IvyStrengths

'Intro to Strengths' Training Sessions for June

by Jerry Madsen

Beginning in June, Ivy Strengths has scheduled four, two-part "Intro to Strengths" sessions for Ivy Tech faculty and staff members at each of the three campuses.  The sessions - to be facilitated by me, Jerry Madsen - are as follow:

• Intro to Strengths, Part 1 – June 04, 2007 from 10am to 12pm (South Bend, Room 1121/1122)

• Intro to Strengths, Part 1 – June 04, 2007 from 4pm to 6pm (South Bend, Room 1121/1122)

• Intro to Strengths, Part 1 – June 05, 2007 from 10am to 12pm (Elkhart, Room 133)

• Intro to Strengths, Part 1 – June 06, 2007 from 10am to 12pm (Warsaw, Room 131)*

• Intro to Strengths, Part 2 – June 11, 2007 from 10am to 12pm (South Bend, Room 1121/1122)

• Intro to Strengths, Part 2 – June 11, 2007 from 4pm to 6pm (South Bend, Room 1121/1122)

• Intro to Strengths, Part 2 – June 19, 2007 from 10am to 12pm (Elkhart, Room 133)

• Intro to Strengths, Part 2 – June 20, 2007 from 10am to 12pm (Warsaw, Room 131)*

The only prerequisite is that you have taken the StrengthsQuest™ inventory.  As an employee of Ivy Tech's North Central region, you can get a free code - which will enable to take the online test - from Sandy Kousen.

Both email and postcard invitations will be sent-out during the week of May 21; however, if you are interested and would like to RSVP in the affirmative, you can do so by emailing me at jmadsen@ivytech.edu or leaving a voicemail at 574.289.7001 x6345.

*For those attending the Warsaw Faculty/Staff retreat on Friday, June 22, the Strengths presentation that day relates to "Strengths in Team building" and therefore will not be redundant information relative to the 5/06 and 5/20 sessions.

The Gattaca Effect

by Jerry Madsen

About a decade ago a movie entitled "Gattaca" came-out; it starred Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman.  If you didn't see it, don't feel like you missed-out.  I think most who saw it were Sci-Fi geeks - such as myself - and your dedicated movie goers.

The plot in under 100 words:  It’s the future. Way in the future (one hopes). Your DNA determines your place in society. Genetic bigotry has replaced discrimination based on gender, race or religion.  In short, if your genes are not good enough, then neither are you.

Ethan Hawke plays the role of a genetically "inferior" citizen who - quite literally in spite of himself - fools the system into thinking he is one of the elite.  The tag line for the film is, "There Is No Gene For The Human Spirit."

In a recent blog posting, Laurie Schreiner discusses what I'll refer to as the "10-80-10 Dynamic".  That's the phenomenon whereby 10% of your faculty and staff are sold on Strengths, "80% of your faculty will give you a chance to win them over" and the final 10% reject it altogether

Naturally, I'm intrigued by those who would reject or be passive towards Strengths.  My initial reaction is the somewhat indignant - and somewhat ignorant - attitude, "What's not to appreciate about Strengths?  What's their problem that they can't love it as I do?" 

As Laurie points out, there are often times a number of reasons why somebody may have little regard the initiative.  She writes:

Maybe they're too near retirement, maybe they're too tired or too busy, maybe what they're already doing is working great for them, maybe the way they see the world is through a lens of improving weakness--and they're highly committed to that lens.

She then goes on to say:

Forget about them! No need to waste your time and energy trying to win over these 10% -- unless you have Woo and just can't resist the challenge :)

In my experience, there is at least one other reason why somebody might fall into the 10% of those who dismiss Strengths: Fear of the Gattaca Effect.

In the movie Gattaca, the characters' value to society was based solely on their genetic make-up; they were pigeon-holed.  Type-casted.  Pre-judged.  Often times I hear this fear as the rationale as to why people resist strengths; they don't want to be defined by what an inventory has identified as some of their hardwired traits, even though it to seeks to affirm those qualities.

The reasons for this fear are plentiful.  For some, I believe, it's a gender-role thing.  Some men may not want to be viewed as too soft if they have - for example - Empathy or Harmony and some women may not want to be viewed as too aggressive if they have Command or Competition.

For others, such as myself, they may have Individualization and they are concerned that something like StrengthsQuest boxes-in potential and in some way stunts personal growth.

And for still others, it may simply be an issue of identity development.  They view themselves differently than how they are being characterized and don't agree with this particular assessment of their strengths and therefore they deem that strengths movement has no credibility.

But whatever the reason for this fear, there are two things I would try to communicate to these individuals:

1. The purpose of an inventory like StrengthsQuest isn't to box-in somebody.  In fact, it's quite the opposite; it's designed to give an individual direction so that they are free to excel at the things they are good at.
2. If you're focused on your StrengthsQuest results, then you've altogether missed the whole point of the strengths movement.  In leading Strengths Training sessions, I often give this illustration: If developing your Strengths is a construction site, StrengthsQuest is just the cement mixer off to the side that helps lay the foundation.  The goal isn't pouring a slab of concrete.  The goal is learning how to build something special on that foundation that lasts.  It's learning what it means to live and operate out of your giftedness.

But at the end of the day, Laurie is absolutely right; sooner or later we have to stop throwing our proverbial perils before the swine.  In the same way that excellence isn't born out of weakness remediation, the Strengths movement isn't going to grow by expending too much energy on that last 10%.

Food Coloring Your Strengths

by Jerry Madsen

As a kid, when I would get bored, I always had a habit of going through our household drawers and cabinets looking for something to do.  Every-so-often, I would stumble across the food coloring my mother kept with all of her baking supplies.

Ever looked at the back of a food coloring box?

On the back of the box there are directions on how to create new and unique colors.  Intrigued, I would test these combinations on a clear glass of water or, if I was really bored, the toilet's water tank (What's more fun than freaking-out your mom when she flushes the toilet and the water turns deep purple?).

The color combinations are endless.  Want to make Green Apple?  25 drops of green coloring and 2 drops of blue.  How about Apricot?  8 green drops + 3 pink.  And if you want to get really complicated, try to make Sky Blue.  It requires 2 Blue + 6 Purple + 2 Green.

That useless information aside, I've found that Strengths have a similar quality to them.

Somebody once told me that when you take into consideration that there are 34 themes that can be arranged in any one through five order, there are over 267,000 possible combinations to be rendered by the StrengthsQuest inventory.  A drop of Futuristic here, a drop of Maximizer there...

As the chair of the Strengths Steering Committee for our region, I've had to do some adjusting to a leadership role with my co-workers - as opposed to with students - more than I am normally accustomed.  By no means, is that a lament; it's a good thing.

One of the personal benefits of this experience - as one might guess - is that it has allowed me to do some practical development of my strengths as it relates to leadership.  As the adviser of our Student Leadership Academy, I've had plenty of opportunities to speak to students about their strengths in leadership, but I haven't had as many "real world" opportunities to put them into play as I would like.

One of the lessons I've learned was to be mindful of how the "drops" of my strengths mix with "drops" of those on the committee.

Many of us have considered what might happen when a Futuristic interfaces with a Context.  What about when a Relator has to work alongside a Woo?  What's it like for an Activator and a Deliberative to share space on a project?

We also know that we can't compartmentalize our strengths.  My Ideation, for example, does not altogether function - at least in my life - independent of my Adaptability.  Together, they give me these pie-in-the-sky moments when I just like to sit back and consider or enjoy the flow of what-might-someday-be.

That was great for me, but it wasn't so great for one of my colleagues whose Activator/Strategic drops had her wanting us to move some strengths-based projects to the next stage, moved in a particular direction and she wanted it moving yesterday.

It makes for a cheesy, Tony Robbins kind of anecdote, but the trick for us was seeing that there was a moment when our "drops" could find the space to either complement each other or conflict.  To our credit, we choose the former over the latter.

So feel free ask yourself, what "colors" are created with your "drops".  It's a great exercise in strengths development and self-awareness...