All hands on deck: Maximizing productivity with a strengths-based approach

Today, three of us gathered in the ITS department to discuss vision and goals for the coming years.  My colleague Kristin Mullaney proposed the idea of taking a strengths-based approach to staff's professional development and, by extension, to organizational development.  What exactly is a "strengths-based approach", I wondered.  I had previously never heard of the term, and I was suspicious that it was just another managerial buzzword that only sounded good.

But as she explained the concept, I noticed myself nodding silently in effortless agreement.  Why not?  Without taking undue credit from her proposition, here are the main points I recall about the approach:

• Recognize that an individual's skills may (and likely do) extend beyond his or her assigned functional area.
• Throughout the business cycle of an organization, there will be peaks and lulls in the demand for any one skill.
• As an organization evolves in step with the global environment, the profile of appropriate skills (and functional areas) for the organization will change.
• By enabling an individual staff member to exercise skills that are not explicitly required for his or her "assigned duties", the organization actually facilitates professional development of its human capital.  And as a result, the organization better positions itself to meet future demands in the marketplace.

Her points seemed so sensical that I found it difficult to explain why we are not already operating that way, although I know realistically that there are significant challenges to the idea's implementation.  I can already think of some possible challenges: accepting complacency, seeking comfort in repetition, setting narrow performance goals, protecting traditional departmental "turf" or boundaries, witholding access on a "need to __" basis.  While there are still valid arguments for each of those actions, I question the balance of costs and benefits for each of them in the modern world.

As I watch the rise in demand for agile, responsive organizations, I believe we have to leave behind many of the stiff policies and cultural legacies from yesteryear.  Even if we don't do it for the advancement of humanity, we must change our behaviors and expectations for our own survival in an increasingly competitive global economy.  How many big-name companies can you name that fell into decline or disappeared altogether?  HP, Xerox, Kodak, Circuit City, Borders, ...

But if we in an organization can learn from history, embrace current best practices and keep an eye on the future, then together we can grow smartly and sustainably.  And I believe part of the change involves setting new organizational expectations that break down silos and erase arbitrary boundaries which prevent business teams from reaching their full potential.

I'd like to close with a quote from Rebecca Seibert in her contribution to Harvey Levine's Project Portfolio Management (which I am reading for Granite State College's excellent PM 806 course, "Managing Project Portfolios"):

“All hands on deck” means that very few handoffs occur in our team settings. The expression “that’s not my job” is not in the mind-set of the business team. If we need marketing information for a specific program and the marketing manager is occupied with other duties, it is not uncommon for the technology team member, for example, to gather that information and communicate it to the team. The lines of functionality are often blurred, allowing people with the appropriate skills to be empowered to get the work done.

We have a noble mission to advance that requires us to maximize the very limited resources we have.  For us, "all hands on deck" should be our call to action.