I read a report recently that looked at how much leadership coaching is focused on developing strengths versus addressing weaknesses.
There were some regional differences, and some of that may have been cultural, but for the most part coaching, certainly at executive level, appeared to focus on developing strengths.
That got me thinking.
There may be some obvious reasons for this. Coaches tend to be an optimistic bunch and may simply be happier working in that context.
External coaches are paid to get a result and that commercial reality may mean they see quicker and easier wins by helping people become even better at things they already do well.
Clients probably prefer it too. After all, who wouldn’t rather spend an hour discussing untapped potential than unpacking all the things they’re not very good at?
But I wonder whether we’ve become slightly too enthusiastic about strengths.
The rise of strengths
There has been a noticeable move over the last 20 years towards strengths-based development.
In my corporate days this was reflected in language too. Weakness became a slightly unfashionable word and HR often seemed keen to strike it from the lexicon entirely.
All sorts of alternatives appeared in its place: development areas, training needs, learning points, opportunities for growth.
Most people, I think, still recognised that there were things they weren’t very good at whatever we called them.
And to be fair, this shift made sense in many ways. Research around strengths and engagement suggests that people often develop faster by building on what already comes naturally than by endlessly correcting deficiencies.
There’s also something appealing, perhaps even humane, about helping people become more of themselves rather than trying to turn them into somebody else.
I understand all of that and broadly support it.
But I’m not convinced it tells the whole story.
Weakness became a slightly unfashionable word and HR often seemed keen to strike it from the lexicon entirely.
What got you here…
The other point of view is perhaps best captured in the title of Marshall Goldsmith’s book, What Got You Here Won’t Get You There.
In other words, it may be the individual’s strengths which delivered them to their current position but it may be their weaknesses, or perhaps the consequences of those strengths, that are now keeping them stuck.
Think about some examples:
- A decisive leader becomes impatient
- A supportive manager avoids difficult conversations
- A high achiever becomes controlling
- Someone who remains calm under pressure starts appearing detached.
None of those people necessarily stopped doing what had made them successful.
They simply continued doing it beyond the point where it remained useful. And because strengths are often rewarded behaviours, they can become surprisingly difficult to spot.
People rarely seek coaching because they’re too organised or too driven. But they often seek coaching because those same qualities have started creating unintended consequences.
Strong weaknesses or weak strengths?
This was the phrase that started rattling around my head.
Are we always dealing with weaknesses?
Or are we sometimes dealing with strengths that have escaped containment?
One of the most interesting responses I ever heard to the old cliché interview question: “What do you consider your weaknesses?” was: “My strengths. If I overplay them”.
At the time I smiled because I thought it was clever.
Now I think there may be more truth in it than I realised.
Looking back over years of coaching conversations, many weren’t really about fixing weaknesses at all. They were about helping people become more aware of where and when their natural strengths stopped serving them.
Looking back over years of coaching conversations, many weren’t really about fixing weaknesses at all
So what should coaching do?
Personally, I don’t see this as an either/or choice.
I consider the people I coach best placed to determine what they need to do in order to solve problems or move towards their goals and this may mean addressing a weakness or it may mean developing a strength.
Sometimes it means recognising that a strength has become overused.
My role isn’t to decide that in advance. It’s to help people think clearly enough to work out which of those possibilities is most relevant.
I think this is particularly useful for leaders who coach.
Managers can inherit the strengths agenda because it feels positive and developmental and, to be fair, most of the time that’s probably sensible.
But occasionally leadership means helping somebody look directly at something uncomfortable.
Done well, this respects people rather than diminishes them.
A coaching culture shouldn’t become a culture of polite avoidance.
A practical thought
If you coach others, formally or informally, perhaps reflect on a few questions:
- Am I helping this person become more of who they already are?
- Or am I helping them remove what is holding them back?
- Could the behaviour frustrating them actually be an overplayed strength?
- Am I avoiding difficult territory because strengths feel safer?
You might find the answers change the conversation.
Questions remain
So, I’m not persuaded that coaching should exclusively focus on strengths. But neither do I think weaknesses deserve the bad press they sometimes receive.
Sometimes we need to develop strengths. Sometimes we need to address weaknesses.
And sometimes, perhaps most interestingly of all, we need to recognise that the thing making us successful may also be the thing preventing our next stage of growth.
But that’s just my view. What do you think?
When you’re coaching, are you conscious of addressing strengths or weaknesses?
Does it matter?
Is it different for internal and external coaches?
I’d love to hear your thoughts.
