In First, Break All the Rules, Marcus Buckingham poses a problem that managers commonly face:

    You have two sales territories that will soon need salespeople assigned to them: a promising area with lots of prospects, and a relatively poor one with fewer potential customers. Happily, you also have two salespeople who will soon need new territories: the company’s best salesperson, and the company’s worst salesperson. Who do you assign to which territory?

Most managers, he says, assign the best salesperson to the worst territory, figuring it needs the most help; and the worst salesperson to the better territory, figuring he needs the most help. And this, he says, is exactly wrong.

Do you care about averages? Or do you care about results?

The best-worst/worst-best match-up is based on a mentality that focuses on getting everyone up to some imaginary standard; keeping everyone around the center of the bell curve. In some cases, that might even be a laudable goal; if your government funding depends on everybody’s average results,for example.

But in this example, you’re in business. Your “grade” doesn’t depend on the average, your “grade” depends on the total. And the best-worst/worst-best match-up does lousy things for your total.

Let’s say (for easy math), that the good territory has 100 prospects, and the lousy territory has 10. Let’s also say that the great saleswoman has a 70% conversion rate (70% of the people she talks to eventually buy something) and the poorer salesman has a 30% conversion rate. Then your two options look like this:

Best-worst/worst-best Best-best/worst-worst
Good Saleswoman’s contribution: 70% x 10 prospects = 7 sales Good saleswoman’s contribution: 70% x 100 prospects = 70 sales
Poor Salesman’s contribution: 30% x 100 prospects = 30 sales Poor Salesman’s contribution: 30% x 10 prospects = 3 sales
Total results: 37 sales Total results: 73 sales

Or in other words, by focusing on average results and assigning your best efforts to the areas that need help, you’re throwing away about half of your sales.

Focus on strengths or weaknesses?

This problem can be generalized: should resources be spent on improving areas that are poor, or on improving areas that are already good? Again, most people choose to work on areas that are poor, to bring them all closer to balance (why improve things that are already good?). But if you want to achieve extraordinary results, you’re better off doing exactly the opposite. Improve the things that are already good because they’re already good, because they could be fantastic.

Focus on your strengths; make them even better. They’ll more than make up for your weaknesses.

The Exception

One assumption made in this analysis was that even your worst outcomes (the worst salesman in the worst territory) are still contributing positively towards the company. What if your weaknesses are so bad that they’re actively hurting you?

Say, for example, that the worst territory not only had just 10 prospects, it had 100 current customers threatening to cancel their contracts. Then the math looks like this:

Best-worst/worst-best Best-best/worst-worst
Good Saleswoman’s contribution: 70% x 100 potential losses = 70 customers retained/ 30 lost + 70% x 10 prospects = 7 sales Good saleswoman’s contribution: 70% x 100 prospects = 70 sales
Poor Salesman’s contribution: 30% x 100 prospects = 30 sales Poor Salesman’s contribution: 30% x 100 potential losses = 30 customers retained/ 70 losses + 30% x 10 prospects = 3 sales
Net results: 7 sales Total results:  3 sales

The losses in the worst territory are so significant that it’s a better use of your resources to prevent those problems than to build up farther.

Final Recommendation

Are your weaknesses actively sabotaging your strengths? If so, build them up to a minimum tolerable level before you begin to leverage your strengths. But remember that all you need is a positive contribution. Thereafter, your effort is better spent on your best qualities.