Comments

Neither. Both of them ignore the "missing 99%"--luck. (Read "Fooled By Randomness," by Nassim Nicholas Taleb; I've blogged it about a jillion times.)

Posted by tom peters at October 31, 2006 1:36 PM

Fortune is nuts. I've worked hard as hell. I've practiced until I was blue in the face. But if I hadn't inherited (or gotten in the first few years of my life) three aces, all that work and practice would have allowed me to be "competent"--but not to have stood out a bit from the masses.

(Then, on top of the genes bit and the early nurture bit came the "final boost," that, yes, "all important last 99%" called ... luck. See above.)

Posted by tom peters at October 31, 2006 1:41 PM

My interpretation of "Now, Discover Your Strengths" is that it's not about being successful, or "standing out from the masses"; it's about being happy in your work (or "competent" if you prefer. I don't). And I'd hate to think that being in a job that you genuinely like and enjoy is 99% luck. So, the book and article seem to be about two different things.

Still, Fortune would seem to be wrong. I would concur that "standing out" (fame, fortune, measurable forms of success) is 99% luck. Fooled By Randomness is awesome.

Posted by Joe Marier at October 31, 2006 1:55 PM

Thank you God that soccer coaches did not say ‘Sorry you are not good enough – you ONLY have natural talent and soccer is just about hard work’ to George Best, Pele and Maradona. These three became Icons BECAUSE of their natural ability not in spite of it. (That is not to say they did not work hard as well). It is a bit of both in the end but the biggest thing is probably being in the right place at the right time. Tom calls it luck and that sounds a bit like life.

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 31, 2006 2:09 PM

TP - totally - interesting in the Fortune article how Chess grand masters @ 90 IQ - savant it seems ... variance to me is pleasure vs. pain in article.

Posted by sean_revisited at October 31, 2006 2:16 PM

I don't believe that the views of Fortune and Buckingham have to be incompatable.

Surely, Buckingham is saying "if you want to learn thing XXX, then you'd better be interested / naturally talented."

Wheras Fortune are saying "the people who have made it to the top have worked incredibly hard."

I've yet to meet a FTSE-100 executive who wasn't passionately interested in what they did, and who didn't work incredibly hard. (I assume that your US execs are the same - I've yet to hear reports that they're lazy and bored.)

I'm lucky - the things I enjoy doing in life have turned out to be financially rewarding (I retired at 32, then got bored being at home, and set up another business.)

... but I'm never going to make it as a professional soccer player, irrespective of how much coaching I go to.

Posted by Mark Harrison at October 31, 2006 2:20 PM

WOW Tom, I was going to post the same title. My long time mentor and former CEO recommended the book to me. Luck opens doors, it is our job to keep them open. Success breeds success. And so on. Certainly passion, energy, love all do have something to do with it as well.

Posted by Valeria Maltoni at October 31, 2006 2:27 PM

The Fortune article flies in the face of common sense and offers no support for their position. As I put it in my blog entry on this, there's good and bad in this piece, but the part about talent being irrelevant is sheer nonsense. If it were not, I would be off singing in some grand opera house and not hovering over my laptop and crafting this post.

http://blog.threestarleadership.com/2006/10/25/fortune-magazine-outlines-what-it-takes-to-be-great.aspx

Posted by Wally Bock at October 31, 2006 2:42 PM

Really good debate Darci. I firmly believe, like others who have posted, that this isn't a case of either/or. I think most people have a lot more innate talent than ever actually surfaces-think about all the brain research that suggests that most of us use a very small proportion of our brain's capability. I also think that teachers, coaches, managers etc can spot talent when it is obvious, but miss it when it is less obvious and needs drawing out. Hence we get kids (and adults) who say "I'm no good at X" because they were never encouraged to work and practice the skills involved and gave up.On Tom's point, I think luck most often visits those who have prepared for it, whether consciously or not, through hard work and following their intuition. Ws it Pasteur who said "chance favours the prepared mind".

Posted by tomjam at October 31, 2006 3:33 PM

Tom Peters,
You mean to say that what I need to persuade you to go to
http://boards.fool.com/Messages.asp?bid=112928 and
encourage the Motley Fools to make the Grameen Foundation
one of their Foolanthropy charities is not inborn talent, not
perseverance, but PURE DUMB LUCK?

Tom, please make me lucky.

John, CRO, UUUGBI (Unaffiliated, Unconfirmed, and
Uncontrollable Grameen Boosters of the Internet
,

Posted by ShakespearesFool at October 31, 2006 3:56 PM

While the Fortune article has some interesting aspects, it doesn't address what to me is the most important point that Buckingham makes: if you're using your strengths, you'll be more motivated to work hard and practice than if you're constantly fighting your weaknesses.

For example, I've been a good writer ever since I was a child (and I did NOT have pushy parents). Over the years, I've worked hard at improving my skills through formal education, work experience, and lots of practice. But when I write I feel a sense of ease that I don't get when (say) I'm balancing my checkbook. Being comfortable with writing, and knowing that I'm good at it, gives me the impetus to work harder at it -- and I don't get this constant feedback loop with other skills.

That said, I also agree with Tom's comments on luck. If I hadn't been born into a family that valued education, loved books, and encouraged me to pursue a professional career, I might not have taken my writing seriously enough to practice it at all.

Posted by Paula at October 31, 2006 4:08 PM

Natural talent? I don't know. I'm a very good copywriter and I'm an excellent cook. Only because I studied both. Same with acoustics, business, and marketing. Work hard enough at anything and you can become very good as long as you develop an understanding of the fundamental concepts in your area of study/interesting.

That said, when I was 13 I decided to try downhill skiing. I put on a pair of skis and magically I could ski. No lessons. I skipped the snow plow entirely and was performing parallel turns on my second or third run. Who knows. Hard for me to believe that "skiing" is a natural talent.

Posted by Mike at October 31, 2006 5:45 PM

My observation is that once a certain "entry level" of IQ and talent is achieved then success is determined by drive, detrmination, enthusiasm, will, discipline, and sheer desire. See my article "It's Not How Good You Are, It's How Much You Want it" at davidmaister.com/aticles.

Posted by David Maister at October 31, 2006 6:47 PM

I completely agree with Dr.Peters and Ms.Maltoni. That being said, I must say that Luck stands in opposition to control, but not to causation. Luck is that which happens beyond a person's control. This view incorporates phenomena that are chance happenings. I recently read somewhere that there are 3 types of luck:

1/ Constitutional luck, that is, luck with factors that cannot be changed…for eg: place of birth and genetic constitution
2/ Circumstantial luck, that is, luck with factors that are haphazardly brought on…for eg: accidents and epidemics
3/ Ignorance luck, that is, luck with factors you do not know about. Examples can be identified only in hindsight.

Anyways, I love the quote “Luck is a loser’s excuse to a winner’s opportunity”

Posted by K.Sriram at October 31, 2006 11:09 PM

I think it has to be a little bit of both: natural talent and hard work. Having a natural talent for something gives us the feedback and JOY to keep doing it. I work very hard at things I'm good at/derive pleasure from. I tend to avoid things I hate. It seems so natural that I wonder why we need books (Buckingham) or articles (Fortune) to tell us this. If I HATE to cook, the last thing I will do is spend hours cooking. If I LOVE to write, I'll dedicate hours on end to the pursuit. Duh.

As to luck: sure, it plays a role. An undefinable role. So what good is it to sit there and ponder whether you are/were/will be lucky or not? That's like asking, "Is it God's will?" You'll never know. So why ask? Luck by definition is uncontrollable (feel-good, positive definitions about what happens when "preparation meets opportunity" aside). If you could "make" luck, it wouldn't be luck. So luck should be a non-factor when you set goals, dreams, hopes and aspirations.

I would rather throw myself out there believing that I can control the outcome by more than the 1% margin this forum is giving me, and fail miserably, than sit there thinking "gee, I'm just going to move around a bit and hope I get really, really lucky." Or better yet, just sit here and do nothing because if the 99% luck rule holds, I shouldn't be much better or worse off regardless of what I do.

Am I fooled by randomness? Maybe. But at least I think I can still make a difference.

Posted by Paul at October 31, 2006 11:17 PM

My golf hero Gary Player got it right - 'The more I practice, the luckier I get'

Another story I use is of the American businessman here in the UK for a Conference staying in a Hotel in Birmingham Centre. His hotel is next door to the famous Symphony Hall. During the evening he takes a walk to look around the city centre and gets lost. He sees a young man carrying a large case containing a musical instrument and like all good management thinkers he thinks to himself 'Aha ... this guy will know where the Symphony Hall so I will then be able to find the Hotel.’ He asks the musician ..' 'Hey buddy … how I get to the Symphony Hall?' ... The musician replies impassively ...' Practice, Practice, Practice.’

Posted by Trevor Gay at November 1, 2006 3:13 AM

HI Darcy

Thank you for the interesting conversation.

Wisdom to practice comes from ??? ( Many ways to explain the same).

To take it further

5 X 50 will always be less than 2000 X 5 .

What about :

Child labour laws
Education system
Parent coaching
Child obesity
Malnutrition
Basic education ....

Posted by Lokesh Nagpal at November 1, 2006 3:55 AM

I think both points of view are valid. You find out what your strengths are and then you work like hell to develop them and then excel. Just because you have a particular talent does not mean things will come easy to you. Rather, it means you have an opportunity to do something great. How many times have we lamented when someone wasted their talent?

Having said that, I think Fortune misses a huge trick when they say talent does not matter. I sit with Drucker who said decades ago that concentrating on your weaknesses only turns you into a competent mediocrity. Working on your strengths turns you into a an excellent performer.

Posted by frederick kambo at November 1, 2006 5:23 AM

I think it's down to a combination of talent (innate and learned), practice, motivation, luck, initiative, application and desire.

But this examination of the "what" factors that make a great success overlooks one aspect: the "why" factor and what is it that makes people want to be such a success.

Posted by Mark JF at November 1, 2006 7:55 AM

Real successful people work really hard to apply their innate talents to the situations that serendipity brings them.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at November 1, 2006 7:57 AM

I think the only sane view is that talent matters, but only if you follow it up with a lot of hard work. All of us probably know people who were born extremely gifted in some area, but who never put in the hard work to turn it into anything.

In some of my marketing students, I've seen it as the talent curse. They don't have to work as hard as the others, so they get lazy. And eventually the less talented students will surpass them.

But, for me to swallow that I could have become as good an artist as my cousin John...that just doesn't fly.

Posted by Lawrence Mortenson at November 1, 2006 8:46 AM

I believe that it is a combination of both talent and practice. You need to have the inherent talent and then make the most of that talent through deliberate practice. Look at how many athletes have fizzled out, where people said how much talent they had but they never took advantage of it. You can't dismiss talent complete.

I talked about this on my blog this morning - seems like this article is going to stir up quite a bit of debate.

- Travis

Posted by Travis Sinquefield at November 1, 2006 8:50 AM

The more I look at this the less I think that success is down to one specific approach/philosophy - I think it is more about finding what works for you and then going for it with passion, zeal and single mindedness

Posted by PaulH at November 1, 2006 12:10 PM

Hi Darci

The world has moved on from this type of debate - thankfully! The networked economy is full of people who do all of the above - ie work hard, practice a lot, have natural born talents, develop leadership qualities, etc.

Those who are making a real difference today are:

- First and foremost "relevant" to their audience when they speak, blog, prototype, execute their service or product delivery, etc.

- Second (as Seth Godin might say) they supply, provide, produce, deliver something that is truly "remarkable" (e.g. a 'purple cow')...

If any of us can do those two things then we will be mega-successful in this wonderful new digitized, networked, expansive world.

Oh yeah, almost forgot, what is the secret shared by those who accomplish this neat trick? They all have "a clear and certain purpose" which they pursue with "grace and passion" - e.g. Tiger Woods, Pastor Rick Warren, Marissa Mayer, David Kelly, Al Gore, Steve Jobs, et al... As people get lost pursuing their purpose with passion they simply do things and achieve results that sees their name get added to the list.....

Ask any of the people on your list (i.e. people who you admire) "how they became so successful" and I am sure they will not answer your question instead they will tell you all about what they did and who they are... They know very little about "how they got to be so successful"...

Why? Because they did not set out to be successful - their ambition was to do something to the very best of their ability and they hoped that might just be good enough - one day - to become the best in the world at what they do..

Cheers
Richard Lipscombe

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at November 1, 2006 3:33 PM

Reminds me of a quote from Richard Branson that runs something like this: "I didn't set out to succeed in business. I started businesses that interested me, and they became successful." buy viagra next day delivery

Also reminds me of "The Monk and the Riddle" and his distinction between "passion" and "drive." Drive is (in a sense) having a good work ethic -- but it's not passion. Drive can make you fairly successful, but to be truly great you need both drive AND passion.

Posted by Paula at November 1, 2006 4:22 PM

Darci - a very good extension to this debate is latest Jerry Porras book Success Built to Last (a sequel to Built to Last). Check it out, if you have some time.

Posted by Dmitri at November 1, 2006 9:54 PM

Someone with talent, but doesn't work hard has potential. Someone who doesn't have the talent, works hard and is successful, has luck. I think I'm weighing in more heavily on Marcus Buckingham's conclusions, however, I'd agree that it is not necessarily one or the other, but a combination of talent, desire, knowledge, luck and hard work. I believe playing to your strengths is much more fulfilling than constantly trying to fix and develop weaknesses - that seems to me like hard work, but is it smart work? I'm reading the book "Awakening the Leader Within", by Kevin Cashman who tells a story about the CEO who works incredibly hard, but in his desire to achieve "success" has become disconnected from his family, his community and his values. I guess it depends on how you define success.

Posted by Darci at November 2, 2006 12:18 AM

The most important thing is passion.

Posted by Marianne Powers at November 2, 2006 1:48 AM

I am reading the 'Now Rediscover Your Strengths' book, (it was given to me by soemone at Gallup) and it has since stimulated many thoughts and discussion.

One the one hand when I look at my own business (http://www.zn.be) I feel that it seems right to try to put people in the position in which they are strongest and to get them in what I call a state of 'flow' - where they can thrive by doing what they most without struggle. But this condition only seems to be temporary, because of change, circumstance or need, you inevitably fall in a situation where people need to do things that they don't necessarily like or are very talented at. And this is where I feel the theory starts to break down.

But more recently, my son, who is six years old, brought back his report card from school. Apparently he is gifted at maths but needs to work on his reading (he is getting started). Now the 'school' logic is that you need to learn the stuff that you don't know, and continue to learn the stuff that you also know. And I guess this means that you need to spend more time on learning the things you struggle than the things that you find most easy. When I think about it this seems to be the essence of learning and growth. You need to step out of your comfort zone, learn new things, and then get better at them and learn to enjoy.

Not sure where this leaves both theories - that's where I am at the moment.

Phil

Posted by Philip Weiss at November 2, 2006 5:32 AM

Philip, wish I had time for a long response. I very much disagree. While you need some competence in a raft of stuff, I'm mostly against spending too much time-effort on stuff you don't like. Among other things, shoving a hated topic down a kid's throat is not teaching--it's a high-powered eternal demotivation diet, that can have a decades-long-lifetime effect.

Posted by tom peters at November 2, 2006 8:54 AM

Darci, great Post.

Posted by tom peters at November 2, 2006 8:55 AM

Thanks, Tom, and everyone else for your input. Young people should be encouraged to step out of their comfort zone to try new things, so they can discover their true talents and passions. They should also be given permission to take a new path when the effort becomes more painful than pleasurable, so they can continue to focus on finding and developing their strengths. I imagine taking risks and failing as children creates greater opportunity for success as adults.

Posted by Darci at November 2, 2006 1:59 PM

I'm with Tom: if you force children to spend more time remediating their weaknesses than exercising (and enjoying) their strengths, this feels more like "punishment" than a challenge.

Why not enlist the child's strengths: e.g., if he's gifted in math but not a very good reader, give him "word problems" to solve. If there's a payoff (in the child's own terms) to overcoming a weakness, then he's likelier to be motivated to overcome it.

Posted by Paula at November 2, 2006 10:31 PM

Dear Tom/Paula/Darci

Great to get your input on my current discussion (please note that I continued this conversation this morning with my wife as we both have different views on the subject). Just to explain: my intuition and philosophical point of view on learning is that learning should be fun and centered around the child's motivation. I myself went to an 'alternative' school where the emphasis was on learning to develop your interests and enjoy the process, and paid little attention to academic achievement and competition. I went from this (considered by many in Belgium society as a slightly eccentric 'hippy' school) and did my undergraduate studies in Oxford (finding that there were strange similarities between the two systems).

For my own child I would like him to enjoy the same kind of experience that I had. The discussion we were having at the breakfast table was the following. Ok so if he is good at one thing (say maths) does that mean you leave the rest alone? What happens to the subjects that he might not have a natural gift for? In my school the emphasis was for 'creative' things not formal ones, so most of us end up being very good at certain kinds of thinking but reasonably weak at spelling and grammar (this is in French by the way, which can be very tricky to write). So the question is, although we all want our kids to do the stuff they love (and I really believe this), how to you teach or get them to learn, the things that they are not naturally motivated to do (reading/writing/spelling).

And the last thought on my mind is to force it down my kids throat, but are you telling me that as parents, in the grim light of day, you never had to tell a kid that they need to try to learn to focus more on a subject and put some more hard work into it (like it or not). Also when the same discussion is applied to your employees (back to the original discussion) how do you deal with people who are working on a project where they might not have the appropriate skill set? How much emphasis do you put on learning stuff you might not like (I need to get my head around numbers and accounts even though it ain't my favorite topic).

(I know most you might not have time for this discussion, but if you do I'm very interested in your point of view).

Phil

Posted by Philip Weiss at November 3, 2006 7:30 AM

Philip: People (like you and your kid) learn what they have to if the "payoff" is important to them. What does your son like to do that he'll be able to do better, or do more of, if he's a better reader? Give him a book about great mathematicians, or careers that use math, and see if he can read it.

Even more important, ask him why HE thinks he isn't doing better in reading. There may be some factor you don't even know about (I know kids whose math grades improved immensely when they got a pair of glasses and could finally see what the teacher was writing on the board).

But keep in mind that (with employees too), if you ask someone to learn a skill that's way outside their strengths, no matter how motivated they are, you'll never see the results that you'd get with a person whose strengths are in that skill area. (If most of the people on a project lack a skill that they need to complete it, ask yourself why you put them on the project? And/or hire a contractor who does have that skill to do the heavy lifting.)

Hope this helps!

Posted by Paula at November 3, 2006 4:27 PM

I just bought the book and took the test on strengths since it is a requirement for an upcoming employee meeting. I skimmed the book and my interpretation is it should have been named, "Now, Discover Your Employees' Strengths." This book give advice to managers on how to make their teams effective by tailoring job assignments to the strengths of the employees. This is common practice on sports teams or symphony orchestras, but it should be standard practice in corporations, too.

Posted by Richard in Houston at November 3, 2006 9:33 PM

Another vote for hard work and practice.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00010347-101C-14C1-8F9E83414B7F4945
(Scientific American Article)
I had a water polo coach, (one of the best Canada has seen), tell me one day when I got in the pool to help him out with a team,
"Dave there are two kinds of peoples in this world", (he never lost his French accent and influence when speaking English), "There are the Talented and the (H)ard workers... you are a (H)ard worker."
I'm not sure if all the practice in the world could have made me "great," but as a coach myself, I saw the difference between those who dedicated themselves to practice and those who didn't. Talent helped some more than others, but talent without the practice was almost sinful to watch.
I like the idea you mention that "unrealized talent" often emerges, for true greatness I think some latent talents must be discovered along the way.

Posted by Dave T. at November 5, 2006 11:03 AM

I have read the book and his other books as well. In comming form the Gallup Organization he also has a great deal of research data behind him. His main point however is that talent does not make you just"good" but we need to redefine our expectations to a much higher level. Talent shows in the ability to produce at a 300% or 200% above a benchmark or quota.

I make this point because as a trainer I get worried when people talk about not being able to teach something. In this case though Buckingham is talking about a very high level of production.
Notwithstanding the fact that we have all trained people to be good I would have to agree that talent surfaces and rises to a much higher level when given the chance.

Posted by Cam Stevens at November 6, 2006 3:36 PM

Phil -

I've always thought that the purpose of basic education was two-fold: 1) teach basic skills necessary for life today (reading, arithmetic) and, 2) to expose a student to things he or she might not encounter otherwise. Those are ways of helping us discover what we might enjoy and/or be good at.

When we become adults we're constantly faced with the tension between trying new things that may enrich our lives and developng the things we do well, which may bring us more success. These are not either/or choices. We must also deal with the fact that it will take a decade or so of work to approach mastery in any area.

In looking back on the raising of five children, I feel some our best work was when we helped them define their values and when we helped them explore new interests.

Posted by Wally Bock at November 7, 2006 11:11 AM

nature versus nurture, eh?... the fact is nobody knows, it's all hot air... pointless belief systems at work... most likely, it is a combination, but that is no more than a guess.

Posted by Wet & Windy at November 14, 2006 11:28 AM

I've posted a a response to this post on my blog: http://blog.brayergroup.com/in-response-to-tom-peters.html

Posted by Opher Bryaer at November 15, 2006 4:11 PM