Positively Ideating Futuristic Communicator-Wooer

Inspired bt wolli’s recent revelation I’m publishing my personal strengths as well.
Read more about the thinking on why should I care, but in a nutshell:

People progress more rapidly in their areas of greatest talent than in their areas of weakness. Yet too many training and development approaches focus on making improvements in areas of weakness.

In other words: Trying only to fix what you suck at is purely risk mitigation for that you mess something up you shouldn’t be doing to start with.

So here we go:

Ideation
People strong in the Ideation theme are fascinated by ideas. They are able to find connections between seemingly disparate phenomena.
Woo
People strong in the Woo theme love the challenge of meeting new people and winning them over. They derive satisfaction from breaking the ice and making a connection with another person.
Communication
People strong in the Communication theme generally find it easy to put their thoughts into words. They are good conversationalists and presenters.
Futuristic
People strong in the Futuristic theme are inspired by the future and what could be. They inspire others with their visions of the future.
Positivity
People strong in the Positivity theme have an enthusiasm that is contagious. They are upbeat and can get others excited about what they are going to do.

It is always very hard to judge how true the reflection of yourself really is, but I think for the most part this is me. Definitely not a pedantic bureaucrat or shy historian. (NB! I love those types by the way and need a plenty around me to delegate the things they are better at than me). Do you agree?
The most important takeaway from the exercise: team success is based on combining people with varied (or even opposite) strengths in the right way. And you’d be surprised from the rainbow of different strengths even a tight like-minded group can carry person by person.
PS: I also learned a new word I now like: wooo!


  • so the theory is that everyone completely fits to at least one of these boxes if not more? 🙂

  • useful! but what’s the trick for remaining completely honest when taking those tests?

  • so the theory is that everyone completely fits to at least one of these boxes if not more? 🙂
    Nope, it is actually a bit more flexible than that. There are I think 36 different strenghts defined and what the test does is to order them into your toplist. And the theory is that you should focus on the top 5, not on trying to get better at, say, #28-36 on the list.
    but what’s the trick for remaining completely honest when taking those tests?
    Very good point. With this particular one I never felt like cheating (architecting my choices with a specific result in mind) because:
    * its an online test with something like 150 questions that each have a short timespan: e.g you don´t have time to think what´s the most appropriate answer, you have to react more from your gut or you miss and get the next question
    * each question is about choosing how you feel about two claims on the scale of 5 (neutral or a bit/completely towards one). The trick is that the claims are never contradictory, you pretty much have to choose between 2 good or bad things. I guess they can extract additional information about you from this, how often you really can decide clearly. I think I stayed mostly in the netutral +/-1 zone.

  • My first OpenCoffeClub

    I attended today’s OpenCoffeeClub event, the one in London. It is a loose framework of entrepreneurial meetup events that Saul Klein recently kicked off, as part of his recent broader initiatives to encourage interaction between and raise the confidenc…

  • interesting, I found myself strongly towards one or the other.
    But philosophy of doing what your best at and dropping what your not is something I attempt to use. Hence you will not see me in marketing discussions, or team coaching psychiatric attempts because I simply don’t get excited by them, and therefore am not good at them.
    It’s very counter ‘general’ schooling discussions, but it fits well in environments where there is not time for learning.
    Of course, results of one test at one time while in a certain humour are never to be precise, but having done 15 of these over twenty years, they do show a remarkable consistency. (which is different to my correlation with horoscopes)