Scan barcode
A review by thelauramay
Now, Discover Your Strengths: How to Develop Your Talents and Those of the People You Manage by Marcus Buckingham
Did not finish book.
Starting my review just now, I took a moment to decide which bookshelves to add this book to. I went to put it with 'non-fiction', then realised that's total nonsense, as this book is a pile of baloney with the overall validity of a weekly horoscope. I cannot believe the amount of money they are pulling out of people with this tripe, and i'm absolutely shocked by the positive ratings the book has received.
"Now, Discover Your Strengths" was recommended to me by a respected professor, and while I was somewhat cynical, I eventually got around to opening it up. The first few chapters were not totally unreasonable, and I definitely agree that people should focus on strengths rather than necessarily dedicating all their time to amending their weaknesses. Though perhaps that's just because I know it's how I work - I enjoy work most when i'm working closely with another colleague who compensates for the skills that I lack. Because #teamwork. I do think that a focus on building up strengths, and complementary strengths at that, is a good way in which businesses can approach training decisions.
How, ev, er. I forked over the money to take the test, and my results were ludicrous. My skills were Strategic, Achiever, Activator, Learner, Analytical. Fair enough, four of those I can see in myself. But 'activator'? No. I quizzed friends and former colleagues, and they also couldn't see it. And given i'm not someone who will try and fit into a label just because it's accorded me, I kept picking at it. Where 'strategic' is roughly 'takes in all information then produces a plan', and 'activator' is 'taking action before receiving all information', how can I *possibly* be both of these at once?! They're opposites??? So I took it up with the test providers, whose response was that "well, results can be surprising".
There is no science in this, it is - as another reviewer put it - a Cosmo quiz for the business age. Don't waste your time, and don't waste your money. DNF at page 124.
"Now, Discover Your Strengths" was recommended to me by a respected professor, and while I was somewhat cynical, I eventually got around to opening it up. The first few chapters were not totally unreasonable, and I definitely agree that people should focus on strengths rather than necessarily dedicating all their time to amending their weaknesses. Though perhaps that's just because I know it's how I work - I enjoy work most when i'm working closely with another colleague who compensates for the skills that I lack. Because #teamwork. I do think that a focus on building up strengths, and complementary strengths at that, is a good way in which businesses can approach training decisions.
How, ev, er. I forked over the money to take the test, and my results were ludicrous. My skills were Strategic, Achiever, Activator, Learner, Analytical. Fair enough, four of those I can see in myself. But 'activator'? No. I quizzed friends and former colleagues, and they also couldn't see it. And given i'm not someone who will try and fit into a label just because it's accorded me, I kept picking at it. Where 'strategic' is roughly 'takes in all information then produces a plan', and 'activator' is 'taking action before receiving all information', how can I *possibly* be both of these at once?! They're opposites??? So I took it up with the test providers, whose response was that "well, results can be surprising".
There is no science in this, it is - as another reviewer put it - a Cosmo quiz for the business age. Don't waste your time, and don't waste your money. DNF at page 124.