It's amazing how many theories we carry around in our heads. Mostly, they're implicit, but they have a great effect on how we view the world, other people and ourselves.
Take "talent" for example. It matters little if we're talking about playing the piano, solving equations or kicking a soccer ball, most of us believe that "talent" is an inborn trait; you've either got it, or you don't. In yesterday's Times, the "Freakonomics Steves" (Dubner and Levitt) pointed this out in a column entitled, "A Star is Made" (sub. req'd).
In the piece they highlight Anders Ericsson's work on the effect of practice on performance. Ericsson's one of the world's foremost experts on experts, on the ways in which expert performers get to be that way. Contrary to the "theory in use" that most of us have about talent, Ericsson's work demonstrates that experts get to be experts by practicing, most often by practicing something they like doing. But we can even become experts at things we don't particularly like doing, or don't think we're very good at, through practice.
This has huge implications.
Months ago, I wrote a piece entitled, "Why CEOs Shouldn't Blog." I argued there that success at blogging, as in any endeavor, required three key elements: Time, Interest and Talent. What I didn't say at that time, but learned from my mentor decades ago, was that the first two elements...Time and Interest...are the most important in determining success.
If we are sufficiently interested in becoming expert in a domain (juggling, for instance) and put in the time needed to practice the skill (a minimum of a few days of practice, says this guy), then our degree of innate "talent" for the skill becomes less and less important. Of course, those with extraordinary talent are likely to become more proficient than those with less talent, but practice will close the performance gap.
Now, I've been interested in this area for many years. I spend a lot of my time coaching executives. Most of what we talk about in that work requires that the executive practice skills and approaches, often in areas that don't "come naturally." Take "influencing others," for example. Most people think some of us are "natural salesmen," while others aren't. It's true enough that some of us are more comfortable than others at guiding people through a value proposition. But it's more than possible for anyone to learn to spot opportunities to make transactions work for both sides of a deal. And the more they practice, the better they get.
Most recently, I've been working on a model for teaching design to people who don't consider themselves, "designers." That model starts with the supposition that the key to becoming a designer is understanding some basics, and practicing design. Again, not everyone (OK, almost no one) will become a Karl Lagerfeld. But any of us can learn to use the principles of design thinking to improve the quality of our work. I'll be talking about a great deal in the coming weeks, so stay tuned for more about how you can design yourself, through practice.
Comments