Average to A+: realising strengths in yourself and others, by A. Linley

Alex Linley’s newest book, Average to Aþ, is the latest in a series of books on the increasingly popular psychological topic of strengths. The earliest titles in this field were primarily borne out of an organizational development mindset. More recently, Peterson and Seligman’s (2004) research on character strengths has placed the topic squarely within the professional bounds of positive psychology. In particular, Peterson and Seligman developed a taxonomy of strengths that was thought to be more universal than those restricted to organizational strengths and culture. In creating a classification that is the everyday equivalent to Gallup’s Clifton StrengthsFinder, Peterson and Seligman reinforce the notion that strengths reside within the individual, much like personality traits. Perhaps the taxometric approach to strengths leads researchers to a personality-driven view of the subject. Linley’s book offers a counterpoint to the strengthsas-personality idea. The scientific study of personality has led to a number of competing taxonomies. Cattell (1945), for example, empirically identified 16 bi-polar personality factors such as ‘Adjustment versus Anxiety. ’ More recently, McCrae and Costa (1999) have argued for the existence of five universal personality factors such as extraversion and agreeableness. The commonly used Myers Briggs Type Indicator (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998), by contrast, uses Jungian themes as the basis of its four bi-polar personality markers. While researchers often claim the universality of personality taxonomies (e.g. Biswas-Diener, 2006; McCrae & Costa, 1997; Millon & Davis, 1996) it seems possible that personality constructs are a shell game of abstraction and specificity. The popular Five Factor Model of personality (McCrae & Costa, 1999), for example, can be sub-divided into more specific personality ‘facets. ’ Neuroticism, for instance, can be parsed out in terms of anxiety, hostility, and depression. Similarly, Millon’s 15 personality styles can each be described by two to six ‘subtypes,’ respectively. Personality theory and research seems to be the guiding model for modern strengths research and strengths and traits often seem to occupy the same conceptual space. In the same way, strengths researchers seem to be concerned with reducing the number of possible strengths to a usable and easily understandable taxonomy. It is here that Linley’s book provides its first important contribution. Linley takes an approach to strengths that supposes that they represent evolutionary adaptations that help us function psychologically, socially, and physically. Here, he is in line with his predecessors in that he acknowledges a strengths– personality link. He devotes an entire chapter to explaining how strengths are shaped by biological, social, and chance factors. When viewed through the lens of evolution, however, classifying strengths becomes less about identifying a limited number of examples than it is about mapping a broad psychological and behavioral territory. Where Buckingham and Clifton (2001) and Peterson and Seligman (2004) have arrived at their conclusions concerning the number of common strengths, Linley is preoccupied with remaining vigilant for undiscovered strengths. He appears to be as excited by cataloging new strengths as he is in working with the accepted ones. Although Linley provides the descriptions of 25 strengths in his glossary, he refers to a strengths measure he helped develop, the Realise2, which includes more than 100 common strengths. For people who feel confined by the limited number of strengths contained in other prominent strengths assessments, Linley’s approach will feel liberating. Linley’s strengths are small and familiar, describing everyday situations. He contributes examples such as ‘planful’ (the ability to focus, prioritize, and schedule to meet deadlines) and ‘contact’ (thriving on initial contact with new people) that do not appear in other taxonomies. For those who prefer the ease of more finite taxonomies, on the other hand, the seemingly limitless number of Linley strengths might feel frustrating. In fact, Linley’s understanding of strengths might be viewed as an anti-taxometric approach to the topic. If you were to look at other published works on this subject (e.g. Buckingham & Clifton, 2001; Peterson &