Covid 19 has created a climate where we are seeing many working practices change. Senior managers are seeing their employees can continue to work productively at home. Could this be the catalyst that changes the narrative in many organisations where people who worked from home were seen to be slacking off?
Could organisations go further and create a paradigm shift in their performance management practices? Whilst many high performing organisations have moved away from the traditional appraisal approach. Realising the annual or six-monthly performance review has little impact on improving an individual's performance.
Supporters of appraisals would argue it does more than rate and reward individuals, it provides an opportunity for managers and employees to discuss what their development areas are, “what they can do better!”
Focusing on what is wrong with an individual is what we call a weakness focus.
We place direct attention on the negative aspects of an individual. In the context of
work and performance, a weakness focus means that we are primarily concerned
with behaviour that is causing suboptimal or low performance. For example, during
a performance evaluation, the employer focuses only on why an employee is not
reaching his sales targets or why he is not able to communicate well with customers.
According to Donald Clifton, author of Soar with your strengths. The behaviour and mindset of many teachers, employers, parents, and leaders are guided by the implicit belief that optimal performance results from fixing weaknesses. Indeed, to promote professional development, employees are typically exposed to training programs that focus on
correcting their weaknesses. In a similar vein, evaluation interviews often focus on
areas that need improvement and aspects of work with which employees typically
struggle. A similar pattern can be found in many schools. Typically, the number
of mistakes is highlighted when work is corrected, and when report cards are
brought home, lower grades tend to attract more attention. According to Clifton, fixing or correcting weakness will not result in an optimally functioning person or organization. In his view, fixing weakness will at best help the individual or organization become normal or average.
Research findings show that the opportunity to do what one does best each day
(that is, using one’s strengths) is a core predictor of workplace engagement,
which in turn is an important predictor of performance. These findings indirectly support Clifton's claim that boosting the use of strengths, rather than improving weaknesses, will contribute to optimal performance.
Another misconception that contributes to an excessive focus on weakness
involves the belief that strengths do not need much attention because they will
take care of themselves and develop naturally. Just like skills, strengths can be
trained and developed deliberately. For instance, research has shown that
through practice, people can learn to be more optimistic. In general, these
studies show that over time, practice and effort can help build new habits that
boost strength use. Boosting strengths means increasing not only the frequency
of use but also the number of different situations in which the strength is applied.
When strengths are not used or trained, their potential effect on well-being
remains limited. When a child who is very creative is minimally or not at all
exposed to activities that call upon creativity, the child is unlikely to develop skills,
knowledge, and experience that will maximize his creative potential. Although
many strengths are already present at a very young age, they need to be nurtured
to realize their full potential.
In 1998, Martin Seligman strongly encouraged the field of psychology to widen its
scope and move beyond human problems and pathology to human flourishing.
Rather than merely focusing on what is wrong with people and fixing their problems, the
focus should also be on what is right with people and boosting their strengths.
The questions that positive psychology aims to answer are:
What are the characteristics of people with high levels of happiness?
What are the qualities of people who manage their troubles effectively?
In other words, what strengths do these people possess?
These questions do not fit the disease model. These questions force us to consider the bigger question of “What is right with people?”
If we learn what differentiates happy and resilient people from unhappy and rigid
people, then we could use this knowledge to increase happiness and boost the
resilience of others.
An important mission of positive psychology research is, therefore, to investigate
human behaviour using a strengths approach. This focus on human flourishing and
markers of psychological well-being has been referred to as the health model of
human functioning
Comments