Strengths & Weaknesses Grid

Rate eight dimensions of your work, back each rating with an event a colleague could confirm, and note whether the work gives or takes energy and whether your next role needs it. What comes out is a profile you can act on, not a list of adjectives.

Strengths-based development has mixed evidence, and much of the early work comes from the firm that sells the assessment (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001; review: Miglianico et al., 2020). The T-shaped professional is a practitioner model that has not been formally tested (Johnston, 1978). Tying each rating to verifiable evidence is practitioner craft; the 1 to 5 scale and the eight dimensions are rules of thumb.

Use it when:

• You are preparing a development talk, a job application or a career move and need an honest picture of what you bring.
• You are aiming at a broader role and want to see which skills outside your specialty will matter.
• You want a baseline you can return to every quarter and something concrete to check against feedback from others.

Skip it when:

• You already have feedback or test results and want to combine them: use 1.3 Feedback & Psychometric Summary.
• You know your gaps and need to prioritize them: use 1.5 Skill Gap Map & Priority List.

Strengths-based development holds that you grow furthest by building on what you already do well, and that a real strength combines good performance with energy, not performance alone (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001). The proposed reason is that strengths rest on stable patterns of thinking and motivation, so effort there compounds, while effort on weaknesses mostly limits damage. The evidence is mixed, and much of the founding work comes from the firm that sells the tools, so treat the claim as a working hypothesis with a useful core.

Two parts of this grid are craft. A self-rating means something only when it is tied to an event someone else could confirm, so every rating has evidence and an energy note. And the sketch of depth and breadth borrows the T-shaped image from Johnston (1978): you are rarely let down by your specialty, but by gaps you never looked at. Gaps are written as plans, and the profile goes to someone else for an outside check.

Rate each line 1 to 5 against peers in similar roles, not against perfection. Write one event as evidence, then note whether this work energizes or drains you and whether the role you are aiming for needs it (yes, partly, no). If a line is hard to rate, use the prompt questions at the end of the page.

Strong answer: "Execution, 5. Evidence: delivered the warehouse system move on the planned weekend; two other managers asked me to plan theirs. Energizes. Next role: yes." Not: "5, I am very reliable."

Scale: 5 others seek you out for this; 4 consistently strong; 3 solid, room to grow; 2 a known gap you are working on; 1 a significant weakness.

Illustrative example: the role, the company and all ratings are made up.

An operations manager at a sawmill in Sweden wants to become site manager within two years.

Section 1: execution 5 (kept the mill running through a long supply crisis; energizes); analysis 4 (found that a calibration fault caused most stoppages; drains him); relationships 4; communication 3; leading others 4 (his team trusts him, other departments do not follow); strategic thinking 2; adapting 4. The site manager role needs commercial sense, influence across departments and strategy.

Section 2: true strengths: execution, relationships. Learned skill: analysis. Depth: production and maintenance planning. Breadth: data, communication. Gap: finance.

Section 3: commercial sense (draft next year's maintenance budget with the controller); influence across departments (lead the joint safety review with sales and logistics); strategic thinking (write a two-year plan, not a schedule).

Section 4: "I keep complex production running without burning bridges." Blind spot: saying yes to keep the peace. His manager checks the page next month, and he books a quarterly re-rating.