A few weeks ago, I wrote in an article, “I am a fan of focusing on one’s strengths for career development rather than trying to fix areas of weakness.” Rightfully so, I had some folks push back on this comment. Admittedly, this is not the first time that I’ve argued this point with folks that I really respect so I suspect I’m wrong. One of those folks wrote to me, “This runs counter to my coaching model, where I focus on a leader's weaknesses to help them understand and compensate for them...” We corresponded back-and-forth a few times, or as the British might say, a bit of argy-bargy (what a great phrase!). In the end, I realized that what I really meant by “focus on your strengths and not your weaknesses” was much more nuanced. Thanks to everyone who has pushed back on this to help me clarify my own thinking.
Many of the arguments against this advice is that there are clearly table stake skills that one needs for a particular position. I might be good at juggling but if I can’t code I’m probably not going to be a successful software engineer no matter how much I focus on my strength in juggling. In product engineering management, you absolutely must be able to work well with product, design, and analytic partners. That is how you get stuff done. In engineering director roles you really need to be able to work well with other engineering leaders. Butting heads all the time with peers, no matter how good your technical skills are, is not going to let you be successful. Many of these table stake skills are laid out in career ladders.
Etsy has open sourced its version of an engineering career ladder. In there you’ll see competencies such as delivery, domain knowledge, problem solving, communication, and leadership. If you look at the level progression you’ll notice that it references the competencies at each level. For example for a Staff Engineer I, it states, “Engineers at this level will generally be Experts in one competency or Advanced in all competencies.” [emphasis added] This expectation that one must display skills in all competencies doesn’t just start at the staff engineering level. Even at the Engineering I level, which is usually a new graduate, the ladder states that you must display some skill in all competencies. At any level you can’t just be excellent at delivery or domain knowledge, you must also display an appropriate level of skill in problem solving and communication, amongst others. What this type of career ladder does is allow for different ‘shapes’ of engineers to succeed in an organization, all while maintaining a certain level of competencies for everyone.
Okay, so we do need a certain level of skill in particular competencies depending on the role and the organization. If your weakness is in one of those areas, ignoring it will be to the detriment of your career progression. But, what about the competencies or abilities outside of these? So an engineer at Etsy needs to display a certain level of skill in those five competencies outlined above, then what about something like defining project scope or determining project timelines? From Lenny’s Newsletter, he shared this spreadsheet of product management career ladders. Under Amazon one of the competencies listed is “Define vision and customer need.” This definitely sounds like something a product manager needs to be good at. Do engineers need to share this skill? I would argue, they do not. If they happen to have that skill, great; but if not, that shouldn’t hold them back at all. This is in fact why we have product teams. Each person plays a role and is supposed to bring a certain set of skills and competencies. When we put the three-legged (engineering, product, and design) stool of product engineering together, each leg helps support the whole with their particular skill. As a brief aside, many organizations are adopting a five-legged stool that encompasses engineering, product, design, research, and analytics on their product engineering teams. This team approach allows an engineer to focus on the five basic competencies they need and not everything else.
So, up to this point, we all probably agree that there are table stake competencies that we need for a particular role in a particular organization. And, we form teams so that one person doesn’t need all the competencies that are required to deliver products that our customers will love. This next part is what I’m sure some of you will disagree with. Let’s take those five competencies from the engineering career ladder above. Once you have met the standards for all competencies, focusing on your weakest area instead of your strength is a waste of time.
Why would I possibly say that? Here is my rationale. Almost invariably you either have a strength because you enjoy that type of work and have practiced it for years, or you enjoy something because you have a strength in that particular competency. No matter the causality, there is a very high correlation between one’s strengths and what one enjoys doing. There are numerous studies that demonstrate this such as with literacy and reading enjoyment.
This is all, of course, bound in the context of one’s personal abilities. No matter how much I like playing basketball, I’m going to be limited by my natural speed, coordination, etc. However, I would argue that I will be much better than someone else with my same limitations who doesn’t like playing basketball. My love of the game will allow me to practice for hours and develop it into as much of a strength as I am able to based on my limitations.
Spending time on a skill that I don’t like just to improve it is not nearly as productive a use of time, nor as enjoyable, as spending it on a skill I love. Continuing with the sports analogy. If I were a high school athletics instructor, I probably need some level of competency in many sports so that I can demonstrate and teach them to students. Once I have the basics of volleyball down, enough that I can adequately perform my job in that regard, my time would be better spent continuing to improve my skills in basketball, if I love that sport. I would be happier and I think my return on time would be better. I might even end up being quite good at basketball and be asked to coach a team.
Back to the engineering career ladder that allows for different ‘shapes’ of engineers. Everyone needs to have the basic competencies but hopefully some are amazing at domain knowledge while others are terrific at communication. These different shapes of skill sets are not only how we all actually are in real life but also how we get the very best out of folks. I would rather someone be truly excellent in one area and satisfactory in others, rather than mediocre in all competencies.
Let’s look at one final argument for focusing on strengths by looking at authors. They all need some basic competencies in writing, grammar, storytelling, etc. However, some authors are great at storytelling (Stephen King), others are great at creating fantasy worlds (J.K. Rowling), and still others are great biographers (Walter Isaacson). With the caveat that I know compensation isn’t the best measure of impact or worth, let’s use it to compare authors. The average author makes $49K. King made $259 million between 2008 and 2018, while Rowling during the same period made $546 million. Isaacson’s advance for the Steve Jobs biography was between $2 and $6 million. Should we coach King or Rowling to get better at biographies or Isaacson to work on creating fantasy worlds? Seth Godin, American author and marketing expert, states, “In every field, extraordinary benefits go to those seen as being in the top five percent.”
If you want to work on your weaknesses because you love a challenge or you think they are holding you back, by all means please do so. However, if you are doing fine in most competencies but have a particular strength in one, feel free to focus on that and become the absolute best you can be in that. This approach I think brings the most enjoyment and the most rewards.
I think of it as a T-shape, though this is not a silver bullet. A T-shaped skill set represents the a depth of knowledge and expertise in a specific area, while also having a broad range of skills that are necessary to be effective.
Great post. I also think we should focus on strengths rather of weaknesses.
As Ben Horowitz wrote "I’d learned the hard way that when hiring executives, one should follow Colin Powell’s instructions and hire for strength rather than lack of weakness"
My approach is: "Focus on your strengths while improving on your weaknesses (until reaching an acceptable level of functioning)."