When I read Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers, I had several self-revelations. Deliberate practice and mindset were among them. But there is another thread that keeps haunting me. Gladwell’s definition of success is extreme success (mastery, really) and my cultural legacy values balance. Are these two things at odds with eachother? Is it possible to be a master at something and have “a life”?
Consider Gladwell’s assertions of the American legacy:
“early education reformers were also tremendously concerned that children not get too much schooling … In the education journals of the day, there were constant worries about overtaxing students or blunting their natural abilities through too much schoolwork.”
Gladwell then connects this value system to the agricultural requirements of the American landscape. Wheat and cornfields had to be left fallow every once in awhile or they would become exhausted. Thus, in order to cultivate young minds, they must have plenty of time to rest. This is the diametric opposite of East Asian agriculture in which rice paddies were cultivated continuously. According to Gladwell, this translated to a culture of work.
Thing is, even after reading it and finding it logical (and promising forever more to always vote for year-round schooling in the Oakland public school district), I still believe in my heart that I need balance and balance is better. That’s how deep my legacy is. Gladwell argues that you can overcome your legacy. But do I want to? Is it ok to be ambitious up to a point?
When you’re looking, you find mature talent practices in the oddest of places. Like the Church, for example.
My father-in-law is a Methodist Minister. He is “retired” now, but I have always been amazed by his career progression. He moved his family every 5-8 years to a larger church community and then finished up at a smaller, pre-retirement gig (in Carmel, no less). After a part-time overseas exchange, he now fills in at neighboring churches, having no “flock” of his own (other than the hundreds spread out around the world he still manages to keep in touch with).
Yesterday, he explained the placement practices of the Church. In January of each year, the central board asks each minister if he/she a) wants to continue on at the same church, b) wants to move to a different church, or c) is open to either. Meanwhile, the board queries the church committee in the same manner.
If it’s time for the minister to move on, a matching process commences. Moving does not necessarily mean a promotion, but it does mean a new experience and hopefully a good fit. The minister identifies the desired characteristics of the next church and may even have some specific churches in mind. The church committee also specifies criteria. A short list is identified and the committees/ministers go through a rigorous interview process. At the same time each year, placements are finalized and there is plenty of time to prepare.
My in-law’s address book is evidence that they never actually “left” any particular job, but instead continuously added new experiences and connections. At the same time, they created opportunities for others to develop their careers and really my in-laws (the minister and the nurse) are all about helping.
I have to admit I was horrified by Bob Sutton’s recent post on squirmish business words. I realized immediately that I was a bingo winner shoe-in. But, more specifically, I reflected back on the torment I have inflicted on my husband over the years. Insisting he accompany me to work parties. Claiming how “fun” and “cool” my co-workers were. “Yes” he would say, “but I can’t understand anything they say.”
“Functionality?!?” he would say. “That isn’t a word!”
Sadly, now he uses it. What have I done?
In the meantime, I have started to notice an emphasis on word choice in my business situations. What word can’t we use because it is too threatening? What word will get us a “yes” answer? What word will make everyone feel comfortable?
I don’t think any of us want to use jargon and old, tired words. But, we do want to communicate with eachother, put eachother at ease, and most importantly, get what we want.
There is a real need for Business Language 101. Bob, I’m hoping you have an “in.” Please teach us.
Personally, I like Boggle more than Bingo.
There’s a religious war waging amongst our customers. Surprisingly, it has to do with money. There are two factions: the purists and the pragmatists.
The Purists
The focus is on a healthy and timely performance process. Managers are coached on writing meaningful documents and giving useful feedback. Calibration sessions occur to target development, reach agreement on promotions, and set the groundwork for compensation decisions. The compensation round occurs afterward. Performance ratings are a major factor in the compensation decisions. Before signing off on the compensation allocation, business leaders check their graphs to make sure they have indeed paid for performance.
The Pragmatists
The compensation cycle is a known entity. The pool comes down. Decisions are made. Money is distributed. It happens at the same time and in the same way every year. Everyone knows performance calibration must be done. Doesn’t it make sense to do this after the pool is communicated? All the information is there to allocate the right pay and make sure the ratings correspond. Managers can now communicate the full message to the employee.
Is your organization a purist or a pragmatist? Is there any hope for peace?
RSS
Email
