find Öle & Betriebsstoffe für Ihr Auto Jetzt informieren PR CR0917 Cloud Drive Photos UHD TVs Learn More TDZ HI_PROJECT Mehr dazu Hier Klicken Shop Kindle AmazonMusicUnlimitedEcho AmazonMusicUnlimited Fußball longss17



Derzeit tritt ein Problem beim Filtern der Rezensionen auf. Bitte versuchen Sie es später noch einmal.

am 13. März 2017
Hat mein Leben glaub revolutioniert und ich hab aufgehört mich selbst zu verurteilen, wenn ich bestimmten Erwartungen nicht gerecht wurde. Jetzt sehe ich die Möglichkeiten, wo vielleicht ich mit meinen Stärken was an den Tisch bringen kann, was sonst keiner aus meinem Umfeld kann. LOVE IT!
0Kommentar|War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinMissbrauch melden
am 20. Dezember 2005
Bereits in „First, break all the rules“ hat Buckingham die Grundlagen stärkenorientierter Führung dargelegt: Talente (hier im Sinne „andauernder Verhaltensmuster die produktiv nutzbar sind“) bieten die größte Chance für Spitzenleistungen – Führungskräfte tun gut daran diese zu (er)kennen, zu fordern und zu fördern. Beispiele für Talente wären etwa das Bedürfnis zu planen und zu ordnen (= „Disziplin“) oder fühlen zu können was andere fühlen (= „Empathie“).
Im vorliegenden Buch wurde das Konzept verfeinert. Unzählige Interviews bilden die Grundlage um 34 Talente zu definieren. Konsequenterweise gibt es zu jedem Talent auch Tipps, wie Menschen mit einem solchen Talent zu führen sind. Im Idealfall weiß die Führungskraft, welcher Talente es für eine Rolle bedarf, um andauernde Spitzenleistungen zu erbringen. Personal wird nicht mehr nach Wissen und Fertigkeiten rekrutiert sondern primär nach Talent. Bei der täglichen Führungsarbeit achtet man ebenso auf die Talent-Nutzung wie beim nächsten Karriereschritt. Denn wem wäre schon damit gedient, wenn man einen erfolgreichen Mitarbeiter in eine Rolle befördert, die völlig anderer Talente bedarf?
In der Talentdefinition liegt ein wichtiger Beitrag dieses Buches. Buckingham unterstützt so die Entwicklung einer Sprache, die sich an Stärken orientiert. Ebenso wie die Medizin über mehr Ausdrücke verfügt um Krankheiten zu beschreiben als Gesundheit(en), ist auch im Management das Vokabular zur Beschreibung von Schwächen stärker ausgeprägt. Die Konsequenz daraus ist eine „Schwächen schwächen“ Führung anstatt „Stärken zu stärken“ – eine Strategie die bestenfalls zum Mittelmaß aber kaum zu Spitzenleistungen führt.
Mittels eines Internet-Tests (Dauer ca. 30 Min.) kann der Leser selbst seine 5 dominanten Talente erfahren. Der Test ist professionell und produziert vernünftige Ergebnisse. Erstaunlich dabei ist, dass die ermittelten Talente für den Probanden oft so selbstverständlich sind, dass er sie selbst in einigen Fällen nicht als Talente sondern als „Normalzustand“ wahrnimmt – bis eben der Test die Augen öffnet.
Buckingham bleibt aber Realist. Natürlich haben Menschen auch Schwächen, und diese können die Leistung beeinträchtigen. Auch dafür bietet er klare und dem Konzept nicht widersprechende Strategien an, wie man mit Schwächen umgeht.
Das Buch selbst (englische Ausgabe) ist leicht zu lesen und eine gute Mischung aus Theorie, typisch amerikanischem „How-to“, ergänzenden Praxisbeispielen und sogar Erläuterung des wissenschaftlichen Hintergrundes (statistische Verfahren etc.). Letzteres belegt auch die Seriosität der Arbeit.
Fazit: Das Grundkonzept ist einleuchtend und fundiert, der Beitrag zur Vertiefung stärkenorientierter Führung beachtlich. Man nützt vorhandene Verhaltensmuster zum Wohl aller Beteiligten anstatt mühsam neue Verhaltensmuster zu kreieren. Die übliche Führungspraxis (Schwächen ausbügeln) wird dadurch auf den Kopf gestellt. Der sich daraus ableitende Anspruch an Führungskräfte ist zu lernen Talente zu erkennen und zu verstehen, die wir u.U. selbst nicht unser eigen nennen und dann situativ und stärkenorientiert unseren Führungsstil anzupassen. Und für sich selbst gilt es die eigenen Talente zu verstehen und Rollen zu finden, in denen man diese braucht. Der Lohn sind eine erfüllende Tätigkeit und Spitzenleistung auf Weltklasse-Niveau.
0Kommentar| 13 Personen fanden diese Informationen hilfreich. War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinMissbrauch melden
am 14. September 2014
Marcus Buckingham speaks of how in our culture we are all well acquainted with our weaknesses, and we seek ways to compensate for these. We learn how to improve on what we are not really naturally talented at and try to fix ourselves. But when it comes to our strengths we are at a loss for detailed descriptions, and most of the time we are not even aware of our strongest talents. This book suggests we invest in our strengths and talents, in those things that we are especially good at and enjoy doing most. Their approach is scientific and based on an open survey they did with 2 million people that are working successfully in their field. It comes along with an online "Strengthfinder Test" and I discovered things about myself, that I hadn't been noticing as special before. I highly recommend this book to everyone!!
And if you like this idea you will also enjoy reading "Working On Yourself Doesn't Work" by Ariel and Shya Kane (link below). Their approach is less business oriented, but is definitely helpful in all areas of your life.
It's time we all discover our own greatness instead of picking on ourselves - it's the best way to stop picking on others!
Working on Yourself Doesn't Work: The 3 Simple Ideas That Will Instantaneously Transform Your Life
0Kommentar| 10 Personen fanden diese Informationen hilfreich. War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinMissbrauch melden
This book represents three very ambitious efforts. One, it argues for a new management paradigm that builds from the psychological make-up of each person in the workplace to create the most effective combination of people and tasks. Two, the book presents a new psychological mapping scheme to capture those areas where a person will display "consistent near perfect performance in an activity." Three, the book connects you to a self-diagnosis tool that you can use on-line to see yourself in the perspective of the new mapping scheme. Most books would settle for pursing just one these goals. My hat is off to the authors for their ambition!

The concept of building companies around "desirable" pyschological profiles has been in application for some time. The Walt Disney organization uses this approach to locate people who will enjoy working in their company, and to match the person to the task they will be most focused on. More and more companies are experimenting with this approach. The evidence is that it works.

So the first argument simply takes that experience one step further by formalizing it a bit. The book has many persuasive examples of how people usually do not have jobs that use their best talents. This provides another perspective on the Peter Principle. So far so good.

Next, 34 patterns of mental habits are described based on millions of interviews over 25 years. These include achiever, activator, adaptability, analytical, arranger, belief, command, communication, competition, connectedness, context, deliberative, developer, discipline, empathy, fairness, focus, futuristic, harmony, ideation, inclusiveness, individualization, input, intellection, learner, maximizer, positivity, relator, responsibility, restorative, self-assurance, significance, strategic, and woo. You need to see the descriptions to understand what these patterns reflect.

The argument is that these labels capture patterns of thinking habits that condition behavior in any situation. I find it difficult to relate to all of the patterns because there are so many. Also, without knowing what patterns work well in a particular job, I wasn't sure how relevant they are. Connection of patterns to success needs to be shown as cause and effect in a given company before this will be totally useful.

Small companies may not be able to use this tool very well because they will never have enough people doing the same task to figure out which profile is best. Everyone working in that role may have a very inappropriate profile. You will just be picking the best of a poorly-fitting lot if you select around one of them.

Then, I took the personality test on-line. There were no surprises there for me in my top 5 patterns. I also suspect that there would be no surprises for you in putting me into these categories. You would probably have pegged me as an achiever, learner, relator, focus, input person from the fact that I read so many nonfiction books, write so many book reviews, and keep books and notes everywhere (just in case I might need them again). On the relator front, if you had noticed who I like to work with and how I work with them, you would have spotted me in a few days.

However, my actual job competence is a lot different from this. Most clients tell me that they find me most helpful to them when exposing them to new perspectives on their work that allow them to make faster progress. So, I was left wondering if the tool is strong enough to do the task of making people most effective in their work without more help. Someone might develop or be born with a great talent that has little to do with the psychological profile of how she or he likes to spend their time.

To state the opposite proposition to the ones in the book, complexity science would suggest that it is a mistake to overly organize the workplace in any way. You should have as much diversity as possible. When we leave lots of room for open space and time, people will self-organize outstanding solutions. Having people focused on tasks they love might make them less aware of what else needs to be done. Behavioral scientists would argue that learning continues throughout life, and that major new habits can be formed at any time. Old dogs can learn new tricks. Why cannot new psychological mindsets be learned as well. I suspect that they can. These kinds of counter-observations were not addressed in the book, and it would have been helpful to me if they had been.

So while I was impressed by the concept that the "great organization must not only accommodate the fact each is different; it must capitalize on these differences," I wasn't sure that the authors have the best method to get there yet.

I do recommend that you read the book and consider its messages. I suspect that its application will work best in focusing people on tasks that require great persistence and consistency in order to be effective. I am less clear on how well it will work to help people accomplish more in creative tasks. Time will tell.

I suggest that you take the test and discuss your results with someone else who has also taken the test. Ask each other what insights you got from your own results and from hearing the other person's results. That discussion should start to help you imagine ways to use these insights more effectively.

May you always "derive intrinsic satisfaction" from the activities you do!
0Kommentar| 5 Personen fanden diese Informationen hilfreich. War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinMissbrauch melden
This book represents three very ambitious efforts. One, it argues for a new management paradigm that builds from the psychological make-up of each person in the workplace to create the most effective combination of people and tasks. Two, the book presents a new psychological mapping scheme to capture those areas where a person will display "consistent near perfect performance in an activity." Three, the book connects you to a self-diagnosis tool that you can use on-line to see yourself in the perspective of the new mapping scheme. Most books would settle for pursing just one these goals. My hat is off to the authors for their ambition!

The concept of building companies around "desirable" pyschological profiles has been in application for some time. The Walt Disney organization uses this approach to locate people who will enjoy working in their company, and to match the person to the task they will be most focused on. More and more companies are experimenting with this approach. The evidence is that it works.

So the first argument simply takes that experience one step further by formalizing it a bit. The book has many persuasive examples of how people usually do not have jobs that use their best talents. This provides another perspective on the Peter Principle. So far so good.

Next, 34 patterns of mental habits are described based on millions of interviews over 25 years. These include achiever, activator, adaptability, analytical, arranger, belief, command, communication, competition, connectedness, context, deliberative, developer, discipline, empathy, fairness, focus, futuristic, harmony, ideation, inclusiveness, individualization, input, intellection, learner, maximizer, positivity, relator, responsibility, restorative, self-assurance, significance, strategic, and woo. You need to see the descriptions to understand what these patterns reflect.

The argument is that these labels capture patterns of thinking habits that condition behavior in any situation. I find it difficult to relate to all of the patterns because there are so many. Also, without knowing what patterns work well in a particular job, I wasn't sure how relevant they are. Connection of patterns to success needs to be shown as cause and effect in a given company before this will be totally useful.

Small companies may not be able to use this tool very well because they will never have enough people doing the same task to figure out which profile is best. Everyone working in that role may have a very inappropriate profile. You will just be picking the best of a poorly-fitting lot if you select around one of them.

Then, I took the personality test on-line. There were no surprises there for me in my top 5 patterns. I also suspect that there would be no surprises for you in putting me into these categories. You would probably have pegged me as an achiever, learner, relator, focus, input person from the fact that I read so many nonfiction books, write so many book reviews, and keep books and notes everywhere (just in case I might need them again). On the relator front, if you had noticed who I like to work with and how I work with them, you would have spotted me in a few days.

However, my actual job competence is a lot different from this. Most clients tell me that they find me most helpful to them when exposing them to new perspectives on their work that allow them to make faster progress. So, I was left wondering if the tool is strong enough to do the task of making people most effective in their work without more help. Someone might develop or be born with a great talent that has little to do with the psychological profile of how she or he likes to spend their time.

To state the opposite proposition to the ones in the book, complexity science would suggest that it is a mistake to overly organize the workplace in any way. You should have as much diversity as possible. When we leave lots of room for open space and time, people will self-organize outstanding solutions. Having people focused on tasks they love might make them less aware of what else needs to be done. Behavioral scientists would argue that learning continues throughout life, and that major new habits can be formed at any time. Old dogs can learn new tricks. Why cannot new psychological mindsets be learned as well. I suspect that they can. These kinds of counter-observations were not addressed in the book, and it would have been helpful to me if they had been.

So while I was impressed by the concept that the "great organization must not only accommodate the fact each is different; it must capitalize on these differences," I wasn't sure that the authors have the best method to get there yet.

I do recommend that you read the book and consider its messages. I suspect that its application will work best in focusing people on tasks that require great persistence and consistency in order to be effective. I am less clear on how well it will work to help people accomplish more in creative tasks. Time will tell.

I suggest that you take the test and discuss your results with someone else who has also taken the test. Ask each other what insights you got from your own results and from hearing the other person's results. That discussion should start to help you imagine ways to use these insights more effectively.

May you always "derive intrinsic satisfaction" from the activities you do!
0Kommentar| Eine Person fand diese Informationen hilfreich. War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinMissbrauch melden
am 4. März 2014
Das Buch ist sehr gut und auf alle Fälle empfehlenswert. Leider fehlte das wichtigste Teil, der Key Code für das Strengthfinder Profil.
Amazon.de war nicht in der Lage, diesen Code zu liefern. Bin sehr enttäuscht.
11 Kommentar| 2 Personen fanden diese Informationen hilfreich. War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinMissbrauch melden
am 9. Dezember 2015
Buch liest sich interessant.
Der Anteil "Finde Deine Stärke" ist allerdings auf eine Website ausgelagert, welche via Accesscode im Buch aktiviert wird.
Mittlerweile gibt es eine Version 2.0 des Buches mit angepasster Website.
Ich konnte meinen Code nach mehrmaligem registrieren, eingeben, usw... nicht nutzen....
Die IT-technische Umsetzung ist mehr als armseelig.... anscheinend nicht eine Stärke des Authors und seines Teams... naja
life goes on :-) auch ohne meine Top 5 Stärken zu kennen....
0Kommentar|War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinMissbrauch melden
am 27. Februar 2014
Sehr interessant
Leider kein Zugangscode für den Test im Internet vorhanden
Aber sonst sehr empfehlenswert
Sehr gut auch als Geschenk
0Kommentar| Eine Person fand diese Informationen hilfreich. War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinMissbrauch melden
am 14. Februar 2014
The good thing about this book that it covers the theory and all the related questions and aspects that are important for a newcomer into the field of strength.
It is one of the best books that I read about that topic. Other than the books that basically tell you all about each of 34 strength in isolation, this one covers the diverse aspects and the FAQ.
A must read for strength fans.
0Kommentar|War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinMissbrauch melden
am 14. Oktober 2015
Wer zwischendurch Zeit findet um weiter an sich zu arbeiten und Interesse an Wachstum und Optmierung an sich selbst hat ist bei diesem Buch genau richtig. Gute Beispiele, leicht nachvollziehbar und interessant. Reflektion und Motivation pur.
0Kommentar|War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinMissbrauch melden