The Right Fit or, maybe, the Write Fit?

I took the assessment in Strengths Finder 2.0 recently because I'm evaluating it as a tool to use to help our students make sound choices, find their best path etc.  I love the concept behind it, which loosely stated, is that we should build on our strengths in order to maximize our potential and, more importantly, to be happy with the process.  Tom Rath states that, "When we're able to put most of our energy into developing our natural talents, extraordinary room for growth exists."  Makes sense, right?  However, many of our evaluation methods tend to focus mostly on our weaknesses.  Grades, performance reviews, counseling, and/or meetings with your agent/editor/critique group, for instance.  Where are we lacking?  What can we improve?  How can I rewrite this?

A great example is children's grades (and with finals starting tomorrow for my 16-year- old this is a hot topic in our house):  When a child comes home with a 98 in Math, most parents don't say "Way to Go" and suggest the child go do more math.  Instead they say "Yikes, what happened in Biology.  75?  You better hit the books tonight!"  But maybe this child isn't a scientist.  Maybe he can work really hard and all he'll ever earn are Bs and Cs in Science.  Face it, this kid is not going to cure cancer.  But think of all the amazing things he can do if he's good at math and, if he actually likes it, it won't even feel like work!  The book states that the adage "You can be anything you want" should be written "You can be more of what you already are."  Don't get me wrong, this isn't a get out jail free card.  I don't think we should use it as an excuse not to do things we don't like or need to work at, but as we're prioritizing and making choices, we also shouldn't try and fit a square peg into a round hole. 

Case in point:  One of the speakers I heard this past year was the General Counsel from Hewlett-Packard who was also a classmate and friend of mine at ND.  We hadn't seen each other since he graduated as an Engineering major in 1984.  Imagine my surprise that he was now the GC at HP.  He told the students a great story.  He said that when he applied to law school at Villanova, the admissions director told him that he had the lowest GPA of any student they'd ever accepted, but because he'd done exceptionally well on the LSAT they were going to give him a chance.  (I'm thinking he made the most of that opportunity.)  He explained that he'd really always hated engineering - both in school and as a career (short-lived as it was).  He stuck with it because the conventional wisdom at the time was "you're good at math and Engineers get jobs."  Conversely, he loved law, loved arguing, loved organizing the facts.  Once he played to his natural strengths, he was infinitely more successful and really, really happy to get up and go to work everyday even though he worked awfully hard.

I'll post more later as to my specific strengths as identified by this assessment and how they tie into the pursuit of great writing.  But for now, I think it's good to be reminded to take stock of what you do well every day and start there.  All too often, we are driven by thoughts about what isn't working and we lose sight of all that is working beautifully.