One Single talent is not enough to flourish in life

Please read this blog to understand what is talent, especially the cognitive talent, and what are the four stages in the unfolding of the talent.

We have seen that A&P performers have a uni-dimensional talent like dancing or playing a game like tennis. But even in A&P field, one 'ability' is not enough to produce extraordinary results. See this example of Alexander Dolgopolov. He is a very talented tennis player, but seems to lack the capability of making a ' game strategy' that is required to succeed at the highest level. Another tennis legend, Pete Sampras, in one of his interview talked about another unique ability required by tennis players: the 'ability to find emotional support' while travelling 250 days in a year.

In A&P talents, there are many such examples of talented performers who do not seem to do justice to their talent because of lack of some critical ability. That is why a talented performer in A&P field never pursues a single ability, but a set of abilities, which we call as Talent zone. His teachers in second stage of talent development help him identify these 'complementary abilities' and nurture it.

In cognitive field, as we have seen before, knowledge work often requires a multiple set of competencies to get the work done. Be it sales, design, innovation, or management, one ability is rarely enough to accomplish the task. Or be it in medicine, law, accounts or engineering, one cannot perform excellently with one ability.

In my coaching i have found simple traits becoming an Achilees heel for an otherwise talented performer. I have seen an excellent 'sales performer' who could not flourish in his talent because he lacked the skill to 'survive in corporate culture'. Or an excellent brand manager who could not excel in his talent because he lacked the skill of 'perception management'.

Out of all the competencies that significantly determine the progress of a performer, if I have to name one, it is mind management. One of the difference between an average performer and extraordinary performer is not the  amount of 'talent', but ability to manage one's mind, or what is called as 'mental toughness' or 'mental strength'. If you are following careers in sports, you will often hear this.

If, for instance, you observe the careers of Vinod Kambli and Sachin Tendulkar in cricket, Vinod Kambli was always supposed to be more talented than Sachin.  It was Vinod who made the first double century before Sachin despite entering test arena later than Sachin. But over a period of years, Vinod Kambli could not perform as well as Sachin despite huge talent, because of  this poor mental strength.

Many students, when i talk to them, always assume that they will develop 'mental strength' once they succeed. But the ability of Mind management has to be seeded early in life to produce the fruit at the required time. Some competencies can be learnt quickly, but mind-management requires a long time to seed and mature.

Even a farmer knows this difference. If he wants a Mango or coconut, it takes 5-7 years after he plants the sapling. If he however wants grapes, apple, pomegranate or gauva, it takes about 1-2 years. If he however desires sugarcane, it takes less than 12 months. He knows he cannot shorten this time despite whatever  'effort'. Even though better techniques help him reduce this time a bit, the quality suffers !

If Vinod Kambli requires 'mental toughness' when he is not performing, he cannot learn it quickly enough. Like they say, one cannot learn swimming when one is drowning. Even if he, due to divine force, learns it, his opportunity time window passes away by the time he learns mind management. Even if learns the new skill, he will not get the chance to play cricket. Many talented performers fail at this hurdle, because they forgot or ignore to seed the 'mental strength' at the right age.

Have you started teaching mind-management to your child?

It is not possible to predict one's potential at an early age

A study@ of 120 immensely talented individuals, below the age of 40, chosen in the aesthetic field (piano and sculpting), athletic or psychomotor fields ( Tennis and swimming) and cognitive fields ( mathematics and science) was done by a researcher quoted below. After they were chosen, their process of growth from childhood to talent realisation was tracked and documented retrospectively by interviewing them, their parents, and their teachers or coaches. Such longitudinal studies covering 10-20 years of growth trajectory are rare.

Many surprising findings emerged out of this study. For instance, Parents of these talented individuals displayed three common characteristics: they were very child-centred, practiced rigorous work-ethic at home and expected children to share distinct household responsibilities.

However, for the purpose of the discussion here, this study also highlights that one cannot identify one's potential at the age of 10-15 because of four reasons identified in the study:

1. It is hard to identify potential at an early age even amongst the best:

For instance, potential of these 120 talented individuals was not 'spotted' by any objective scientific method at an early age. Teachers or parents simply spotted these individuals as 'fast' learners based on how they performed as compared to their peers in their school or locality. Parents of these talented individuals did not encourage them because they were identified as 'stars' but simply because they thought it was the 'best' course of action. But getting identified as' fast' learner helped these children to get special attention from parents and teachers at an early age. This initial learning, when got rewarded and approved, further stoked their desire of learning and made them practice harder on their talent.

2. The child's development in a talent till the age of 10-15 is very very small as compared to what is required to reach the heights of that talent. This is so small a part of what has to be ultimately achieved that one cannot claim that this 'small' achievement will lead to 'big' achievement later.

In this study, out of 120, only two of the children by the age of 10 had won 'child competitions' while one of them had won a 'national competition' in his age group. But none of the three had shown any development that was comparable to the 'masters' in any field.

While the talent development of musicians and sportsman commences at the age of 6, the talent development of mathematicians and neurologists commences at the age of 13. It is therefore almost impossible to 'spot' potential of a performer in cognitive field - lawyer, chartered accountant, engineer, consultant - by the age of 15.

3. Because talent development happens in three phases, a child developed in one phase may fail in the other phase.

Talent in this sample of 120 individuals was found to have developed through three phases of learning: the first phase of introduction ( of about 3-5 years); the second phase of 'technical mastery of the domain' (of about 4-8 years) and last phase of Expression where the artists learnt to express his work in his/her style ( 4-8 years). This is true for all the three fields: art, sports and cognitive.

Substance and style of learning as well as instruction required in each phase is completely different. Because of this big difference, being good in one phase of learning does not mean that one will be good in a later phase, even though the learning occurs in the same talent field,

In other words, it is more than likely that a child with identified potential will negotiate one phase, and may fail in the next phases of learning. Perhaps, this is why so few identified talents ultimately reach their highest levels, be it in music, sports or cognitive fields.

4. Support mechanisms to support the growth of talent in each of these phases of learning is so different, that one cannot predict that one will get that support.

For instance, teacher required in the first phase are 'nice' and 'supportive', while the teacher in the second phase are 'technically adept'. Similarly, parental support in the first phase is of 'hand holding' passive support while in the second phase the parents were required to offer active support like 'relocation'.

Because of these immense challenges in developing a talent, the author of the above study writes "We do not believe the perfecting of aptitude tests or other predictive instruments would enable us or other workers in the field to predict high-level potential talent at these early ages".

I have also written other reasons in my book 'The five great myths of career building' of why it is prudent to ignore aptitude tests in deciding child's future potential. Despite all the bottlenecks of using these predictive instruments ( like aptitude tests), you will still be surprised why parents still use them. We shall speculate these reasons at some other time!

@Benjamin Bloom: Developing talent in young people

Course in law is turning out to be an excellent option

Aditya Sondhi, an alumnus, has written a good article on " Why to become a lawyer' in TOI of 20 June. She sums it with a very apt quote from her friend, Menaka Guruswamy, on why one should be a lawyer. As she writes, it is "to advocate, for those who cannot tell their own stories, to defend those whose freedom is in peril, to prod a nation to ask of itself: for whom am I, and for what was I created?"

More importantly, from the career viewpoint, course in Law offers all the four attractive options that can help you 'make' your career the way you want ( it has all the advantages that engineering option offers to students):

1. You can work both in back office ( corporate jobs) and front office jobs ( such as litigation)

R Venkata Rao, VC, NLSU, Bangalore in his interview on TOI of 19th june, says that 'Out of 80 students, 40 go to corporate, 20 go to litigation, 10 go for higher studies, and five to NGO's'. Depending on your fitment, you can chose either of the option.

2. It offers different subject area focus which one is interested in: You can focus on Social issues like pollution or child abuse, medical issues, insurance issues or corporate issues. This freedom enables you to make career in your subject of interest.

3. It offers jobs with different kind of employers: Corporate companies, NGO's ( they are called activist lawyers like Prashant Bhushan who is with Anna Hazare on Lokpal Bill) , Freelancers are some of the known options. Aditya Sondhi lists down some interesting options like radio jockey, IT entrepreneur, politics, theatre, art, (fiction) writing, and fashion. It offers jobs in justice delivery system, where you can make big impact.

4. It offers options to work part-time and full-time, working from home or office, because of internet. LPO's, like BPO's, are becoming quite popular because e-enablement of law. So you can work from your home, helping your client in US.

Like any other course that becomes popular, many colleges are mushrooming in India. It is therefore important to find the right college. The list of top ten colleges in the country, that appeared in TOI of 19th June, will help you find the best and also the required CLAT ( Common law Admission test) score that is required to get admission into it. Some interesting info on Law is also at this link.

If Intelligence is not a good predictor of career success, then what is?

Explaining career success has been favourite topic for researchers. However, very few studies have been done to correlate intelligence with career success, because career success is measured with many measures. Although Income is one of the favourite measure of career success, other equally important measures are job satisfaction, healthy relationships and satisfied personal life.

For instance, no one has any doubt about Einstein's intelligence. That enabled him to achieve extraordinary results in his work, or job. But did that enable him to succeed in his career? Einstein had a tragic personal life. He lived apart from his family for many years,before he got divorced. Success in work may not have any corrrelation with personal life !

But studies show that even intelligence is not correlated strongly with job success, leave other measures. For instance, a meta analysis - a statistical summary of existing research - of 85 data sets from variety of countries shows that correlation between intelligence and income ( a measure of job success) is 0.2.

You may be thinking that business study grades could be correlated with income,if technical grades are not. A study of business school graduates found no correlation between grades and the eventual rise in jobs. In general, academic performance is a weak predictor of job-success, as measured by income. So the first link of intelligence to job success is itself weak. Why is this so?

Behavioural researchers believe this happens due to four reasons. One, high intelligence often causes intelligent people to believe that they know everything, causing them to be arrogant and rude. Two, it makes them difficult to understand why others behave differently and makes it difficult for them to carry others with them. They become loners. And in today's interdependent world, anything big can rarely be achieved with lone hand. Three, intelligence can be intimidating, which does not foster loyalty. Four, intelligence makes intelligent people insensitive and overconfident causing their own downfall. Enron's downfall is explained by this overconfidence, for instance.

This lack of correlation between intelligence and income ( which is one of the career success measure) has led to the idea of multiple intelligences that may be useful in accounting for other success measures. Idea of social intelligence, emotional intelligence therefore have sprung up to account career success. However instead of helping individuals to succeed in their career, this has only confused them, as this meant that they have to become Jack of all intelligences, instead of focussing on their strengths.

Every individual has a different strength. A cricketer is different than a chess player who is different than a software engineer. Each one faces therefore a different challenge in life. One has to have the specific intelligence to find and address specific challenge one faces. We call this intelligence as Career making Intelligence - CMI. CMI is an intelligence that will help you first identify the specific challenges of your career and then negotiate these challenges. As we go ahead, we believe that CMI will be able to predict career success better than any other intelligence.

Thinking competency unfolds in unpredictable ways

Graduate in Physics. Post graduate in Biology. Won Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2009. Do you know the name of this individual? Yes, it is Venkataraman Ramakrishnan.

When he was asked, in an interview, about these changes in his career,he said this is not at all surprising. He said " Science has no watertight compartments". He further added that if one looks at the list of Nobel Laureates in Chemistry, one will find that many are graduates in Physics. In other words, this is a norm, not an exceptional phenomenon.

Of course, scientists provide us an example of an individual, who changes discipline, because he sees some 'answer' which he is not finding in his existing discipline. He is driven by gain, so to say.

Most of individuals in normal life are driven to move from one discipline to another due to Pain. I met a IIT student last week. He is third year of IIT in Mumbai. He went to Kota for two years, studied hard, and got an admission in IIT. But he feels he is stifled by what he is seeing in Engineering. He was asking me if he could move to 'Management'.

During my coaching, I meet many students, who move to Engineering out of their own desire, but soon realise that they are not finding Engineering 'exciting'. Their growth has stopped for some reason. More often than not, they are unable to dive deeper in 1000 feet zone in their Engineering subjects. They feel like a fish out of water. On the other hand, they see some other students who are enjoying 'Engineering' and are doing exceedingly well with seemingly little effort. They realise that 'Engineering' is not for them. ( More often than not, they are right.)

Articles and commentators often jeer at these students and make them feel guilty. Some big leader also claims that 'if someone wanted to do management after IIT, why do students take up IIT'. However, for individuals who are making careers with their thinking competency this is absolutely normal.

They cannot find what they can do better before hand. ( No one really can!)And when they encounter an obstacle, they find another path. Infact, that is one of the great benefits of making career with thinking competency. Unlike doing competency individuals ( in sports, music and entertainment), thinking competency individuals change their professions and careers to find their calling. Only difference is that some individuals reach it through pain, while others reach it through gain.

Computers have misdirected career paths

I often speak and write how computers have created many new options in career paths. Being in a software industry, i have often seen the rosy side of the computers more than the dimmer side. In a recent meeting with parents, however, i realised how computers have also misdirected parents and students.

Parents and students often get attracted to careers in IT industry, because they see all the positive picture of working in computer industry : Availability of jobs at the campuses, air-conditioned offices, postings in foreign countries, travel in exotic places and 'white collar jobs'. Like in any other real-life situation, this is just one side of the coin.

When i meet an individual who has worked in software industry for 8-10 years, though, i often see the negative picture of choosing this career path. For instance, if they fit in the typical growth path offered by companies ( Programmer>Project leader> Project manager), they love their job and grow at a rapid rate. This category is however a minority. These are the individuals who combine programming skills with man-management. For them, the companies in this industry offers opportunities to nurture & grow their skills & promotions if you can grow in them. ( As is normal in any industry, Individuals who deepen their programming skill, instead of combining it any other skills, are also better off.)

Individuals, who combine programming skill with other skills, however face tough challenges. For instance, architecting a solution requires a combination of programming skill with 1000 feet knowledge of technologies. Although this skill is recognised as important in this industry, it is not offered similar opportunities of nurturing, neither the rewards of successful growth. Even though you may be acknowledged as a good 'architect', you still have to follow the path of 'Project manager' which is not your cup of tea !

Similarly, many other skill-combinations that require a different skill in combination with programming skill, are not rewarded in these companies. For instance, domain skill of a subject say telecom with programming skill. Or positions that require combining a different thought, say about Human resource management, with programming skill.

If you happen to belong to one of these skill-combinations you are better off in working in some other industry other than computer. In other words, computer industry is as good or as bad as any other industry in terms of nurturing the growth of your skills, except when you fall in that small minority. Instead of getting tied with a 'golden cuff' in computer industry, if you have such combinations of skills, you could be better off working in a different industry.

Weight handicap is as big as other handicaps in career

I met a school-friend of mine last week. I had gone to his home after a long time of 10 years. I remembered his daughter, Priya, as a smart, intelligent and lively kid. She was good in academics and also was active in other fields like dance. But when i met Priya this time, i was shocked.

Priya had become completely different this time. She had left her college. Did not appear for her Higher secondary exam. Did not want to join us for a movie, of which she was very fond of. Had no friends to chitchat in the evenings. Instead sat in front of the computer chatting with net friends. Watched TV all day. Her change had occurred due to one handicap: weight handicap. She was overweight.

That had triggered the entire vicious pattern. Because she was overweight, she was picked by her class friends for barbs and snide remarks. She started avoiding friends. She had changed three schools in last four years. She avoided neighbourhood friends because of the same reason. As she became reclusive and immobile, she kept on putting more weight. More stress added to more eating which further aggravated the vicious cycle. That brought her to net. When my friend told that she has fallen in love with a net friend at 18, i was not surprised. It is so logicial!

Weight-handicap is as serious as other handicaps ( what we saw as speech handicap of Hrithik Roshan) in creating such vicious patterns. And like other handicaps, it requires much more than willpower to tackle it. Like in speech handicap, it requires support of the groups ( in this case overweight kid groups) who have traveled on a similar path. And once the trigger is sparked, it requires other supporting elements and your love to sustain on that new pattern, until a threshold level is reached. The dynamics remain same.