Michael McDaniel’s Dawning Awareness

I was sitting in a meeting today with a bunch of managers and a director. The topic turned to something about which I’m passionate and threatened. I went on automatic offense. I used words like “stupid”, “moronic”, “inane” and anything else I could think of to belittle the idea and its originator (who happens to be a VP). The thing is, I don’t really disagree with the idea, just the implementation currently on the table.

I don’t think this kind of “best defense is a good offense” behavior is really going to further my career. Fortunately, I have most folks trained to know that I engage in a bit of hyperbole. But this is exactly the sort of thing I’m working on right now.

In months past, I wouldn’t have recognized it at all, or only if I’d been so nasty to warrant mention from someone else. Now, at least I can see it happening a little afterwards. Next, I expect I’ll catch myself doing it and then I can make a different choice. The big news is that I’m not really beating myself up about it—I’ve noticed positive changes, and I acknowledge that I’ve still got work to do.

Separately, I had two 1-1s where I got to talk about what I do well and where I need support from my people. That felt really good. It’s not the sort of thing political leaders would do, since that sort of candor would be suicide for anybody projecting a false image as part of his or her job. I think it works in management, though.

For me, though, projecting the image of perfection is so ingrained, it feels strange and scary admitting to imperfection. But there are those who say anything that doesn’t scare you isn’t really worth doing.

I finished up weekend three at Leadership Skills Training today. I’d have to say that overall, I got what I wanted from the class. The curriculum is mostly experiential. By that, I mean that each participant gets something different from the course. The lessons are created by the people who show up and what they bring in from their everyday lives.

There are many qualities of effective leaders. For me, the class was all about authenticity (that is, authenticity is what I’m working on at the moment). Effective leaders are authentic: they are transparent, open, and what you see is what you get. I show up fully sometimes, but I tend to lose hold of it when I start worrying about how I’m supposed to be. There’s a lot of background that isn’t really relevant in this context, but suffice it to say that I’m a bit of a perfectionist and when I start worrying about perfection, I lose hold of authenticity.

I came away with some strategies and tactics to employ in making my unconscious decisions more conscious (so I can choose differently if I want), and some ideas for ways to get more in touch with my authentic self. Feel free to ask me if you want more details. If there’s enough interest, I’ll probably add some more thoughts here as well.

I took the online “test” to determine my areas of strength (see my previous discussion of the book Now, Discover Your Strengths). My areas are:

F O C U S
People strong in the Focus theme can take a direction, follow through, and make the corrections necessary to stay on track. They prioritize, then act.

C O M M A N D
People strong in the Command theme have presence. They can take control of a situation and make decisions.

C O M P E T I T I O N
People strong in the Competition theme measure their progress against the performance of others. They strive to win first place and revel in contests.

C O M M U N I C A T I O N
People strong in the Communication theme generally find it easy to put their thoughts into words. They are good conversationalists and presenters.

S I G N I F I C A N C E
People strong in the Significance theme want to be very important in the eyes of others. They are independent and want to be recognized.

So what does that mean? No areas are better than others; it’s all about introspection and insight. These areas are the areas from which I naturally lead. Finding ways to capitalize on these strengths should prove more satisfying and effective in creating excellence than trying to develop talents I don’t have.

The real trick, I think, is figuring out what my particular combination of strenghts means for me. As a manager, I think focus, command, and communication will be easy to develop further. Competition and significance seem to be harder to satisfy in a managerial context. Hmmm. There is much pondering to be done.

The book assigned for our second month-long break is Now Discover Your Strengths. The book introduces the key concepts in the first three chapters, asks you to take an online assessment called the “StrengthsFinder” which is accessible only to people who buy the book, and then spends the rest of the book helping you understand the results of the assessment.

I’ve only read chapter 1, so no strengths to report yet, but here’s what I’ve learned so far.

1. People in general, and companies in particular, tend to focus on what people DON’T do well. Strengths are taken for granted and time and energy are put into improving the weaker areas.

2. This is a recipe for individual and corporate mediocrity because nobody is spending time developing his or her strengths into something truly world-class.

3. While a minimum level of skill is required in all job areas, focus on playing to strengths and managing around weaknesses. This will result in higher productivity and happiness, and lower turnover.

That’s a pretty interesting thesis. The book doesn’t tell you what your strengths are, but promises to help you identify them yourself. They name three components of strengths: talent, skills, and knowledge. Talent is innate, skills are steps developed with practice, and knowledge consists of facts and lessons learned. They say you can have a strength without skills or knowledge, but not without talent.

I wonder what my strengths are.

In order to adopt this philosophy, a company would have to give up the desire for interchangable employees and resign itself to building a team based on strengths. I suspect most companies would balk at this idea, but I wonder if it would really be as bad as it sounds on the surface. I imagine the authors would argue that the lower turnover would more than pay for that cost.

I’ll let you know if that’s what they say.