October2006

Do you believe that you were born less gifted in talent than Tiger Woods, Warren Buffett, Jack Welch, or the greatest chess grandmasters? Most of us would say “Of course!” Well, most of us are dead wrong, according to the latest ground-breaking research on human achievement and success. The principle difference between those who are truly great in a field and the rest of us who are merely good to average is mostly hard work, according to studies reported in “The Expert Mind,” appearing in the August issue of Scientific American and in a recent Yahoo! column entitled “What it Takes to be Great,” (http://biz.yahoo.com/weekend/great_1html).

If the conclusions are sound, these studies are revolutionary in the study of human achievement. These conclusions are at once both liberating (very high achievement is possible for all) and unsettling (the available excuses for ho-hum performance have just been drastically reduced). They are also destined to reshape thinking on how to educate, train, select and develop executives, not to mention how high we as business owners set our own sights.

Before discussing some of the practical implications of these studies to entrepreneurial businesses, it may be helpful to briefly summarize these two articles.

“The Expert Mind,” the more academic of the two articles, by Philip E. Ross, focuses principally on chess grandmasters, who provide insights into how experts develop in other fields as well. Contrary to common assumptions, brain scans show that the greatest chess champions actually do less, not more, analysis of the complexities of the chess board than their less accomplished competitors. Apparently the grandmasters rely upon a stored memory of up to 100,000 different combinations and the best strategies for dealing with them. This stored memory comes only one way—through continual, relentless, obsessive practice over a period of at least ten years. So-called “child prodigies” the studies show, are no different. They simply started earlier, sometimes with the assistance of computer-aided play.

In other areas of endeavor, such as golf or driving a car, most learners enjoy fast skill development at first. Once they have reached a “good enough” level—to avoid embarrassment at the country club or obtain a driver’s license—they stop trying to improve. “In contrast, experts-in-training keep the lid of their mind’s box open all the time, so that they can inspect, criticize and augment its contents and thereby approach the standard set by the leaders in their field.”

Furthermore, success breeds success. According to Ross, a study of professional soccer players from many countries showed that they tended to be born at a time of year such that they entered elementary school older than the average child. Thus they were slighter larger and more agile than their younger classmates. This gave them the opportunity to handle the soccer ball and score more often. As a result they developed the motivation to continue to improve. Ross concludes that the preponderance of psychological evidence indicates that experts, by which he includes champion athletes, “are made not born.”

The Yahoo! article by Geoffrey Colvin drives the same points home: the elite performers in every field have one thing in common—consistent, extensive practice, every day, including weekends. Some dramatic examples: Winston Churchill practiced his speeches “compulsively.” Michael Jordan, who was cut from his high school basketball team, and Jerry Rice, who was turned down by 15 teams who considered him too slow before he became an NFL superstar receiver, practiced with brutal discipline after their teams’ regular practice. Tiger Woods was introduced to golf at 18 months of age! He has not stopped his constant improvement and disciplined practice since. In a study of 20-year old violinists in a music conservatory, the best group, as judged by their teachers, had averaged 10,000 hours of practice of their lifetimes; the next best averaged 7,500; and the next 5,000.

Colvin states, “It’s the same story in surgery, insurance sales, and virtually every sport. More deliberate practice equals better performance. Tons of it equals great performance.” To underline the point that greatness does not presuppose extraordinary natural gifts, he cites the fact that some international chess champions have had IQs in the 90s. Even physical characteristics such as height and weight, which would prevent most of us from being NFL linebackers, dictate more what you cannot do rather than what you can do.

If greatness is your goal, deliberate practice is the key. It is not enough to simply hit a bucket of golf balls 300 yards every day. Challenging goals, beyond your present level of competence, have to be set—such as 80% landing within 20 feet of the post—and feedback is critical. This explains why so many people fall short of their full potential, Colvin says. “Those extra steps are so difficult and so painful they almost never get done.” Why are some people motivated to pay that price and so many are not?

Researchers in this field admit to being stumped as to the source of the motivation to greatness. The soccer players who were motivated by their early successes provide a clue, however. These successes, I submit, create the link between the desired goal and the effort required. This link is the belief that the effort will pay off. Many people in my experience have no “mental model” of themselves or their firm succeeding beyond an average level—“It’s not worth the effort, because I could never do that!”

How can the insights of this groundbreaking research be applied at your firm? Start with yourself. Do you want to be a great CEO or executive? If so, break your own job into areas of improvable, measurable skills and practice. For example, making a pitch to venture capitalists, leading a board meeting, interviewing executive candidates, giving feedback to subordinates, rallying the company in difficult times—the list is endless. Many CEOs do similar things over and over for years on end, but very few create any formal feedback structure to allow them to improve. This is like “bowling through a curtain.” You never learn how you are doing or what to improve. Get over your resistance to feedback and find feedback sources you respect and trust, such as an accomplished mentor or executive coach.

In hiring, emphasize motivation for achievement as much as if not more than competence. Screening instruments are available to test for achievement motivation, which should not be confused with a drive to “get ahead,” make a lot of money, or become a big shot. As for technical skills, unless you run a law firm, engineering company, accounting firm or a medical facility, most of the technicalities of your firm can probably be learned on the job anyhow.

American industry spends billions every year on training and development, but most of it is at best like a weekend with a golf pro. Participants feel good, a little improvement comes of it, but not much more. A structure of constant practice, coaching, feedback and measured success needs to become a part of everyday operations if your team’s full potential is to be tapped. This includes not only celebrating the wins, but also learning from failures and mistakes. Most managers today have learned not to treat failure punitively; instead they tend to quickly pass over the disappointments to avoid embarrassment. Either way, an opportunity to promote great improvement is lost.

Look for ways to bridge the gap between what people believe they can do and what they can actually accomplish with discipline and practice. Great achievement is based upon a model of excellence and someone who coaches and believes in you. You can be that person to others. It is said that each person makes over 2,500 choices everyday. How many are made in your company with excellence in mind?

Persistence and patience are the two qualities that are common to all the stories of great achievement in these studies. If you are to promote greatness in your team, you need to focus on long-term results and retain key talent long enough to see the payoffs. Executive and top talent retention is a critical issue facing all sizable firms today, and a culture of constant learning, development, challenge, and accomplishment has been shown to be a powerful incentive to stay and to contribute far above the norm.

One shortfall of these two articles is that there is little mention of innovation and creativity, the launch pad of all greatness, I believe. The great writers, composers, inventors, and scientists of history went beyond becoming champions in the game—they created new games. Beethoven’s music was considered a rebellious scandal in his day, and the Wright Brothers’ “flying machine” was dismissed by the U.S. military brass as a mere “circus act.” Japanese industry has shown its genius to continually improve and perfect the inventions of others. American industry, by contrast, is distinguished by its innovativeness. This too requires dedication and discipline, but sometimes of a very eccentric and solitary sort. The weakness of the athletic or orchestral or chess model of excellence is that it tends to be repetitious and regimented within narrowly defined boundaries. Creative power truly does go beyond practice and persistence. Strive for greatness, then, but do not become so focused on constant improvement that you risk squelching the truly innovative. But that is a subject for another discussion.


	Mulkern Associates is a privately held consulting firm of Anthony J. Mulkern