Which is a better management strategy, playing to one's strengths or turning weaknesses into strengths? (employees, job)

[MAcapulco]

Been thinking about this for awhile. If you let your employees play to their strengths, then you have a strong team.

However, if you try to transform weaknesses into strengths, you have fumblings for an indefinite amount of time, and possibly lose talent.

Which one do you managers perhaps feel is more conducive to a more efficient workflow?

[DorianRo]

What makes a manager effective is keeping everyone where their strengths are and compensating and fighting for them accordingly for pay increases at these jobs. And putting ego/power aside and hiring the most qualified for who applied at the job.. NOT Hiring based on "Will this guy be a potential beer buddy or social hangout buddy".. Then everything goes to crap and reflects terrible on you as a complete idiot for a hiring manager.

Unfortunately, Corporate America does not operate like his anymore. Idiots are put in positions where they have no business being. And people are hired based on petty crap like "likability". Not if people are qualified to do the damn job.

What do you get as a result?"

1. Valuable workers leaving
2. The Blind leading the blind
3. Long term damage to your company (Customer loss due to pissed off customers, layoffs, and eventual closings)

The problem now is that due to horrible hiring decisions by managers, you don't even have employees who have strengths at ANYTHING so you can't play to so strengths. Since hiring managers aren't hiring based on qualifications and strengths. They hiring based on some silly "Personality BS"

I don't care how good you look. I don't care how nice you dress, I don't care how nice your smile is. I don't care how nice you smell. I don't care how well put your lips on my rear end and tell me every day Im the greatest thing since sliced bread..... If you are a clueless idiot that can't do your job, you are completely clueless idiot that can't do your job. And long term there is NO HIDING that fact. Long term damage will not be reversed if you keep hiring not based on qualifications for the job

[fishbrains]

Originally Posted by DorianRo

What makes a manager effective is keeping everyone where their strengths are and compensating and fighting for them accordingly for pay increases at these jobs. And putting ego/power aside and hiring the most qualified for who applied at the job.. NOT Hiring based on "Will this guy be a potential beer buddy or social hangout buddy".. Then everything goes to crap and reflects terrible on you as a complete idiot for a hiring manager.

Unfortunately, Corporate America does not operate like his anymore. Idiots are put in positions where they have no business being. And people are hired based on petty crap like "likability". Not if people are qualified to do the damn job.

What do you get as a result?"

1. Valuable workers leaving
2. The Blind leading the blind
3. Long term damage to your company (Customer loss due to pissed off customers, layoffs, and eventual closings)

The problem now is that due to horrible hiring decisions by managers, you don't even have employees who have strengths at ANYTHING so you can't play to so strengths. Since hiring managers aren't hiring based on qualifications and strengths. They hiring based on some silly "Personality BS"

Dude, we get it. You got passed over for a job or two and you are bitter. you have issues. Please stop hijacking every thread.

OP, I believe the best managerial plan is to minimize weaknesses and maximize strengths.

Let's look at a hypothetical situation. If I need some complex scheduling done, do I want to assign the responsibility to my MS Project wiz, or assign it to the person who has trouble prioritizing basic tasks?

For my dept to succeed, the MS Project wiz gets the job. The guy who has issues with prioritizing gets some assistance to build his skills, but stays away from the Project task.

Look at the reverse. Let's say I assign the scheduling task to the second guy, and I had the MS Project wiz working on document imaging organization, which isn't his strength. What would you think of me as a manager if I did that?

It's not a binary decision though. You can assign people to their strengths while still providing some tools to build their skills.

[Hemlock140]

If we do a good job hiring, there are minimal weaknesses, and a good manager will work on developing people to overcome those. For the hiring manager the biggest problem is when coming in and inheriting weakness. In my case,
the two problems are gone, with one conveniently transferring to another department, the other (was on a PIP) deciding to stay home with her kid and resigned.

Meanwhile, I do make assignments based on strengths, especially when it comes to projects. I recently had HR do an evaluation on one of my people and got him promoted to a lead position, a 14% pay increase rewarding him for his timely and accurate performance, work ethic, and willingness to help others. At the same time it helps free up some of my time as I can delegate a bit more to him.

[honeynutcocopuffs]

Play to strengths, and cover each others' weaknesses. Actual implementation is messier than that of course.


"You're compromising our productivity... I'm reassigning you to chamber maintenance. Your new designation is Two of Ten."