A Call for New Language to Describe Our Strengths

The authors write, "Why do we need this new language? Quite simply because the language we currently use isn't up to the challenge."

"The language of human weakness is rich and varied. There are meaningful differences in the terms of neurosis, psychosis, depression, mania, hysteria, panic attacks, and schizophrenia. An expert in mental illness is acutely aware of these differences and takes them into consideration in making a diagnosis and determining treatment. In fact, this language of frailty is so widespread that most of us nonexperts probaby use it pretty accurately."

"By contrast, the language of human strength is sparse. If you want to know just how sparse, listen to a couple of human resources professionals describing the merits of three candidates for a position. You might hear a couple of broad generalizations such as 'I liked her people skills' or 'He seemed self-motivated,' but then the conversation will revert to comparisons of facts such as each candidate's education and work experience."

Now I know the people I work with (and those who read this blog) don't work in corporate offices and don't often deal with human resources (unless you do corporate workshops). But in order to create powerfully effective marketing materials - either for your website or workshop presentation kit - you'll need to be able to put into words your unique strengths and talents. Most clients come to me clear what they're good at, but that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to describing and claiming your strengths.

The authors continue to say that "the sorry truth is that the language available, the language of human strength, is still rudimentary at best. Take the term 'people skills' as an example." If you say two people have 'people skills,' what does that tell you about them? It tells you they both seem to relate well with people, but probably not much else. It doesn't tell you, for example, that one excels at the building of trust with people once the initial contact has been made, while the other is brilliant at initiating the contact. Both of these abilities have to do with people, but they are obviously not the same. Yet this difference has practical application implications. Regardless of experience or education, you wouldn't necessarily put the great trust builder in the same role as the great networker. Nor would you expect them to connect with customers and associates in the same way. Nor would you expect them to derive the same satisfaction from their work. Nor would you manage them in the same way. Since these variables combine to create each one's performance, knowing who is the instinctive trust builder and who is the networker might make the difference between success and failure."

And knowing exactly what "people skills" means for you, might make the difference between success and failure in your marketing outreach efforts too or how you package and describe your programs. Do you love to meet new people but don't like to write, try networking as a marketing plan. Do you love to connect with people one-on-one and shy away from large crowds, then try writing and building a great website as a publicity plan.

"And for some strange reason when we do have a precise, commonly agreed upon word for a strong pattern of behavior, the word we use often use has a negative connotation. People who are brilliant at imposing order and structure on the world. Anal. People who claim excellence. Egoists. People who anticipate and are always asking 'What if?' Worriers."

"Whichever way you look at it, we don't have a rich enough language to describe the wealth of human talent that we see around us."

Before you decide to create a new program, get clear it's oriented around your true strengths. Before you write your new website, get clear it's branded around your talents versus a set of skills you're good at. (Skills don't equal passion and purpose) Find out your unique strengths by getting this book and taking the Online Strengths Finder test that comes with the purchase of the book. (Library books don't come with the right code for the online test - I tried.)