The Superman Paradox

The renaissance in Superman comics led by the brilliant Brian Michael Bendis got me thinking, leading to the following thought experiment:

Close your eyes and think of Superman. Really think about him. 10...9...8....

Okay, what did you think about?

Super strength? Invulnerability? Heat vision? X-ray vision? Flight? Tall? Muscular? Freezing breath? Telescopic vision? Super speed? Super hearing? Super smart? Super pets, even? All good hallmarks of Superman.

But what about this list of equally-valid characteristics: deadly vulnerability to kryptonite, just a guy when exposed to radiation from a red sun, especially susceptible to magic, x-ray vision can't see through lead, difficulty getting medical treatment, alien, prone to making enemies, doormat at work and romantically, hero complex?

Those are Superman's weaknesses, ones exploited quite successfully by some very bad people. They keep our hero from accomplishing everything he would like to, not to mention keeping him this side of godhood. Powerful weaknesses.

So why didn't you think of these first?

Probably for the same reason when I mention Tom Brady, you immediately think future Hall of Fame quarterback or king of the 2-minute drill and not world's lamest wide receiver. Or when I reference Babe Ruth and you think "Sultan of Swat" rather than "King of Striking Out", both of which were true of him.

We define our heroes by their strengths, not their weaknesses.

Let's apply this to the workplace.

When you give feedback to a subordinate, which do you focus the most on: their strengths, or their weaknesses?

If you're like most managers, I'd say the latter. After all, isn't the point of performance reviews to help people overcome their weaknesses?

This, my friends, is where I'm going to get just a little bit controversial. Just a little bit out there. Eccentric, even.

Don't waste a bit of time in a performance review talking about anyone's weaknesses EXCEPT YOUR OWN. Why not? Because it isn't the time for it (you have been coaching them all year, right? ) and to devote so much time to it is liable to make the reviewee think you view them as a detriment to the team. They may even think you look at them and don't see their strengths at all, which is even more dangerous, since you're the person being paid to leverage their strengths fully and appropriately. It's like an admission of guilt that you're not doing your job as a leader.

Let's go back to Tom Brady for a moment. Bill Belichick is his coach and isn't the cuddliest guy to report to. He pretty much only smiles when the season's over and he's on his boat. What grumpy Bill does not do, however, is harp on Brady's weaknesses. He doesn't put Brady in positions very often where he looks stupid (bad call on that pass in the Super Bowl, Bill). Rather, he makes every effort to help Brady succeed. And as critical as he can be and as insistent as he is on everyone doing their job and getting better every week, Belichick doesn't land with both feet on his QB when things go south. He takes responsibility and moves on.

I had a person working for me some years ago who was an absolute enigma to me and my boss, who had been managing them until I came along. We weren't getting much out of them and everyone was frustrated. Some months into our working together, I needed to go out on paternity leave. Finally I just handed the reins of a project off and said, "It's all yours. When I get back in a few weeks, if I don't hear that it's gone well, it will be time for us to talk about moving on."

To my amazement, when I returned even teammates who had clashed with this person previously sang their praises. They did a great job on the project. Everyone was upbeat and positive. The key was simply ownership. We emphasized collaboration so much on the team that we hadn't done a great job of providing clear ownership and accountability lines to the team. This teammate needed that, thanks to the deep responsibility they felt for the team's success and their contribution to it, and I failed to provide it. That was on me, not them. The teammate went on to do even greater things for us and is still at it today---all it took was recognizing their strengths rather than hammering on their weaknesses.

This led directly to my hard-and-fast rule of performance reviews: half the time is devoted to discussing your performance and growth and the other half is discussing what I can do better to help you. Coaching is a two-way street that way. I've found it also lessons the dread folks tend to have walking into these reviews, which really ought to be a very positive experience the vast majority of the time.

Last thought experiment: think back to a teammate who really struggled. What were their strengths? Was there a way their strengths could have been better utilized? If so, would the situation have resolved in a happier and more productive fashion for everyone had they been able to build upon their strengths rather than go on a search-and-destroy mission involving their weaknesses?

Something to think about while reading the next Superman comic.