management practices? The survey revealed that 22 percent of respondents listed people who take excessive breaks – long lunches, smoking breaks, online surfing – as their chief aggravation. After that, “pet peeve parity” kicks in as roughly one in ten workers named the following as their top time management frustration:

• people who abuse sick days (11 percent)
• meetings without agendas or structure (11 percent)
• meetings that cut into personal time, including starting before or ending after traditional work hours (10 percent)
• meetings that start late or run over (10 percent)
• people who are distracted on their Blackberry or who text during a meeting (10 percent)
• people who consistently miss deadlines (9 percent)

Not surprising, employees under age 35 were more likely than those who are older to say that their biggest time management pet peeve is when meetings cut into personal time (16 percent vs. 7 percent). However, 13 percent of respondents say that none of the above pet peeves bother them.

Social Media Impact

With only 12 percent of respondents saying that personal use of social media sites in the workplace was among their biggest pet peeves, it’s reasonable to say that this activity has either become a part of the “everyday” at work or that companies are now cracking down on social media use through formal policies. When asked what was most annoying about people’s personal use of social media during work hours, the top two responses were the amount of time wasted that should be spent on work assignments (28 percent) and when it causes users to ask others for help with their workload or responsibilities (20 percent). “This makes sense as both of these activities could impact a worker’s ability to manage, or not manage, their time,” added Habelow. “Just as telling is the fact the survey also found that 27 percent of respondents don’t have any concerns over people’s personal use of social media during work hours which again could be because of workplace policies or general acceptance.”

How Pet Peeves Are Being Addressed

Just as workers have a variety of pet peeves, they also tend to deal with them in different ways. In most instances, employees say that they typically deal with their pet peeve by saying something directly to the person involved (29 percent). Additionally, the survey found that very few opt to directly email the person (2 percent) when dealing with their pet peeve. The next best way for most workers to deal with or respond to pet peeves is by venting about it to co-workers (19 percent). Only 9 percent say something to their boss/supervisor and even fewer, 1 percent, leave an anonymous note or vent on a social networking site. Interestingly, more than a quarter of respondents (27 percent) stated they ignore the situation completely.

Additional findings from the survey included:

• Workers under 35 are more likely than those 55 and older to say that loud noises (25 percent vs. 16 percent) and political conversations (15 percent vs. 8 percent) are pet peeves
• When it comes to email pet peeves, forwarding chain emails and jokes topped the list (19 percent)
• Women are more likely than men to be annoyed by unnecessary “reply alls” (15 percent vs. 10 percent)
• Workers aged 18-34 are more likely than workers 55+ to be bothered by people who ask a question that was just answered in previous email (12 percent vs. 3 percent)

From: http://www.greatleadershipbydan.com/2010/05/results-are-in-2010-top-workplace-pet.html

Visit our Website: www.africanmosaic.com

Can my Strength become my Weakness?

We have a popular saying in the Strengths Movement: "A well managed talent, becomes a strength... but a mismanaged talent, becomes a detriment."

A talent is something that we cannot ignore, deny, or get rid off. But we can mismanage it. And usually mismanagement of a talent can be directly link to a lack of knowledge, skill and experience within the practical application of any talent theme. Let me give a couple of typical examples of talent mismanagement:

A person with a strong mix of strategic thinking talent themes (like ideation, input, intellection, strategic etc), usually comes across as if they "live inside their heads". The are very strong cerebral by nature, and therefor the process their environment, their emotions and their actions in a rational and intellectual manner.
Does this mean that they cannot do relationships, execute tasks or influence people? Not at all. It is just that their approach and their sustaining of these aspects will be more intellectual or strategic in nature.
But the fact of the matter is also that someone with such a mix, will be stretched within other areas. Where mismanagement comes in, will be if such a person claims not to be able to, for instance, show any kindness or empathy, even if they do not naturally feel or sense (or understand) it. Then this could become their "weakness", so to speak, as it works towards their own detriment.

You can apply this example with any strong functioning theme. We have a good way to refer to this mismanagement of themes: projection and judging.

Whenever you project your own theme or strength on someone else, and expect them to see through your talents, you are mismanaging your talent.
Whenever you judge someone else for the lack of ability (that you possess), or for the possession of a talent that you may lack, you are mismanaging your talent.

We need to understand that we cannot walk in someone elses shoes, see with their eyes, feel with their heart, touch with their hands, think with their brain or believe with their spirit.

Being self aware, and then self accepting of who you are, is the key to stopping either projection or judging.
Being other aware - and other accepting, is the key to sustaining this ability of a strength based life.

Lead Like a Child

Guest post by Simon Sinek:

As soon as he walked in door everyone immediately stopped talking and stood to attention. That’s the correct thing to do when a lieutenant general walks into the room. The General is considered a leader because he has three stars on his shoulders, but we often confuse rank for leadership. Yes, he is a high-ranking official in the military, but what makes this general a great leader is that he acts like a child.

There is one question that all children ask that most we almost completely stop asking when we become adults: why. With one glaring exception: great leaders.

When we ask “how?” or “what?” we’re usually asking for details, process or clarification. We’re asking for information that will help us do our jobs or get something done. The question why is very different. When we ask “why?” we reveal that we don’t understand something. It shows vulnerability. It reveals not knowing. And that is exactly the reason great leaders ask why so often. They are aware that they don’t know what they don’t know and they aren’t afraid so show it.

The General sat down has his briefing commenced. His guest started sharing with him some new ideas that the General had never heard before, and his whole demeanor changed. He was no longer an imposing general, he became like a little kid. He didn’t pretend he knew the subject matter. He wasn’t intimidated that he didn’t understand some of the concepts. Quite the opposite. He leaned forward with a child-like wonderment, ready to learn something new.

Great leaders are not the ones who hold the highest office or make the most money, they are the ones who inspire the people around them. And people are inspired when they feel like they are part of something bigger than themselves. The General, like all other great, inspiring leaders, inspires those around them not because of what he knows but because of how he makes others feel.

When someone of vast achievement or status shows genuine interest in the ideas of those around them, it makes those people feel valuable. It makes them feel like they are contributing. Command and control is not great leadership. It may be great management or delegation, but great leadership is not just about the ability to get things done, it’s the capacity to inspire others to take responsibility to get things done. When people in an organization believe in the greater cause and are made to feel a valuable part of it, they become vastly more conscientious about everything they do to contribute to that cause.

Poor leaders often reveal themselves very quickly when they point to their rank or accomplishments as reason they don’t need to listen to outside ideas. If you’ve ever genuinely wanted to contribute and been swiftly rebuffed with words like, “we’re a lot more successful than you, I think we know what I’m doing,” or “and what have you achieved that gives you the right to tell me what to do?” then congratulations, you’re talking to someone who may have achieved a lot, but they are not great.

The reason great leaders ask why is simple – they have an insatiable curiosity and they want to know what they don’t know. They understand that the more ideas, perspectives and things they can learn – inside AND outside their own disciplines – the more information it gives them to make better decisions. Great leaders are eternal students. Regardless of what they have learned, what they know or what they have achieved, they always want to know more. The value of their curiosity is more than a nicety, it has a biological benefit.

The rational and analytical part of our brains – the part of our brain that makes us sound like adults – can access the equivalent of about 2-feet of information around us. This is the conscious information we access when we think about a problem, when we weigh the pros and the cons, consider the facts and the figures before we make a decision. In contrast, our limbic brains – the part of our brains that actually control behavior and decision-making - can access subconscious information. Information that doesn’t come out on any list of pros and cons. Our limbic brain is filled with our entire life’s worth of experiences, lessons and information; the equivalent of 11-acres worth of information. This is the information that is being tapped when we make gut-decisions or when we act instinctively. No data is weighed in these decisions yet they are, very often, better quality decisions.

Those with an insatiable curiosity, those who constantly want to see more, do more understand why, are filling their subconscious brains with data that can be tapped at a later date. It will help influence and drive decisions and the decision maker won’t even know it’s happening when they’re doing it.

There something we can all do to fill our subconscious brains to make us better decision makers and, ultimately, make us better leaders. We can learn to act like children again.

Here are some ideas:

1. When we’re kids, we read all kinds of different stories, but as adults we focus on our industries. Take time to read more books and magazines that have nothing to do with your industry. Learn about how others are doing and how they solve problems (maybe even read fewer from your own).

2. When we’re kids, our parents and our teachers drag us to museums and performances of all kinds. Go wonder around the natural history museum or an art gallery. Go see a ballet performance. And don’t just complain the whole time that you want to go home. Try to find something you like about any of those things.

3. When we’re kids, we go on class trips, but as adults we don’t. Take class trips. Take a day or an afternoon off and take your team somewhere that has nothing to do with work for no other reason than to do or see something new or different.

4. Ask why. We so often ask questions to prove people wrong as opposed to understand what they mean. Really listen to the ideas of others. If someone approaches you with good intentions, ask lots of questions and try to really understand the meaning and value of the idea they are offering. Show genuine interest.

5. Encourage all the people who report to you to do all the above. Even encourage them to take an afternoon off simply to explore or subsidize a personal enrichment class they want to take outside of work.

Simon Sinek is a renowned leadership expert who teaches leaders and companies how to inspire people. The author of the book Start With Why , he works with the military, politicians, government, entrepreneurs and folks like you and me. For more, visit startwithwhy.com, follow him on twitter @simonsinek, or see his TED talk.