RESPONDING TO THE COMMON CRITICISMS OF A STRENGTHS-BASED APPROACH

In a previous post, I laid out the case for a strengths-based approach to developing others: how it enhances performance and fosters diversity, what it is (and is not), what it requires of practitioners and what employee, coach and company get out of it. As strengths-based coaching has gained popularity, so too has it accumulated naysayers. While researching, I encountered a frequently-referenced source staking out the contrary position: a well-written Harvard Business Review article by Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, “Strengths-Based Coaching Can Actually Weaken You”. Let’s look at his points one by one and see how our views differ. 

1) There’s no scientific evidence that it works.

Despite Tomas’ belief, the strengths-based approach to management is grounded in science. There is, in fact, a scientific study referenced in the prior blog. While it may not be as robust as this PhD Chemist (or Tomas) would like, it’s simply false to claim there is no evidence that a strengths-based orientation works. Our differing thresholds for what constitutes credible evidence are, no doubt, among the reasons Tomas and I reach opposite conclusions on this point.

There is a second, arguably more important, distinction to be made, however - and it infiltrates every subsequent argument in this post: Tomas maintains a rigid and narrow definition of strengths-based coaching. He talks about focusing “exclusively … on strengths,” “ignor[ing] people’s deficits,” and “provid[ing] no negative feedback.” As my previous post makes clear, I do not believe a strengths-based orientation requires its adherents to ignore deficits. The inclusion of critical feedback when relevant seems common sense to me - and Tomas’ inability to identify a single scientific study that examines exactly his preferred conditions (ie., complete omission of negative feedback), suggests that the rest of the world may find it an artificial distinction as well. In truth, it seems that Tomas’ definition is more about staking out a position from which to make a provocative case rather than a reflection of strengths-based coaching in practice.

A great strengths-oriented coach doesn’t artificially limit themselves to only discussing strengths. If there is an important deficit or blindspot to cover, they are not prevented from doing so. There are a few ways a strengths-oriented coach might tackle deficit-focused feedback differently: first, they might diagnose a deficit differently - often with stronger emphasis on the effect than the behavior, and with a lot more leeway in what the ideal behavior might be. This acknowledges that there can be an array of ways to be effective. Second, they are likely to think through with their mentee how strengths may be leveraged to compensate for or launch new skills, rather than just identify the gap to be closed.

2) It can give people a false sense of competence.

Tomas argues that strengths-based approaches that isolate the best qualities in an individual without comparing those qualities across the population is likely to result in overconfidence. He even goes so far as to call such non-normative feedback unethical! To illustrate his point, he offers the example of a lazy person who is even more strongly “selfish, narrow-minded and stupid” and poses the rhetorical: “would that make me hard-working?” We can all agree: of course not!

My main dispute with Tomas here is that he’s implicitly suggesting we solve for the very worst performers as we design our coaching philosophies. After all, his lazy, selfish, narrow-minded example only works if this person truly has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, no “strengths” beyond mostly-but-not-all-the-way lazy. But this is exactly the opposite of who we should be solving for. Coaching should cater to the above average talents, those with the highest potential to learn and grow for whom the coaching investment bears highest return.

Furthermore, the lowest performers Tomas is so worried about giving a false sense of competence to almost certainly have an inflated sense of their capabilities already. The famous Dunning-Kruger Effect (which even Tomas cites!) describes the common phenomenon of the least competent in any domain tending to greatly exaggerate in their self-assessments. Tomas opts to conveniently neglect the corollary: that those who excel tend to chronically underestimate their capabilities. If we’re solving for above average talents, as we should, a little ego boost is actually likely to give them a more, not less, accurate perception of themselves.

Finally, I still contend that a strengths-based approach is more likely to succeed with even low performers. If someone is less lazy than they are stupid and selfish, it obviously does not mean they are hardworking. They are also probably not terribly responsive to any type of feedback. Strengths-based coaching simply posits that the best approach to getting the greatest overall performance out of someone like that would be to focus on the fact that they are more hardworking than they are intelligent or generous, rather than the traditional approach of bringing them into a performance review and telling them they are stupid, selfish, and lazy. (In either case, better have that PIP in place!)

3) It leads to resources being wasted on C and D players.

Next, Tomas argues himself in circles, asserting that development efforts should be focused on the highest performers - I emphatically agree! - but that strengths-based coaching demands an egalitarian approach. As evidence, he makes just one reference: a statement on the Gallup website that “all employee’s have strengths.” Of course the purveyors of strengths assessments and training programs want to encourage as many participants as possible - this is not a phenomenon unique to strengths-based approaches. What matters is how employers and people managers decide to use such programs.

If a company or coach is insistent on treating all individuals as equal talents then, yes, they will likely spend more time than they should on low performers. A strengths-based approach does not, however, prescribe such an attitude. Rather, it requires its adherents to be in tune with their mentees several layers deeper than deficit coaching requires, arguably putting them in a better position to judge individual merit, contributions and potential. In fact, I would argue that deficit-focused coaching is far more likely to result in overinvestment in low performers. It is the people manager who is always trying to bring up the bottom that spends all of his time with the wrong employees.

4) Overused strengths become toxic.

Tomas cites an interesting study showing that management elements widely associated with positive outcomes actually result in negative ones once they reach a “context-specific inflection point,” a phenomenon termed the too-much-of-a-good-thing effect. While it appears that all of the elements investigated are organizational (eg., growth rate, diversification, personnel selection) rather than personal in nature, I am still inclined to agree that too much of a “good” trait can be bad.  Confidence becomes arrogance. Attention to detail becomes perfectionism. Boldness becomes recklessness.

But Tomas misunderstands the purpose of strengths-based coaching. He believes the sole intent is to create “more” of existing strengths, but it is really about recognizing strengths, deploying them deliberately and appropriately, leveraging them to build new strengths and compensate for weaknesses. That is, of course, a far more nuanced view and, as such, more difficult to execute well. That’s precisely why coaching for it is so valuable.

Though he doesn’t enumerate it, Tomas also criticizes strengths-based coaching for its prevention of building new strengths. The rationale is that by focusing only on existing strengths, recipients of strengths-based coaching miss the opportunity to build new ones. To buy this, one must believe that capabilities are entirely independent, each with their own unique and isolated development pathways. 

I believe the opposite is true - and the interwiring and plasticity of the human brain would suggest a strong biological basis for such a belief. Given the evidence about the effectiveness of strengths vs. deficit coaching, I’m inclined to conclude that the former method is more effective, not less, at building new strengths.

5) It doesn’t address the real problem workplaces face.

I find this is the most difficult of Tomas’ arguments to pin down. Citing the thinking of Stanford professor Jeffrey Pfeffer, Tomas notes that the “leadership industry has failed and continues to fail in its task of producing leaders who are effective and successful.” He offers his disdain that, in the face of this reality, the strengths-based movement “exudes an inexplicable degree of optimism,” but then - inexplicably - concludes that we return to the days of deficit-focused development that have, by his own argument, already proved a failure.

Tomas and I agree that leadership failures will not be solved with wishful thinking. Additionally, it’s clear that strengths-based development is not a silver bullet or magical fix to all our workplace woes. Rather, it’s one more tool - a particularly effective one - in the arsenal. Tomas’ arguments that strengths-based coaching will weaken you simply don’t hold water and until he (or, more likely, others) offer another innovation to help us move beyond the traditional deficit-oriented approach, I intend to continue deploying a strengths focus when I coach the talented folks around me.

Do Tomas’ arguments resonate with you? What am I missing? Do you believe a strengths orientation requires we ignore negative feedback? Where might new innovation in professional development come from to help us crack through the enduring challenge of producing effective leaders? Leave your thoughts in the comments and don’t forget to subscribe to hear about future postings!