Marcus Buckingham is a soloist in the strengths movement choir. He has been a mouthpiece for the idea since seemingly the very beginning. Marcus is a gifted communicator with a talent for understanding the need for rigorous research. Which is why when he finally decided to create a market a self-assessment, StandOut, it should peak everyone’s interest. I’ll admit, I was actually a little confused at why Marcus had decided to create an assessment – I am a big fan of Go Put Your Strengths to Work and the accompanying Trombone Player Wanted film series. Both of these works rest on the idea that taking a test isn’t as useful as studying yourself at work.

So how good could this StandOut test be?

Good.

The book itself is a quick read, meant to introduce you to the test, have you take it, and then help you analyze your results. It’s how the test itself is structured that is really cool. The entire assessment uses behavior-based questions. Rather than ask you “Do you like ______ or ______ better?” it gives you situations and then asked you have you’d respond. Eventually, it locks in on the pattern behind your hypothetical behaviors – these are your strengths roles. When you complete the test, it generates a report that can be view online or download. The report explains your result and provides tips for how to make an immediate impact and how to craft a long-term strategy based on your position in an organization.

I’m inherently skeptical of self-assessments because the usually just ask you to describe yourself and then re-label your own description – sort of like stealing your watch and then telling you the time. That said, I believe StandOut has the potential to make a real impact in an organization because it deals with how you ACT in the world, not how you THINK you act. I’m especially looking forward to the release of the manager dashboard function, which will allow managers to access a website (or iPad app) that houses the results of their team and provides tips for interactions).

StandOut is the product StrengthsFinder 2.0 should have been.

The Journal of Strategic Leadership is an open-access scholarly journal published by Regent University (where I am pursuing a doctorate). Its goal is to provide a forum for leadership practitioners and students of strategic leadership around the world by publishing applied articles on topics that enhance knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon of strategic leadership at all levels within a variety of industries and organizations.

David Burkus is the editor of LeaderLab. He is an executive coach, a sought-after speaker and an adjunct professor of business at several universities. He can be reached by email here or at his website: davidburkus.com.

LeaderLab is partnering with organizational scholars to gather research on the importance of building ethical climates. If you have 10 minutes, please help our research by taking a brief survey.

Click Here to Help Our Research.

If you have bought the prevailing wisdom that managing the strengths of individual group members is the best way to manage your group, you could be making a big mistake. This study found that if you provide highly differentiated leadership to each member of your group, you will indeed increase the individual self-efficacy of those individual members. But the increased individual self-efficacy had a negative effect on the group’s collective efficacy, and a negative effect on the group’s effectiveness.

Group collective efficacy, on the other hand, had a significant positive effect on group effectiveness. The researchers measured collective efficacy with items that assessed the kinds of tasks the group might perform, not specific tasks any single group member might perform.

Group collective efficacy resulted from group-focused rather than individual-focused leadership. Group-focused leadership produced group identification, which in turn produced a collective sense of efficacy among group members.  This is the type of leadership where group leaders specify the importance of group members having a strong sense of collective purposeand mission in working with the group as a whole.

Popular thinking on leadership asserts that effective leaders must not only inspire the group as a whole, but must also be attentive to the unique needs of each and every individual in the group. The results of this research suggest “that leaders who attempt to satisfy both individual and group needs may inadvertently compromise group processes and group outcomes” (p. 101).

If your individualized approach to leadership creates a group full of members where some have high self-efficacy and see themselves as “high potentials” while others do not, you are likely sub-optimizing the performance of your group as a whole. The differences in individual efficacy among group members affects how they feel about each other and their ability to accomplish things together. This is especially critical when group tasks require extensive interdependence among members.

When group performance matters, and people need to work closely together for the group to be effective, the belief that “we can do it” is more important than any individual’s belief that “I can do it.” If you lead a group like this, you probably want to keep that strength-based snake oil on the shelf.

[This post originally appeared on Positive Organizational Behavior. Find more great content at www.bretlsimmons.com]

Bret L. Simmons, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Management in the College of Business at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), where he teaches courses in organizational behavior, leadership, and personal branding to both undergraduate and MBA students. Bret blogs about leadership, followership, and social media at his website Positive Organizational Behavior. You can also find Bret on Twitter,Facebook, and Linkedin.

If you have bought the prevailing wisdom that managing the strengths of individual group members is the best way to manage your group, you could be making a big mistake. This study found that if you provide highly differentiated leadership to each member of your group, you will indeed increase the individual self-efficacy of those individual members. But the increased individual self-efficacy had a negative effect on the group’s collective efficacy, and a negative effect on the group’s effectiveness.

Group collective efficacy, on the other hand, had a significant positive effect on group effectiveness. The researchers measured collective efficacy with items that assessed the all kinds of tasks the group might perform, not specific tasks any single group member might perform.

Group collective efficacy resulted from group-focused rather than individual focused leadership. Group focused leadership produced group identification, which in turn produced a collective sense of efficacy among group members.  This is the type of leadership where group leaders specify the importance of group members having a strong sense of collective purpose and mission in working with the group as a whole.

Popular thinking on leadership asserts that effective leaders must not only inspire the group as a whole, but must also be attentive to the unique needs of each and every individual in the group. The results of this research suggest “that leaders who attempt to satisfy both individual and group needs may inadvertently compromise group processes and group outcomes” (p. 101).

If your individualized approach to leadership creates a group full of members where some have high self-efficacy and see themselves as “high potentials” while others do not, you are likely sub-optimizing the performance of your group as a whole. The differences in individual efficacy among group members affects how they feel about each other and their ability to accomplish things together. This is especially critical when group tasks require extensive interdependence among members.

When group performance matters, and people need to work closely together for the group to be effective, the belief that “we can do it” is more important than any individual’s belief that “I can do it.” If you lead a group like this, you probably want to keep that strength-based snake oil on the shelf.

• Bret Simmons is a business professor at the University of Nevada, Reno.
• This post is a repost from his website at http://www.bretlsimmons.com.

What Makes a Great Leadership Team – GMJ

Useful Lies

Strengths-based leadership theory is supported by over 30 years of research from the Gallup Organization and others. In addition, it’s core beliefs overlap a variety of other developing theories in personal and organizational psychology including positive psychology and appreciative inquiry. However, many have criticized the fundamental assessment tool of the Gallup Organization, StrengthsFinder 2.0, as unreliable. Recent research has found that when leading teams, strengths-based leadership causes individual team member efficacy to increase, but collective team efficacy to decrease, suggesting that it is not an optimal method for leading teams where cohesion is necessary.

• Intro to Leadership Theory
• Why Theory
• A Word on Theory
• Trait Theory
• Skills Theory
• Style Theory
• Contingency Theory
• Situational Leadership Theory
• Path-Goal Theory
• Leader-Member Exchange Theory
• Transformational Leadership Theory
• Servant Leadership Theory
• Strengths-Based Leadership Theory