Managing Your Talents [4] - Input

According to Gallup, the essence of the talent theme of Input is the following:

“You are inquisitive. You collect things. You might collect information — words, facts, books, and quotations — or you might collect tangible objects such as butterflies, baseball cards, porcelain dolls, or sepia photographs. Whatever you collect, you collect it because it interests you. And yours is the kind of mind that finds so many things interesting. The world is exciting precisely because of its infinite variety and complexity. If you read a great deal, it is not necessarily to refine your theories but, rather, to add more information to your archives. If you like to travel, it is because each new location offers novel artifacts and facts. These can be acquired and then stored away. Why are they worth storing? At the time of storing it is often hard to say exactly when or why you might need them, but who knows when they might become useful? With all those possible uses in mind, you really don’t feel comfortable throwing anything away. So you keep acquiring and compiling and filing stuff away. It’s interesting. It keeps your mind fresh. And perhaps one day some of it will prove valuable."

But a talent on itself is quite meaningless unless you develop and manage it. That is why we believe that "a well managed talent becomes a strength, but a mismanaged talent becomes a detriment".

How do you manage the talent of Input?

The Talent Theme of Input is one of the so called "Thinking" Themes.  Input is not merely the mental activity of thinking or inquiring information.  Yes, someone with Input is very inquisitive by nature.  But Input leads to the activity of gathering information, stories or knowledge - and most often in a very real sense.  This is also why people with Input tends to collect things - physical things. They are collectors.  But never collecting just for the sake of collecting. They collect things because it represents a place, an idea, a story. And it important to them to have that link.
But, something very important about the Input Talent Theme, is that it is in most cases not gathering and collecting for their own sake.  They love to share the information, the ideas, the stories.  This is also why people with Input is seen as great resource of information, and great researchers.  The always have something stored that could be of use - be it an object or information.  Personally I have Input in my Top 5, and I collect information in the form of ideas (knowledge), books and documents and files on my computer.  I never delete a file or an email, never throw a book away, always have a link to a useful website.  My friends and colleagues knows this, and love to borrow my books, or have me give them useful information on something.  And I love to share it!

Also keep in mind that most Input people (obviously it depends on their Talent mix) are specialists.  They won't collect or research just for the sake of interest, but they have very specific interest fields.  This is why they usually becomes specialists in their field.

All of the above needs management.  The first rather obvious mismanagement of the Input talent is hoarding.  Keeping to much stuff because you just cannot let go.  This is often a problem when you gather up physical stuff.  This needs to be managed well, as it could seriously become a burden, especially to those around you. 


How?

Don't hoard.  I know, it's not that simple, but you should have some kind of inner system and value that warns you when you are becoming obsessive with keeping stuff.  Usually this is not an issue with information on a computer, but something like books, magazines or tools can seriously take over your living space!  Also listen to the people close to you ( a wife, husband or partner that understands Input is usually a good guide) to tell you when you are overdoing the gathering.  Have a specific project where you go through your things to see what you can give away, and what you can throw away or delete.  Bite your lip.  It is possible.

Secondly, you must realize that the Input talent, pretty much like any other Talent Theme, can "suck you in".  It can become an obsession.  Something like research on the Internet can easily take up hours of your time without you noticing.  Very useful when you have the time, but often you don't.  Input can cause you to "over-research" or just keep on adding more and more without ever getting satisfied.  You should manage your time.


How?

Develop the discipline to manage your time.  Set a timer or an alarm if you need to.  Also understand that what you see as enough usually way more exceeds what others can absorb.  I see that when I give people books to read.  Their eyes will widen when i come from my study with 6 or 7 books I like to lend them.  They can hardly absorb reading one.  Also, when I research for teaching or a course, I discipline myself to scale it down with as much as 40% to even 60%, as experience has taught me that people can only absorb so much information and new ideas.
If you are a collector, you must have the self-knowledge to understand that others might not really be interested in where you bought every one of your sugar spoons.  Two or three stories might be enough (unless they really show interest - go for it).  Your Input makes you a specialist.  Be careful not to become so specialized that you are of little use to others.  But, as long as you add value, keep it up!

How do you manage your Input talent?  Let me know!

- by Dries Lombaard, founder and owner of Africanmosaic and TALENTmosaic.

Important note when reading this:  in this series, I simply focus on the specific talent in isolation.  I do not take the crucial element of Talent Dynamics (two or more talent themes combining) into consideration.  This  is very important as any Coach should take that into consideration when coaching people in their talents. But you need to understand the challenges that the talent theme on its own might hold.  Therefor the challenges in managing the talent as explained below might not be applicable to everyone, as the dynamics with some of their other talent themes might override the specific challenge and "make up for it".  But, knowledge of the most common management challenges in every talent theme still is crucial in talent development and when turning the talent into a strength.

Visit our websites:  

www.africanmosaic.com and www.talentmosaic.net

Managing your Talents [3] - Competition

According to Gallup, the essence of the talent theme of Competition is the following:

“Competition is rooted in comparison. When you look at the world, you are instinctively aware of other people’s performance. Their performance is the ultimate yardstick. No matter how hard you tried, no matter how worthy your intentions, if you reached your goal but did not outperform your peers, the achievement feels hollow. Like all competitors, you need other people. You need to compare. If you can compare, you can compete, and if you can compete, you can win. And when you win, there is no feeling quite like it. You like measurement because it facilitates comparisons. You like other competitors because they invigorate you. You like contests because they must produce a winner. You particularly like contests where you know you have the inside track to be the winner. Although you are gracious to your fellow competitors and even stoic in defeat, you don’t compete for the fun of competing. You compete to win. Over time you will come to avoid contests where winning seems unlikely."

But a talent on itself is quite meaningless unless you develop and manage it. That is why we believe that "a well managed talent becomes a strength, but a mismanaged talent becomes a detriment".

How do you manage the talent of Competition?

When you are strongly competitive in nature, you don't have to be intentional about competing and measuring against others.  It comes natural. You compete. You compare. You strive to win and be the best.

This means you have to manage your competitive nature well, because not everyone else is focused on winning and comparison. So, the first important aspect of managing your Competition talent: be aware that often you may be the only one involved in a competition.Very often you might be frustrated when other do not take up the challenge to compete.  You might find that they do not nearly care as much as you do if they win or lose.  And that is not wrong, or weak.  It is simply different.  You need to respect that difference and at the same time sometimes "contain" your desire to compete.

How?

Once you are aware of the fact that your competetiveness is actually a talent or a strength, and not something everyone does or should posess, the management of it will become easier.  So, awareness of the nature of the talent is important.  You should see your competitive nature as an intrinsic motivation and energy-source - but not project it on others, expecting them to be / act / feel the same towards winning.

A second  characteristic of Competition that should be managed well, is the absolute need to be the best, and - if you think it not to be possible, you lose the will to compete at all.  Winning and being number 1 is a good thing.  It creates champions, heroes and idols. It spurs others to compete and perform above their standards. But (and I know every natural competitor will cringe at my statement), winning is not everything. You cannot always win, or be the best. There is a definite difference between actually winning and striving full out to win. And very often in life, it is the latter that is needed more.

How?

 Try to differentiate actually winning or being the best from who you really are.  If you let winning define everything about yourself, you will end up not being all you can be. Turn the energy you've got in striving to win into a positive emotional experience both for yourself and for others.  An immature Competition Talent that is not well managed can cause a lot of friction and simply make people dislike you.  BUT:  seek out other competitors to really test yourself against.  that will push your limits.

Are you a Competitor by nature?  Do you get emotional if you win or lose?  Reply by commenting on your take...

- by Dries Lombaard, founder and owner of Africanmosaic and TALENTmosaic Global.

Important note when reading this:  in this series, I simply focus on the specific talent in isolation.  I do not take the crucial element of Talent Dynamics (two or more talent themes combining) into consideration.  This  is very important as any Coach should take that into consideration when coaching people in their talents. But you need to understand the challenges that the talent theme on its own might hold.  Therefor the challenges in managing the talent as explained below might not be applicable to everyone, as the dynamics with some of their other talent themes might override the specific challenge and "make up for it".  But, knowledge of the most common management challenges in every talent theme still is crucial in talent development and when turning the talent into a strength.

Visit our websites:  

www.africanmosaic.com and www.talentmosaic.net

Can You Take Your Strengths Too Far?

**** I "interrupt" the series on Talent Management to place an article that just appeared in the Harvard Business Review.  I responded to the article on HBR's Blog, but I also place my response at the bottom of the article below. ******

- Dries

For the past decade, leaders have been encouraged to focus on developing their strengths rather than always gravitating to working on a weakness. But is this too much of a good thing? Lately, a number of business thinkers have suggested so.
It's tempting for those of us strongly committed to developing leadership strengths to ignore such dissent on the grounds that any new practice will attract critics. But the debate has practical significance to leaders. How should a hard-driving executive respond when given high scores for his ability to drive for results but low scores on building strong relationships with peers and subordinates? Is this evidence that he's taken his strength too far?
We don't think so. We would absolutely advise this person to keep driving for results; we suspect that his intense drive is what got him this far in the organization. But we don't see this as a zero sum game — we don't think he needs to stop doing one thing to start doing something else. So we'd also recommend he develop additional strengths in relating to people.
Like many of those who are raising doubts about the limits of developing leadership strengths — as Robert E. Kaplan and Robert Kaiser have done in the pages of HBR, and more recently Tony Schwartz has done on this site, we believe that a single strength by itself doesn't serve anyone well. A leader needs several strengths to succeed. And balance is required. Strengths in combination are far more powerful than any one alone, our research has confirmed. Our data show, in fact, that possessing five strengths is a surefooted way to become an exceptional leader. One-trick ponies don't last long in the center ring.
We also strongly agree with them that serious weaknesses should not be ignored. We've called these "fatal flaws," and we certainly advise people to fix them first. That's critical for the roughly one-quarter of leaders our data tell us appear to have such serious defects. We submit, however, that the rest should be working on their strengths.
People can and do behave inappropriately — and they do things to excess. In his blog, Schwartz describes how he learned that his own unbridled candor was hurtful and unproductive. Kaplan and Kaiser similarly described how either "forceful" or "enabling" behaviors could be taken too far and have negative consequences. They observed that if a leader overuses the "forceful" strength by being exceedingly directive — always taking charge, making every decision, and constantly pushing people — the leader's effectiveness diminishes. That's a conclusion that we suspect most would accept. And so do we. They also observed that a leader who is too cautious, gentle, understanding, mild-mannered, and almost exclusively focused on others will also be less effective. We completely concur.
Where we part company is in labeling any those behaviors as a strength.
We find it constructive to use a definition of "a strength" based on the work of psychologist Martin Seligman, among others. By his definition, a strength is a behavior that is:

• Executed effectively
• Broadly used in a variety of situations or settings
• Lasting in its effects over time
• Consistent in producing positive outcomes
• Valued for its intrinsic worth, as well as its positive outcomes
• Not specific to one culture
• Harmonious with, rather than opposed to, other strengths

By these measures, "being forceful," or "exhibiting righteous honesty unmediated by empathy," are not strengths.
Our analysis of behavior that does fit our definition of strengths comes from data generated in the 360-degree evaluations of 30,000 managers by 300,000 of their colleagues. From examining 12 years of such data, we've identified 16 competencies that describe the most effective leaders and distinguish them from average and poor leaders. When done extremely well, these behaviors become leadership strengths. They included qualities like displaying integrity, exhibiting superior problem-solving skills, being highly technically competent, being innovative, taking initiative, inspiring and motivating others to high performance — and, yes, driving for results.
We've found no evidence that extremely high scores on any of these competencies has negative consequences. That is, we haven't found anyone who scored at the 90th percentile for any one of these behaviors who was perceived by their bosses, colleagues, and direct reports as less effective than someone who scored in the 60th or 70th percentiles. We haven't found the business results of any high scorer to be inferior to the people who received lower scores. Nor have we found subordinates and peers writing more negative comments about a higher scorer than about any individual with a more moderate score.
Instead, we find the data tell a consistent story. Those with the lowest scores on a competency receive many negative written comments, and their objective results are inferior. Those with the highest scores produce the best outcomes on everything we've been able to measure. If this is overusing statistics, then so be it. Our profession needs more leadership analytics, not less, in our opinion.
Some might think strengths-based development was discovered by a social scientist or consulting company, but the real credit should go to Peter Drucker, who in his classic 1967 book The Effective Executive made the compelling case for focusing on strengths. In fact, he argued, it is the role of the organization to leverage people's strengths and to make their weaknesses irrelevant.

 

Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman

Jack Zenger is the CEO and Joseph Folkman is the president of Zenger/Folkman, a leadership development consultancy. They are co-authors of the October 2011 HBR article “Making Yourself Indispensable,” and the book How to Be Exceptional: Drive Leadership Success by Magnifying Your Strengths (McGraw-Hill, 2012).


My response to the above article:

I am a huge advocate of the strengths based approach, and I have been focusing on it for the past 7 years in my Consulting Firm. What is worrying to me, is the way some critics of the strengths-building approach is simply coming to their own conclusions about what exactly this approach and philosophy means in practice - clearly without really going into the massive research and methodology already done over decades, especially by an organization like Gallup.

Obviously anything that is over emphasized could, and would, lead to a negative result. The strengths-research also acknowledges this. There is a very important principle within strengths-building: "A well managed talent becomes a strength, but a mismanaged talent becomes a detriment".
In the end is is not about discovering your talents and turning it into strengths. It is about the management of your strengths. This includes the way you celebrate others, treat people with respect, acknowledges differences and fill your own gaps with the strengths of those around you. This has always been key in any respected strength-based research - especially that done by Gallup.

The other misconception that people have about the positive strengths-building approach, especially in contrast to the weakness fixing approach, is that you should ignore your weaknesses. I have never read any respected strengths research that would claim or suggest this! You should be very well aware of your weaknesses, in order that you can also mange it well. But weakness management is something completely different than weakness fixing or building on your weaknesses. You should know what weakens you (as a weakness is NOT something you cannot do well, it is something that drains you), and then you should either find a way to make up for it with your strengths, or you should partner with people who are strong where you are weak.

When you therefor take a credible and powerful tool like the Gallup Clifton StrengthsFinder, their basic Top 5 report is very limiting, and does not really help especially leaders and managers in coaching and development. I exclusively coach people on their strengths using the Full 34 report on StrengthsFinder. Why? Definitely not to help them ignore their weaknesses! No, to help them understand how they should manage it well, just as they should understand the dark side of each of their talent-strengths.

- Dries Lombaard (Owner: TALENTmosaic Global)