Via Gruber:
“When you’re growing up, it’s good to try a bunch of stuff. Then as you get older, you can figure out what you’re great at (or at least realize where the potential is) and focus on that. Maybe you can even be the best.”
Dave Pell is talking about companies. Google is great at Search. Yahoo great for News. If you are Yahoo, let Google have the question mark as long as you have the exclamation mark. (I like the diaeresis and the interpunct myself).
I think this applies to everything, from individual to company. If you spend long enough trying to improve the areas where you are weak, you end up losing the edge on your strengths – you should focus on your strengths, stretch them, train them, challenge them. This is why an ace baseball pitcher spends his time on the field perfecting his pitch and not playing table tennis or learning the unicycle. To be great, you need focus.
I wonder about this because I apply my attention rigorously. At the moment because I’m concentrating on Cocoa (and finishing off a couple of web deployment projects), I can’t find time to pay attention to the gaming side of life. Not that I’m complaining. I’m not strong in Code-Fu but I am keen and it does seem to make sense. But is this side of things really one of my strengths? How do you define your strengths?
Back a long time ago, I bought a book called ‘TimeLord’ by Blacksberg Tactical Research Centre. One of the initial chapters of the book instructed you to take the group and perform tests, physical and mental, in order to define characteristsics, strengths and weaknesses. There was some debate during the tests and one person in particular became very withdrawn, having achieved very low scores in all of the physical tests. The relevance here was that part of the mental/social tests included group rating for the individual as a levelling/balancing mechanism. It became apparent that people often have an inflated view of their intelligence, their charisma and their experience. It’s also true that some people cannot see the wheat for the chaff and despite having degrees and friends and an active social life, would describe themselves as an unintelligent loner. Hence the need for the group levelling.
I am left these days wondering what my strengths truly are and what I should be doing to enhance them (perhaps as the best way to cover up for my weaknesses.) How do you define your strengths? How much does peer review factor into your result?
Matt, you answered your question:
To define your strengths and weaknesses you must organise another game of Timelords.
I wonder if that can be done over the net?
I did quite well out of the TimeLords system. I’d play me in a game or …in a movie.
Any game can be done over the net. I can’t sustain interest in a PBM though. It would need to be interactive – via text chat, audio or video.
There are services designed to facilitate this IIRC
Ok, getting serious:
“I am left these days wondering what my strengths truly are”
This is maybe something you can find-out yourself.
Write what you think are your strengths on a piece of paper. Put the piece of paper in a desk drawer. Leave it there for a week, then take it out and read it again. There should now be stuff there you agree with, stuff you disagree with, and things you need to add.
If there’s general stuff there you could discuss it with pals, specialised stuff can go to the gurus.
“and what I should be doing to enhance them
(perhaps as the best way to cover up for my weaknesses.)”
All depends on what they are. With me my memory was a weakness – I’ve found memory tricks to tip it up to a strength. I know that’s running against the ‘strengths to cover weaknesses’ thang – but some weaknesses are just undeveloped strengths.
Now memory is a basic thing – we’ve all got it. If your strength is something self-discoverable, like logic – study, learn, and hone it. Think about it daily, apply it to the things around you – live it.
If your strength is something professional, like programming you’ve already studied it. Keep yourself apprised of developments, think of how to expand the envelope of what you do with it, look for other things you could be learning that would add to that strength.
Of course, sometimes you just have to chill – don’t get so wrapped up in improving your strength that you discover ‘super stress’.
>How do you define your strengths?
That which I do well.
>How much does peer review factor into your
>result?
If it’s basic human interaction stuff, i.e. ‘he’s a nice guy’ – a lot.
If it’s specialised stuff – not a lot. That said, if I were working in a job where I could used my strengths to full effect (and I may be delusional with that last statement) then peer review would be more important – but I might also leave me with a tendency to rest on my laurels…
I don’t think that strengths can solely be defined introspectively.
It’s much harder as well to define ‘soft’ skills. I seem to spend a lot of time introducing and, dare I say it, facilitating meetings and creating groups of people. I enjoy it too – be nice to do it as a job!
I agree on the introspection, that’s why I put the part in about discussing with pals and gurus.
“It’s much harder as well to define ’soft’ skills. I seem to spend a lot of time introducing and, dare I say it, facilitating meetings and creating groups of people. I enjoy it too – be nice to do it as a job!”
Search Monster.com for ‘Social Anti-entropist’ 😉
As for ‘soft’ skills, aren’t they what was once put on CVs in such forms as:
A people person.
A consummate organiser.
Blah-blah-blah…
I’m definitely in the Blah-blah-blah
http://godswearhats.com/2008/06/26/self-development-window/ (manual pingback)