I agree with you. But if you are a terrible public speaker, investing the hundreds of hours it would take to become a great public speaker is time that could be spent honing other skills that will provide more benefit for you in the long run (blogging if that’s a strength, or becoming a better writer in general).

I believe that someone who only writes code and cannot speak or write well will face serious challenges with their career. However, if you are a terrible speaker and it’s not something that comes naturally, then trying to improve that is a lost cause.

Instead, find another skill that complements your coding (such as writing, the ability to manage projects, etc…) that will make you more valuable in your career. Speaking is one avenue to improve yourself, but it does not apply to everyone.

Public speaking (I prefer “communication”) is a core skill that is critical to educate, motivate, and influence. If all you want to do is pump out code, then you can live in a dark cave with a lava lamp and do that. But if you want to have influence, a following, and increased opportunity (and a successful business), then you need to show your face and be able to speak in such a way that people believe you, respect you, and want to do business with you. People who can articulate ideas get opportunities that less talented people will never get. It doesn’t matter if they like it or not, or what the self-awareness survey says.

And I stand by the firm belief that good communication is far more a skill than a talent. If we avoid jobs that require it as you suggest, we miss some great chances to get our ideas before others.

Perhaps this is why there are so many terrible web sites and why no-one ever admits they are a below average driver.

Take entrepreneurship – theoretically you could say that’s the way to go to leverage your strengths as a professional. It shouldn’t really matter if you’re great coder or art designer or project manager. You just start your development, design or consulting business and life is good again.

Except it is not. Actually entrepreneurship is at least as much about filling gaps of your weaknesses as about leveraging your strengths. You can be kick-ass developer but if you can’t get a contract or market your app you’re soon going to be starving kick-ass developer. And, when I last checked, neither selling nor product marketing was on typical coder’s list of strengths.

Of course there are many positions which require narrow skill set but, as a rule of thumb, the more narrow your skill set is the fewer options you have.

So yes, go discover your strengths, find a role which would allow you to leverage them. Then learn what weaknesses you have in this specific context and work at least as much on removing these weaknesses as you work on building your strengths up.

Ability to catch a ball is irrelevant for a long-distance runner but a good diet is not. Entrepreneur couldn’t care less about office politics, but should pitch interpersonal skills no matter what.

I’ve seen that TED talk from Adam Savage (which is excellent). We’re naturally inclined to use our strengths to achieve a goal. If I had the same goal as him, I would go down a different path that would use the strengths that come easy for me.

The concept doesn’t suggest giving up on being good at everything. Yes, you can be good at a lot of things, and that may be your goal, but some people don’t care about being good at everything, they want to be great at something. For that, knowing your strengths can help get you there.

But, we do develop affinities for certain things as we’re growing up. Our environment shapes our “passions” (I hate that word, it’s overused). I’m sure Sir Paul was around music a lot and Tiger Woods’ dad forced him to play golf as a little kid.

Overall I agree with your premise. Focusing more on our strengths leads to more fulfillment in life, but that doesn’t mean one shouldn’t take the time to explore other areas he/she might be interested in. It’s when we’re forced or put demands on ourselves to build up our weaknesses that things go wrong and we wind up miserable; the very nature of a job/school.

As anti-proofs, consider folks like Adam Savage, who gave an incredible talk on his obsessions (http://www.ted.com/talks/adam_savage_s_obsessions.html), and the incredible, amazing things he achieves when he persues a project that he previously had no real talent in with all of his heart.

Not to mention, there’s an awful lot of smart-sounding anti-specialization sentiment out there.

“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”

- Robert A. Heinlein

Here’s my top 5 strengths:

http://urbandude.com/post/2007/10/22/My-Top-5-Strengths.aspx

Ideation / Learner / Achiever / Analytical / Intellection

Everyone at our office (plus my wife) has gone through the program and we know each other’s strengths. My discipline and communication are low, so when small projects come my way that require those skills, I offload it to someone who’s strong in those areas, which lets me focus on what I’m good at. Why waste my time struggling with something that will only be mediocre when I can work on something that will really shine? It makes a great environment because we’re given projects that we’re naturally inclined to succeed in.

I ask because everything I’ve learned about the way the mind works makes me think that this article isn’t right.

For example, kids who are taught that they’re smart don’t do nearly as well as kids who are taught that they work hard. This is because the “smart” kids see intelligence as an in-built attribute that nobody can modify, and don’t bother working to excel. Kids who are taught that they work hard see intelligence as something that can be modified – that they can “become smarter”.

And it turns out to be self-fulfilling – the “smart” kids aren’t able to become smarter, but the “hard-working” kids do better and better on repeated IQ tests.

So the attitude you take this post seems off to me. If you believe that you can never be very good at something you’re not “gifted” at, you’re probably right. But if you *do* believe that you can get very good at something that you’re not gifted at, well, you’re probably right, too.

I love software and am partially a leader and mostly a coding monster. Deliberate Practise…I am all for it! I find this combination to be awesome and works great. But after reading your post I realise that this could be because “I am working along my strengths and ignoring my weaknesses to a good extent!”. But don’t you think that by completely ignoring your weakness, and simply focussing on your strengths, you also threaten your ability to analyse your personality in the long run?