Average to A+


I’ve just finished reading Alex Linley’s Average to A+. The book is an attempt to popularise some of the ideas behind positive psychology and the strengths based approach. It is presented a kind of personal development manual, but if you look closely enough has got a load of academic references to back up some of what Linley says. Why popular books aren’t allowed to have references in them in any normal way I can’t imagine, but there you go.


The books argument is that psychology tends to focus on negatives far too much. There is therefore a need to explore the positive much more. Positive psychologist spend time working out why people are happy, contented etc etc rather than what makes people depressed and anxious. Linley’s answer to the question about what makes us happy and successful is the idea of strengths. If we are able to concentrate on the things that we are good at, rather than getting dragged down by the things that we are bad at we are more likely to achieve our potential.


This seems obvious, but when you think about it we spend an enormous amount of time trying to deal with people’s weaknesses. Competency frameworks are designed to expose how you measure up across a range of issues and usually then encourage you to work on your weak areas or conduct a gap analysis. The strengths based approach would say that this is a waste of time. The things that you are bad at you will have to spend a lot of energy just to get OK at. However if you spend that energy working on your strengths you have the opportunity to become really exceptional.


I think that this is a neat concept. People have applied it to the delivery of services like social work and special education as well as to management. These applications explore how the focus on the negative has not been productive as they have forced people to spend their whole time thinking about what they are bad at. Ultimately this is likely to be demoralising and also unlikely to lead to dramatic progress.


However I must admit that once I’d got the basic idea this book didn’t really keep giving. The psychometric “strengths finder” tool that he talks about reminds me of a whole load of other things I’ve seen e.g. Myers-Briggs, Belbin etc etc. All well and good, but essentially making the same point that careers guidance practitioners have been making for years. If you have good self-awareness and focus on what you are good at and like you will have a greater chance of happiness.


Having said that I do think that there are messages in the strengths based approach for all of those of us who are involved in delivering developmental services. Thinking about how much we are accentuating the positive and working out where we can support people to develop with their strengths is a good message to pick up and apply.





  1. I feel the same as you about the strengths-based approach. I like the idea of focusing on what people are naturally good at rather than trying to force everyone to conform to some completely idealised set of competencies. There are quite a few things I consider myself to be good and and I enjoy doing them. However, organising events isn’t one of those things. Recently, an event that I was responsible for trying to organise got cancelled and it was as if a large black cloud had been lifted from me. Suddenly, I had a lot more energy for other things. I realised that, although I can do organising, it steadily saps my energy and reduces my enthusiasm for the things that I am actually good at. However, having said that, some of the things that I now feel that I am good at did not appear that way initially. For example, writing is something that I’m still working hard at. I can feel that it’s coming. The reward to effort ratio is not quite as high as some other activities, but it’s getting there. The blog has helped. (No matter how much organising I do, the reward/effort ratio doesn’t seem to have changed.)My concern about skills-based approaches is that they might lead someone to neglect the possibility of developing a skill which might seem initially difficult through persistence and dedication. Leading to an ‘If it doesn’t come naturally the first time, don’t bother trying’ attitude. Whatever happened to the 10,000 hour rule?

  2. I agree with your concern about the idea of strengths letting people give up too easily. I’m not sure that my current "strengths" are what my parents and teachers would have predicted that they would be. If I’d got too locked into a limited conception of my potential I think that it might actually have been damaging. I don’t think that strengths has to work in this way, but it is certainly a danger.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s