Dan Erwin

HOW ADAPTABLE ARE YOU?

It’s impossible to help being struck by the phenomenal differences between George Bush and his world, and David Petraeus and his.  As many of us have long known, General Petraeus is a super-achiever, deeply reflective, demanding, and a  holder of a PhD in international relations from Princeton.  In one description of Petraeus, Linda Robinson of the Hopkins School for Advanced International Relations enumerates his empowering characteristics:  he puts no special store in his gut intuitions, surrounds himself with officers who are as analytical and driven as he, and continually adapts to the lessons of experience.  His greatest gift, Robinson argues, is not leadership, but intellectual rigor, which compelled him to mount a sustained effort to understand the Iraqi problem.

Adaptable is the key descriptive in this summary.  Adaptation has a long history in the study of human intelligence.  In the early 20th century Alfred Binet defined intelligence as the ability to adapt to circumstances.  More recent definitions such as that of Robert Sternberg, vary little from Binet:  intelligence is goal-directed, adaptive behavior. 

So what does all this have to do with business professionalism?  In October 2006, the Economist—that enemy of business simple-mindedness--enclosed a major report on the search for talent.  The editors argued that the talent wars have to be taken seriously, that companies of all stripes have become aware of the need to gather talent, that the talent war is global, and that the war for talent is shifting the balance of power from companies to workers. 

And how, with their knowledge of global business, did the editors of the Economist choose to talk about talent?  They took it to mean brainpower—the ability to solve complex problems or invent new solutions.  Solving complex problems and adaptability are correlates.  Based on that insight, Petraeus is a very talented guy—with a still greater future standing in front of him.

“Interesting,” you might respond, “but I ain’t David Petraeus.  The guy obviously was born with a lot more gray matter than me.” 

Whoaaa

Don’t be to quick to judge.  Admittedly, the background suggests a superb inheritance.  Petraeus’ father was a Dutch merchant marine captain during World War II who emigrated to the US.  His mother was an Oberlin grad (not too shabby educational background) who loved books.  A lot of the right genes, I’d say.  But think with me about so-called innate intelligence.

The fact is, new studies show that there’s only one certain conclusion about innate intelligence:  it’s impossible to judge or assess a person’s ultimate capacity.  All the rest of the so-called innate limitations—or capabilities--have been shot down by very solid neuroscience research (see my web research). 

Here’s the rest of the information about Petraeus.  He is a “striver to the max.”  He is driven to compete, but he’s also a team player.  He keeps a well organized sense of his priorities.  He worked his Army network exceptionally well and was mentored by General Jack Galvin, one of the most intellectual officers of his generation.  According to Galvin, Petraeus would challenge ideas from anyone.  He’s a can-do guy, and won’t wait for you to tell him what needs to be done.

There’s only one piece in this entire description that’s innate—we don’t really know how much capacity he has.  What we do know is that he’s worked his ass off and managed to carry it off in classic style.  He is, after all, a “striver to the max.”

What’s my point?

Just this.  Worrying about how much capacity you have, or even using that as a barometer, is a waste of time.  With long-term coaching of more than 400 clients under my belt, I know that in the new economy it’s the strivers that are successful.  I’ve had plenty of high achieving clients who I’m quite willing to argue don’t have that much innate. . . but they put their nose to the grindstone.  They work at adaptability and problem solving—and they succeed. 

One of the favorite aphorisms of the billionaire Warren Buffett is this:  Intensity is the price of excellence.  That’s the real game of life—not innate intelligence.

What do you think?

WORK SMARTER, NOT HARDER?

A current issue of the Wall Street Journal has a full page ad, largely white space, with a familiar business proverb in the center: work smarter, not harder. It’s widely known in the business world because, supposedly, it reflects a truth based on the common sense of work experience.

In 2008, it’s only half right!

The proverb dates to 1988, where it was the title for a business book written by Jack Collins and Michael Leboeuf: Work Smarter, Not Harder: How to Unlock Your Real Potential. The book is still available, and the title has been reworked for a number of different business books—suggesting its staying power.

I first encountered the proverb while consulting at Pillsbury nearly twenty years ago with a technology manager. She was one of those fabled Midwesterners, northern European in background—and she was not afraid to work hard—very hard. Yet she was stymied in her career and hadn’t earned a promotion for years. Her boss hired me to help her work smarter, not harder.

Where did this idea come from?

If you have background in advertising or marketing—or Freudian psychology—you know that the proverb works because it is highly reflective of the pleasure principle. Sigmund Freud believed that humans are driven to avoid pain and seek pleasure. He argued that self-gratification is a fundamental part of our personality, and that it enables us to get our basic needs met. When a child is hungry, and wants food, the child cries to get his needs met.  When the child needs to be changed, she cries to get those needs met.  And so, when we are uncomfortable, in pain, or just want attention, the drive for pleasure causes us to speak up until our needs are met. In business the proverb implies that if you’re working too hard, you can avoid some of the pain by working smarter.

Over the years, the proverb has continued to resurface—in various forms and uses. Much of marketing and advertising is based on the pleasure principle. We offer you a product (or service) that will satisfy you with little pain or sacrifice. The diet and fitness ads are full of those motives.

A proverb that’s not so smart

Few seem to realize that the pleasure principle is under attack on a lot of fronts—and rightly so. Freud said that the opposite of the pleasure principle was the reality principle. Today’s reality is that the global economy places terrific demands on your talents and abilities. And research is demonstrating more and more that the one thing that sets successful people apart from the rest of the herd is how hard they work to make themselves smarter and build their expertise. So the proverb needs to be corrected. No matter how smart or talented someone is—even if your name is Einstein, Mozart, or Michael Jordan—you’re not going to succeed in a big way without plenty of dedication and effort. If you want to achieve in your profession, you’re going to have to work smarter, while working harder. That’s probably not as encouraging, but it’s reality.