In my experience, people aren't so static as to have dualities. They don't fit so neatly into little descriptors.
What is a strength? Something you are inherently talented at? A skill you have plenty of experience with? A subject you have a lot of knowledge of? What you are motivated by?
What is a weakness?
I see that most people are rather adaptable to context. When you're working at a startup building an app make AI complete your Uber orders for you, there's no reason to be focused on making sure the system is scalable to a million requests per second. Most people tend to understand that. They may have a lot of experience building highly scalable backend systems, they may want to build another system like that again because it pleases them to do so. But most people will see the forest for the trees and focus on getting the project out the door in the fastest way possible because they probably won't have a million customers for a long time... if at all.
I tend to look for what people value when building a team. You'll need to match the set-intersection of the teams' values with the goals of the business. People are motivated to work on thing they value. We can tolerate working on things we don't but try to avoid doing that for too long. So if the business needs a highly reliable system because failures can lose their customers millions of dollars a minute for downtime then you'll want to stock your team with developers that value those things the company cares about.
What you're good at today can change tomorrow. You can be better at it. It's a skill, it's knowledge, it's something you can acquire: it's not an attribute or trait of you as a person.
In my time in management, I found that the commonplace psychological descriptors we use failed to adequately describe what I was seeing. Two employees may both be “detail-oriented,” but there are subcategories within that depending on where the motivation comes from and those subcategories behave differently. Some people want that A+, some people like their squares square and their circles round (and it gives them anxiety when they’re not). Those groups are different, and I don’t know what to call them.
At bottom, there are ‘simple machines’ of psychology that, in combination with each other, produce behavioral traits at the top level. We don’t really have words for them, or at least not words I can think of for the ones I see.
What is a strength? Something you are inherently talented at? A skill you have plenty of experience with? A subject you have a lot of knowledge of? What you are motivated by?
What is a weakness?
I see that most people are rather adaptable to context. When you're working at a startup building an app make AI complete your Uber orders for you, there's no reason to be focused on making sure the system is scalable to a million requests per second. Most people tend to understand that. They may have a lot of experience building highly scalable backend systems, they may want to build another system like that again because it pleases them to do so. But most people will see the forest for the trees and focus on getting the project out the door in the fastest way possible because they probably won't have a million customers for a long time... if at all.
I tend to look for what people value when building a team. You'll need to match the set-intersection of the teams' values with the goals of the business. People are motivated to work on thing they value. We can tolerate working on things we don't but try to avoid doing that for too long. So if the business needs a highly reliable system because failures can lose their customers millions of dollars a minute for downtime then you'll want to stock your team with developers that value those things the company cares about.
What you're good at today can change tomorrow. You can be better at it. It's a skill, it's knowledge, it's something you can acquire: it's not an attribute or trait of you as a person.