Talent Is Overrated

Charles Bobb ALS 101 Professor Jeffrey Levine December 2, 2009 Talent Is Overrated What Really Separates World- Class Performers from E realone Else By. Geoff Colvin Senior Editor at Large, ample deal Talent Is Overrated by Geoff Colvin is a motivating book that puts outstanding performance into view. It presents a solid case that great performance does not come in the beginning from inwrought talent, or even hard work, as is supposed by close to people.The realistic value of the book comes from the practical function of the thesis. In talk of the town about world class figure skaters, he said that top skaters work on the jumps they ar worst at, whereas average skaters work on those they are already good at. In his words, Landing on your butt twenty thousand times is where great performance comes from. Each of those hard landings is able to initiate a lesson. Those who learn the lesson can move on to the next hard lesson. Those who dont pay the price and learn the lesson nev er progress beyond it.In other words, hard work and dedication is necessary but not sufficient in itself for developing higher take performance at any endeavor. All great performers get that way by working long and hard, but hard work and long hours obviously dont make people great. Many people work long and hard and stay mediocre. The meat of the book describes what the author calls hand practice, and presents supporting curtilage in a convincing manner. It matters what kind of practice, not just how long and how much sweat is spilled.Supportive on definition of innate talent Before con arrayring establish for and against the talent account, we should be as clear as possible about what is meant by talent. In eitherday life people are seldom precise about what they mean by this term users do not specify what form an innate talent takes or how it might exert its influence. reliable pitfalls have to be avoided in settling on a definition of talent. A very restrictive definition could make it impossible for any likely evidence to demonstrate talent.For example, some people believe that talent is based on an inborn ability that makes it certain that its possessor will excel. This criterion is to a fault strong. At the other extreme, it would be possible to make the definition of talent so vague that its existence is trivially ensured talent might imply no more than that those who reach high levels of carry throughment differ biologically from others in some undefined way. Yet those who believe that innate talent exists also go for that early signs of it can be used to predict future success. 1) There are many reports of children acquiring impressive skills very early in life, in the apparent absence of opportunities for the kinds of learning experiences that would normally be considered necessary. (2) Certain relatively rare capacities which could have an innate basis (e. g. , perfect pitch perception) appear to fall out spontaneously in a few children and may increase the likelihood of their excelling in music. (3) Biological correlates of certain skills and abilities have been reported. 4) Some especially compelling info comes from the case histories of autistic, mentally handicapped people classified as idiots savants. Practice makes perfect The best people in any sketch are those who devote the just about hours to what the researchers call deliberate practice. Its activity thats explicitly intended to improve performance that reaches for objectives just beyond ones level of competence provides feedback on results and involves high levels of repetition.For example Simply hitting a bucket of balls is not deliberate practice, which is why most golfers dont get better. Hitting an eight-iron ccc times with a goal of leaving the ball within 20 feet of the pin 80 percent of the time, continually observing results and making appropriate adjustments, and doing that for hours each(prenominal) day thats deliberate practice. Consi stency is crucial. As Ericsson notes, Elite performers in many diverse domains have been prove to practice, on the average, roughly the same amount every day, including weekends. Evidence crosses a remarkable range of fields. In a study of 20-year-old violinists by Ericsson and colleagues, the best group (judged by conservatory teachers) averaged10, 000 hours of deliberate practice oer their lives the next-best averaged 7,500 hours and the next, 5,000. Its the same story in surgery, insurance sales, and virtually every sport. More deliberate practice equals better performance. Tons of it equals great performance. Tiger Woods is a textbook example of what the research shows.Because his father introduced him to golf at an extremely early age 18 months and promote him to practice intensively, Woods had racked up at least 15 old age of practice by the time he became the youngest-ever winner of the U. S. Amateur Championship, at age 18. Also in line with the findings, he has never st opped trying to improve, devoting many hours a day to conditioning and practice, even remaking his swing twice because thats what it took to get even better. The business side The evidence, scientific as well as anecdotal, seems overwhelmingly in favor of deliberate practice as the source of great performance.Just one job How do you practice business? Many elements of business, in fact, are directly practicable. Presenting, negotiating, delivering evaluations, and deciphering financial statements you can practice them all. , they arent the essence of great managerial performance. That requires making judgments and decisions with broken information in an uncertain environment, interacting with people, seeking information can you practice those things too? The first is going at any task with a clean goal Instead of merely trying to get it done, you aim to get better at it.Report writing involves finding information, analyzing it and presenting it each an improbable skill. Chairi ng a board meeting requires understanding the companys strategy in the deepest way, forming a coherent view of coming market changes and setting a tone for the discussion. Anything that anyone does at work, from the most basic task to the most exalted, is an improbable skill. Why? For most people, work is hard enough without pushing even harder. Those extra steps are so difficult and painful they almost never get done. Thats the way it must be. If great performance were easy, it wouldnt be rare.Which leads to possibly the deepest question about greatness? trance experts understand an enormous amount about the behavior that produces great performance, they understand very little about where that behavior comes from. The authors of one study conclude, We still do not know which factors encourage individuals to engage in deliberate practice. Or as University of Michigan business school professor Noel Tichy puts it after 30 years of working with managers, Some people are much more mot ivated than others, and thats the existential question I cannot answer why. The critical reality is that we are not hostage to some naturally granted level of talent. We can make ourselves what we will. Strangely, that idea is not popular. People hate abandoning the notion that they would coast to fame and riches if they found their talent. But that view is tragically constraining, because when they hit lifes inevitable bumps in the road, they conclude that they just arent gifted and give up. Maybe we cant expect most people to achieve greatness. Its just too demanding. But the striking, liberating news is that greatness isnt reserved for a preordained few.It is available to you and to everyone. A Mnemonic System for Digit Span One social class Later. (2002) * Chase, William G. , * Ericsson, K. Anders Abstract With 18 months of practice on the digit-span task, a single subject has shown a steady improvement from 7 digits to 70 digits, and there is no evidence that performance wil l approach an asymptote. Continuous improvement in performance is accompanied by refinements in the subjects mnemonic system and hierarchical organization of his recovery system. (Author).Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, (20th), Phoenix, AZ, 8-10 Nov 79. Talent without deliberate practice is latent and agrees with Darrell Royal that potential means you aint done it yet. In other words, there would be no great performances in any field (e. g. business, theatre, dance, symphonic music, athletics, science, mathematics, entertainment, exploration) without those who have, through deliberate practice developed the requisite abilities Colvin duly acknowledges that deliberate practice is a large concept, nd to say that it explains everything would be simplistic and reductive. Colvin goes on to say, Critical questions immediately present themselves What exactly ineluctably to be practiced? Precisely how? Which peculiar(prenominal) skills or other assets must b e acquired? The research has revealed answers that generalize quite well across a wide range of fields. Talent is overrated if it is perceived to be the most important factor. It isnt. In fact, talent does not exist unless and until it is developed nd the only way to develop it is (you guessed it) with deliberate practice. Colvin commits sufficient attention to identifying the center of attention components of great performance but focuses most of his narrative to explaining how almost anyone can improve her or his own performance. He reveals himself to be both an empiricist as he shares what he has observed and experienced and a pragmatist who is curious to know what works, what doesnt, and why. I also appreciate Colvins repudiation of the most common misconceptions about the various dimensions of talent.For example, that is innate youre born with it, and if youre not born with it, you cant acquire it. Many people still believe that Mozart was born with so much talent that he req uired very little (if any) development. In fact, according to Alex Ross, Mozart became Mozart by working furiously hard as did all others discussed, including Jack Welch, David Ogilvy, Warren Buffett, Robert Rubin, Jerry Rice, Chris Rock, and Benjamin Franklin. Some were prodigies but most were late-bloomers and each followed a significantly different process of development.About all they shared in common is their commitment to continuous self-improvement through deliberate practice. Colvin provides a wealth of research-driven information that he has rigorously examined and he also draws upon his own extensive and direct experience with all manner of organizations and their C-level executives. Throughout his narrative, with great skill, he sustains a personal rapport with his reader. It is therefore appropriate that, in the final chapter, he invokes direct address and poses a series of questions. What would cause you to do the enormous work necessary to be a top-performing CEO, Wall Street trader, jazz, pianist, courtroom lawyer, or anything else? Would anything? The answer depends on your answers to two basic questions What do you really want? And what do you really believe? What you want really want is fundamental because deliberate practice is a heavy investment. Corbin has provided all the evidence anyone needs to answer those two questions that, in fact, serve as a challenge.It occurs to me that, however different they may be in almost all other respects, athletes such as Cynthia Cooper, Roger Federer, Michael Jordan, Jackie Joyner-Kersee, Lorena Ochoa, Candace Parker, Michael Phelps, Vijay Singh, and Tiger Woods make it look so easy in competition because their preparation is so focused, rigorous, and thorough. Obviously, they do not win every game, match, tournament, etc. Colvins point (and I agree) is that all great performers make it look so easy because of their commitment to deliberate practice, often for several years out front their first vic tory.In fact, Colvin cites a ten-year rule widely endorsed in chess circles (attributed to Herbert Simon and William Chase) that no one seemed to reach the top ranks of chess players without a decade or so of intensive study, and some required much more time. The same could also be said of overnight sensations who struggled for years to prepare for their big get about on Broadway or in Hollywood. The book adds a few paragraphs or two to the Jack Welch entry in the annals of business history. Neutron Jack unploughed people from getting too comfortable, once explaining that it wasnt 100,000 General Electric (GE) employees he eliminated, it was 100,000 GE positions. His radioactive personality aside, Welch had remarkable success grooming top somatic leaders. The equity value of companies run by Welchs proteges including GE, 3M, Home Depot and Honeywell may well exceed some national budgets, so it is interesting to learn what qualities Welch encouraged as a mentor.Welchs 4Es of l eadership help explain how he generated so much value over the years for his grateful shareholders. Krames extracts leadership ideas from Welchs track accede and makes them quick and handy. Although the book is more useful than original, we find that the articulation of the 4Es, and the profiles of Welchs proteges make it a solid addition to any business library. Colvin leaves no doubt that by understanding how a few become great, anyone can become better and that includes his reader.This reader is now convinced that talent is a process that grows, not a pre-determined set of skills. Also, that deliberates practice hurts but it works. Long ago, Henry Ford said, Whether you think you can or think you cant, youre right. It would be tragically constraining, Colvin asserts, for anyone to lack sufficient bureau because what the evidence shouts most loudly is striking, liberating news That great performance is not reserved for a preordained few. It is available to you and to everyone.