​What are examples of this?

 

For me personally, I have a trait of being curious, inquisitive, and questioning. Some would view that as a strength on its own. But in some cases, it doesn’t serve me. In a brainstorming context, that is highly effective. Being able to ask questions, go down rabbit holes, explore what others are thinking.

 

But what about in a context of a work meeting where you’re the decision-maker and a decision needs to be made? A situation that requires confidence and decisiveness? The inquisitive mindset can work up to a certain point of gathering information, but at a certain point, people are looking to you to make a decision. If you keep asking questions at that point, it may just come across as indecisive, diffident, and actually detrimental to progress of the meeting and project. To put these into equation format:

 

• Questioning (Trait) + Brainstorming (Context) = Creativity, which serves Me (Utility)

• Questioning (Trait) + Decision-maker in a meeting (Context) = Indecisive, which doesn’t serve me (Utility)

   

Alternatively, what about one of the ‘weaknesses’ that I listed out above? Some people are great with multitasking. They can listen to a podcast, do their laundry, and something else all at the same time. I don’t know how they do it. That is a not a trait that I currently possess. Now if we left it there, that would be a weakness. But we don’t just leave things there, do we. This deficiency of multitasking really consists of

 

• Single Task Focus (Trait) + Multiple simultaneous competing priorities (Context) = Overwhelm, which doesn’t serve me (Utility)

• Single Task Focus (Trait) + 3 hour, uninterrupted, deep work time (Context) = High output productivity, which serves me (Utility)

   

We can see that what was previously described as a weakness was that only when in a certain context. In another context, it’s one of my greatest ‘strengths.’ The point being it’s just a trait, just focus on what context you’re applying it within.

 

This can also happen in an organizational setting. Let’s take a look first at the equations with the explanation below them.

 

• Scrappiness (Trait) + Company starting up (Context) = Establishing product-market fit, which serves them (Utility)

• Scrappiness (Trait) + Company looking to systemize and scale (Context) = Not building systems that scale, which doesn’t serve them (Utility)

 

Let’s say the founders of a startup have a scrappy, hustling mentality. That is great when they’re going from 0 to 1, from concept to cash flow and product-market fit. That is very much needed. But if you’re at the size of McDonald’s, that hustling culture isn’t going to work to help all the McDonald’s across the world. You need systems and processes in place at scale. Of course, you can empower those store owners to be scrappy on an individual store level, but to actually get to that point, you need scalable systems in place. When you’re going from 10 to 100, or 100, to 1000.

 

 

So you understand this conceptually, but how can you use it in your own life? 3 simple steps!

 

1. List your strengths and weaknesses

2. Deconstruct them to traits and contexts

3. For all your ‘weaknesses’, is there a way to change the context so it becomes a ‘strength’? For all your ‘strengths’, is there a way to do more of that?

 

By doing this simple yet powerful exercise, you can increase your self-awareness, self-esteem, and live more in alignment with your highest self.

 

Just this simple process of listing out your traits will increase your self-awareness. “Oh that’s my trait of being independent”. “That’s our trait of scrappiness and hustling.” Your blind spots become much easier to spot, which means you can ask for help much easier because you know what you’re specifically asking for and knowing what to look for in someone helping you.

 

You can increase your self-esteem too. After doing this, what you’ll probably find is that what you and others say are areas for improvement are really just hidden strengths that are currently being applied in different contexts. You’re not ‘bad’ at something, you just need a change of scenery. So then the goal is to find more contexts in which you can increase your utility based on the traits you have. Categorizing certain traits you have as strengths and weaknesses limits your possibility. You may have a mindset that those are your strengths and weaknesses forever. But they’re not! You have the power and agency to change that. And you don’t even have to change yourself. You just need to change your context. You won’t be attached to or judged by your ‘worst weaknesses’ because you’ll realize that those weaknesses are temporary to the time and situational to the context. You feel less inadequate when you’re constantly being barraged by yourself or others about your weaknesses. Instead, you can feel good by focusing on what you do well in which environments.

 

The third step above is a crucial one. It takes what you’ve laid out and puts in motion ways to live a higher version of yourself. You’re really not changing yourself too much. You’re just discovering what your traits actually are and in which contexts those make you amazing. When people say “Be more of yourself”, this is a concrete framework and exercise to do that through. You can align your time, money, relationships, and energy to these traits and contexts. For example, you can have more clarity for the type of roles you’re seeking. You can ask better questions during the interview process to understand what contexts you’ll be put in. It’ll be a much easier process of expectation management on both sides. The filter is much more easily created because you know yourself that much better.

 

These categories are spectrums. They’re not binary of ‘you have this trait or you don’t’. I believe that we all have an innate level of every trait, and through our experiences we continue developing these traits. Two people who have the trait of scrappiness will probably have it to varying degrees. Similarly, some contexts may be more extreme than others, even though they may accentuate or exacerbate those traits more. And the utility of it serving you and not serving you are to varying degrees as they are functions of those two non-binary factors. So even though I’ve reduced it down here, it’s only for simplicity’s sake because it’s still a continuous spectrum, not discrete options.

 

A question I’ve heard many times (and wondered and asked others myself) is “should I lean more into my strengths or improve my weaknesses?” Based on this framework, that’s not the most valuable question you can be asking.

 

A better question could be “In which contexts are my traits reflected as strengths and in which contexts are they reflected as weaknesses?”