The Flaw In Flaws

Words: Corey Adams

The word “flaw” carries more weight than most people realize. Call a crack in a wall a flaw and everyone immediately starts looking at the wall differently. They stop seeing the rest of the structure. They stop noticing what is straight, strong, and working. Their eyes go directly to the crack. We tend to do the same thing with people.

He is a good superintendent, but communication is his flaw. She is a strong project manager, but organization is her flaw. He works hard, but leadership is his flaw. Once we label something a flaw, it starts sounding permanent. It becomes part of the person instead of something the person can improve. The label often sticks harder than the problem.

That may be the real flaw in flaws.

Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Some people communicate well but struggle with details. Some are highly organized but hesitate when decisions need to be made quickly. Some can lead a crew through complete chaos but struggle to finish their paperwork before it becomes an emergency. Those are real challenges, but calling them flaws changes the way we view them. A flaw sounds defective. An obstacle sounds beatable.

That difference matters because when an employee is labeled by a flaw, leaders tend to lower expectations around it. We accept it as part of who they are. We work around it, complain about it, and warn other people about it. Eventually, the employee begins to believe it too. “I am just not good with paperwork.” “I have never been a strong communicator.” “I am not really a numbers person.”

Those statements are usually not facts. They are repeated excuses that eventually became identities. People are not born knowing how to manage budgets, lead meetings, read schedules, or communicate through conflict. Those skills are learned. Most strengths started as weaknesses that someone was challenged and trained to improve.

This is where management often fails. We identify the weakness, label it a flaw, and then wait for the employee to fix it alone. When they do not, we act surprised. We say they lack initiative or do not care enough. Sometimes that may be true, but more often we never gave them a path around the obstacle.

If you know a superintendent struggles with cost awareness, have you trained them to read the labor budget? Have you explained cost codes and shown them how today’s manpower affects the forecast three weeks from now? If a project manager struggles with communication, have you defined what good communication looks like? Have you established an expectation for daily contact with the superintendent and coached them through difficult conversations, or did you just tell them to communicate better?

This does not mean every weakness can be trained into a strength. Some people will always be better at certain things than others. A naturally quiet employee may never become the loudest person in the room. They may not need to. They may only need to become clear enough that information moves when it should. The goal is not to turn every employee into the same person. The goal is to help each employee become more capable than they were yesterday.

Leadership should not be focused on creating perfect people. Perfect people do not exist. Leadership should focus on removing obstacles, developing skills, and placing people where their strengths create the most value. A good manager sees the whole person. They see the employee who is weak in one area but exceptional in three others. They do not ignore the weakness, but they do not allow it to erase the employee’s value either.

The way we frame the conversation matters.

A flaw feels final. An obstacle has a path around it, through it, or over it. That path still requires effort from the employee. Coaching only works when the person being coached is willing to improve. Some employees wear their weaknesses like badges and use them to avoid responsibility. “That is just who I am.”

No. That is who you are today.

A company cannot force someone to grow, but it can create the expectation that growth is part of employment. If a weakness is affecting the team, the employee has a responsibility to work on it. If they refuse, the problem is no longer the original obstacle. The problem becomes their unwillingness to move. That is a different conversation.

The next time you find yourself calling something an employee’s flaw, stop and ask whether it is truly a permanent defect or simply an obstacle that has not been addressed correctly. Have they been trained? Do they understand the expectation?

Have they received honest feedback? Are they improving? Have you placed them in a position that uses their strengths?

If the answer to those questions is no, their failure may not belong entirely to them. When we judge people by their flaws without training them to overcome those flaws, it is partly our fault when they fail. We identified the problem, attached a label to it, and then stood back waiting for a different result.

Judging people by flaws is easy. Developing people through obstacles requires work. But that is the job. Stop labeling people by the thing they struggle with most. Challenge it. Train it. Measure the progress. Give them a path to improve and hold them accountable for taking it.

Flaws are just obstacles waiting for leadership.

The Flaw In Flaws

About: Building More

The Science of a Straight Line: Why Masonry’s Smallest Decisions Make the Biggest Differences

The Utah Masonry Council's Masonry Education Day

MCAA Upstate New York: Regaining Market Share Through Education

GEN NXT: Luis Sontay