Comments

Click through on the link in Madeleine's blog entry just to see the title of Lucy Kellaway's article!

Posted by cathy mosca at January 24, 2008 1:06 PM

Managing talented people is one of the major issues that a company can face. My position is probably more in line with the original article which seems to be adverse to coddling them, but the practical reality is that it doesn't always work that way.

Posted by David Tillinger at January 24, 2008 2:48 PM

Last December, I performed the contralto solo in the Bach Magnificat with orchestra to great applause and ongoing congratulatory comments --the likes of which I have received since my early youth at the age of ten. At that age, my mother kept my ego well in check with comments like "beauty is as beauty does" and "to much is given much is required."

While I received loads of adulation throughout the rehearsals from the chorus and orchestra and the very night of the Magnificat from the audience, I did what I have always done throughout my many years of performing: I honored my effort, as I was indeed pleased with the results AND was grateful for the collaboration. I have always known that everything is a collaborative effort. Even if I were singing an acappella concert, a concert of only me, it would still have been collaboration.

Why collaboration? I did the work, but I did not create the facial and chest cavities from which the sound resonates. I worked to sustain the tone, but I did not create the air or lungs which gives me the capacity to sustain the pitch and sing legato--smoothly. But I did do years and years of study, literally countless hours of voice lessons and coachings that continue to this day, although I don’t sing professionally that often these days. I try to do several performances a year.

For my effort and work alone, which brings great personal satisfaction, I humbly receive thanks. This is what others are really saying –thank you- when praise is given. If we turn the praise of others inside out or twist it another way it upsets all kinds of environments and brings about a culture of dis-ease in others. This produces the off-putting- ego-driven attitude of not simply thinking good of ourselves, but thinking MORE of ourselves than we ought. This seems to be the sentiment of the article written of in the Financial Times article.

So, for me, it's a matter of collaboration, personal effort, and the fact that I am forever learning that keeps my ego in check and my attitude of thanksgiving ongoing.

Madeleine, I'd love to share several songs recently recorded in a friend's studio with you. May I email them?

Posted by Judith Ellis at January 24, 2008 3:00 PM

The focus on talent over effort is the very thing that gets in the way. While it's true that we aren't all gifted with the same circumstances (be they genetic, financial, educational, personal connections, or what not), I see far more people hamstrung by their lack of effort than by their lack of innate ability. The only way people will improve is if they believe that they can, and that the way to improve is through a cyclical process of honest analysis of their current performance to discover weaknesses in knowledge, behaviour, or attitude and structured practice to address the areas most in need of change.

The performance psychologist Carol Dweck has done substantial work on this topic. Her first book for the popular audience, Mindset, was just released. It should be required reading for just about everyone on the planet.

Posted by Rob Huffstedtler at January 24, 2008 3:13 PM

Problems often start with the idea that because a person is "creative" they are "different" and "shouldn't be held to the standards that everyone else is." Nonsense. Business is a team sport and creating special classes of people who don't have to play by the rules poisons the team. At the same time, everyone in the workplace should be allowed some allowances that make their weaknesses irrelevant. In most companies, most of the time, the majority of innovations and breakthroughs don’t' come from the few and random geniuses, they come from regular workers when companies have the good sense to listen to them and then follow through to turn ideas into innovations.

Posted by Wally Bock at January 24, 2008 4:13 PM

Madeleine – hope you will forgive me for using sport for my point. I assure you my knowledge of singing, like my singing itself, is of no added value to this fascinating topic :-) Judith’s enlightening yet humble comments are brilliant.

Cristiano Ronaldo is the best footballer on the planet right now by common consent. He is a naturally talented player. And yet he is often the last player off the training ground. He is totally focused on improving performance. There are legendary stories of David Beckham’s obsessive practice. Gary Player, a gifted golfer, famously said ‘The more I practice the luckier I get’

Seems to me these ‘really talented’ individuals illustrate to us ‘lesser’ mortals that hard work, dedication and practice is what allows those people to maintain peak performance and seek improvement. Hang on a moment!! - isn't that the same recipe for all of us regardless of whether we are described as ‘talented’ or not?

Maybe it is not so much about ‘real talent’ as it is about individual personal standards.

Posted by Trevor Gay at January 24, 2008 4:19 PM

Very early this morning I caught the Australian semi-finals live. The Spaniard, Nadal, the #2 seed, was favorite to beat the Frenchman, Tsonga, the #38 seed. But from the very start Tsonga dominated with more winners and fewer errors. The commentators consistently described his game as creative. It was also remarked how much he looks like the great, Mohamed Ali. In retrospect, after reading Madeleine's post, I began to think, not only does he resemble the self-proclaimed "Greatest," he walks with that cool confident swagger, smiles that ever inviting smile, and performs so brilliantly that gets the audience up on their feet- roaring. Like Ali, he does not come across as an egotist. Through shouts of "alle" with both fists pumped up, he invites us in with his enthusiasm and love of the game, his good nature, his performance-both skill and swagger, and his and grace on the court. Ali is greatly loved for these same reasons. How can these things be adopted in the work environment, producing better performance?

Posted by Judith Ellis at January 24, 2008 7:04 PM

Rob- Thanks. I will check out the book by Carol Dweck. And thanks Trevor for your comments. I look for them.

Posted by Judith Ellis at January 24, 2008 7:16 PM

One effect of having a small group of "creative people" who are allowed to act like prima donnas is this:

Everyone else in the organization gets the message that they are not considered "creative."

Posted by david foster at January 24, 2008 10:02 PM

It is interesting to note that everyone is creative in their own way. On the other hand not everyone is a genius or a superstar.

As a manager, I find that I get out of my people what I put into them. If I treat everyone as a widget, then on average, I get a widget. If I recognize the superstars, but not the rest of the team, then I get prima dona's. But if I take the time to know my people, then I get a team.

And I expect the same of anyone who is going to be a manager. This is an art. And it isn't easy, but if you expect to do the unexpected, the "impossible", the brilliant, then you HAVE to do it.

Some people need a steady rhythmic pace, others want peaks. But in the end, it is bringing your people together as a team that gets the ball to the end zone. Creative types, geniuses, actuarial types, project managers and support people.

These are the makings of a team. It is the job of the leader to make them into a team.

Posted by Ben Tallman at January 24, 2008 11:28 PM

The answer is simple recruit Humble, Talented people!

I love working with great people who are not quite aware of their greatness yet - it makes management such a pleasure.

One thing I have experienced time and time again is the "one person who we cannot loose" syndrome. Snr management go nuts making sure that line managers don't loose this vital person

The funny thing is once that person does leave suddenly someone who everyone thought wasn't nearly as good steps up and drives forward. 2 months later everyone has forgotten the original "one person we cannot loose" and has another!

Posted by PaulH at January 25, 2008 7:21 AM

When it comes to nurturing talent, nothing works like a good challenge.

My first boss in an Ad Agency insisted that I write 25 headlines before he ever looks at the copy.

Looking back, it helped a lot.

Jay, from Bangalore

Posted by Jayakumar Hariharan at January 25, 2008 8:00 AM

Some great comments here. I do agree with David that managing Talent is a critical skill for the future.

PaulH's identification of Humble Talented people as a category is on the money, I think. If you look at many of the examples that folks here have cited, David Beckham, the tennis player Tsonga, and Judith Ellis, all focus on their talent in a modest way that sees self improvement and practice as essential for their own sense of professionalism.

Sadly, not all talented people are like that. Something seems to happen to some of these people as they become what PaulH calls the "one person we cannot loose". They get carried away with their own talent, and are not open to feedback for their development. Whilst they might be in a minority, my experience is that they attract a disproportionate amount of attention!

Maybe Ben points us towards a management mindset that is less likely to generate this self satisfied, even arrogant, attitude. Taking the non-widget view of people (I love that thought!), in which we as managers attempt to create the right context for everyone to be the best they can be is the most promising approach I have heard. As Ben says, that turns the management of our talent into an art.

Sadly, many of the people management systems I come up against in clients seem to want to do exactly the opposite, and to try to force people and their capabilities into catergories. I know this makes the data collection and policing of activities easier, but I suspect it completely misses the point for future success.........

Incidentally, Judith, I'd love to hear your recordings. You'll find my email address if you click on my name below. Does anyone else want a copy??

Posted by Madeleine at January 25, 2008 8:04 AM

Nurture Empathy:

Empathy will do many things.
One of these is to make you set your own bar higher.
Empathy is one of the greatest motivators and
acts as a “Call-to-Action” like few others.
Similarly, we are much better of if we learn to recognize the
emotional drivers in others.

I grew up in a middle-class suburb outside Detroit, Michigan.
My dad was a mid-level manager who worked downtown.
He worked long hours
and would often go into the office on the weekends.
He would often ask me to accompany him on Saturdays.
We could have taken the interstate the whole way in - but he never did.
Instead, he would drive the side streets into downtown
to let me see the run-down homes
to see their neighborhoods,
the hookers,
the gangs, etc.

He never mentioned anything – he’d just drive through.
This made me hungrier to achieve
and drove me much harder
than I would have otherwise -
when I really had pretty good grades in school already.

This lesson pushes me still.
Now in my adulthood,
trips to developing countries
to give medical care,
in addition to providing a great need,
(among other things)
also serve a similar purpose
that those drives through the slums of Detroit
did in my youth.
Empathy raises my bar every time.

Emotion drives us.
But we cover up this emotion
by rationalizing with our intellect.
Learn to see through your own rationalizations
as well as others.
Empathy pushes.
Empathy motivates.
Empathy raises the bar.

Posted by Jerry Brown at January 25, 2008 3:14 PM

It sounds like there is an underlying assumption that "high performing creative types" are also demanding spoiled brats. I don't believe the two descriptions are equivalent. Candid communication will help with both situations.

Posted by H. Peter Schiller at January 25, 2008 4:59 PM

Like some other commentators, I tend to bring the best out in myself when I have set myself what appears to be a very tough goal. I'm aware that others need plenty of space, but being a 'type A personality', I thrive on pressure to some degree.

I also play music in my spare time and that gives me the great opportunity to work with 'other creatives' in open mic jam sessions. You can learn a great deal from the field of music in terms of how to inspire the different types of perfoemer. Whilst there can be no 'stereotypes' in a rock band, it's often the bass player who requries 'order control certainty', liking to know important things like the song structure etc, whilst guitar players are looking for different levels of freedom for expression and so on. This level of diversity only functions because they cannot perform without each other, but there can be frequent conflicts etc.

I used to lead teams of Research and Development Scientists involved in developing new life-saving pharmaceuticals and similar principles applied there. Some wanted a high degree of specificity in both the goals and the means of achievement - others happy to work with an 'open score' to go back to the music analogy.

I've worked up the music - leadership analogy further in a book called 'Sex, Leadership and Rock'n'Roll - Leadership Lessons from the Academy of Rock' Tom found it explained a few things for him.

All the best from UK

Peter Cook

Posted by Peter Cook at January 26, 2008 11:08 AM

Wasn't it Tom who said you have to have an "at bat strategy"

Anyway, I've worked with creative people for nearly 30 years, and am a writer myself.

And one thing it took me a long, long time to realise is that not everybody thinks like us. cheap brand pfizer viagra

I mean I really thought everybody could could see things like potential, visualise and imagine what a finished product would look like from a sketch, a concept or a word description.

But they can't. And I'm not saying this to be mean or elitist or whatever, cos it was a big surprise to me when I figured this out.

And this is one of the biggest causes of friction in professional creative departments. The artists know where they're going, but they can't explain it in terms that others will understand.

The suits can't understand them, don't trust them and want to control them.

It takes a real gifted or enlightened boss to stand back and trust that her team will deliver the goods.

And that type of boss is rare.

Posted by Mark at January 29, 2008 3:12 AM

Mark,

viagra no prescription on line I could not agree more. Creative people cannot be managed but may be led.

In some industries I even think there is a schism between 'creative' people and managers based on different ideologies - divergence versus convergence, reflection versus action and so on.

The smart creative manager manages to synthesise these apparent opposites, adopting 'both/and' strategies rather than 'either/or' approaches.

The 'suits' versus 'creatives' approach is indeed doomed. In the Words of Frankie Goes to Hollywood 'When two tribes go to war, one is the most you can score ...' ! :-)) Many a true word spoken in rock music.

All the best

Peter Cook

Posted by Peter Cook at January 30, 2008 6:47 AM