Purpose
There has been a decades-long debate in the leadership development field about the validity and efficacy of strengths-based assessment. This debate is not about recognizing the value in “a conversation about what’s right with people […] we were tired of living in a world that revolved around fixing our weaknesses”. Most agree that there is value in building on strengths.
Design/methodology/approach
The debate is fueled by psychologists, recognized experts in understanding human performance who dismiss Gallup – and other strengths-based leadership firms – who falsely promote the assertion “what’s more, we had discovered that people had several times more potential for growth when they invest energy in developing strengths instead of correcting weaknesses”. This is not true – no matter how aggressively strengths-based firms market this notion.
Findings
Strength-based approaches, especially as an exclusive approach, is overtly blind to the critical fact that most people show a mix of strengths and weaknesses – performance drivers and derailers – and the whole mix interacts. So besides missing the intended mark of increasing a professional’s skills in leadership, teamwork and communications, there are significant costs to this approach that vary from missed opportunities to downright dangerous.
Originality/value
Stanford Business School Professor Jeffrey Pfeiffer drives this point home in his book Leadership BS, a bruising critique of the leadership development industry. Pfeiffer correctly states that the leadership development industry is driven more by marketing and sales imperatives than the application of peer-reviewed scientific studies – which a century ago transformed the medical model and led to the successful eradication of many diseases. Unfortunately, the leadership development industry is driven by marketing and sales imperatives instead of good science. In fact, this may only accelerate in the future as many top assessment firms have been bought by public companies – often in the staffing industry – that seek ways to increase their earnings, focused more on shareholder returns than the science of performance.
