Dan Erwin

What's the Best Way to Build Personal Expertise?

Most of my clients understand that their work future and long-term employability is tied to the quality of their expertise.  As a result many continuously work to build that expertise.  Although gaining new opportunities, working in stretch settings and working with cross-disciplinary peers offer fine ways to develop your expertise, those situations don't always come on a regular basis.  If you're a fairly new employee, you're liable to stay in the same job for three or four years.  If you're like me, between 18 and 24 months into a new job, I had learned most of what that job offered and I was looking for a new opportunity.  It was often six or seven months between the time I believed I was ready to move on and when I actually gained a new job. 

But there is one very personal way to keep building expertise in most any setting.  Primarily the way to build expertise is to recognize mistakes and successes, remember them and incorporate those memories into your thinking.  That's why making the process of debriefing, a subject I wrote about in an earlier post, is so very important.

Studies show that expertise is largely acquired not only by practice, but by receiving feedback that helps you understand your technical errors and misguided actions.  That's only one side of debriefing and building expertise.  The other orientation is figuring out why you were highly successful in a project, and incorporating those practices into your toolkit.  And it can be just as important to go after concrete, specific feedback on your successes--as well as your failures.

What's driving this blog is a conversation with one of my former clients this morning.  Recently he sold several million dollars worth of projects (yes, even in this economy).  I called to congratulate him on his performance, and then asked how he had gone about gaining the projects.  He was initially silent, then said he was unsure.  Finally he said that "maybe" it was just luck.  I suggested that two sales like that might have some luck involved in them, but I was unwilling to believe that was the sole reason for his success.  Finally he came up with the notion that he was becoming more strategic.  I wanted to know what he meant by that, but again, he wasn't certain.

Educator/consultant that I am, I asked him to think through the entire client development processes, and the strategic changes he'd made.  I thought they might be valuable to him, and I knew that the information would be  valuable to him and the firm in the future.

He promised to think more seriously (debrief them), and I promised to get back to him in a couple weeks.  My client has a lot of smarts, so when he puts his brain in gear, we'll get some good stuff--useful for the future.

My point: You can learn as much, even more useful stuff, from your successes as from your failures.  That's the most basic method for developing personal expertise.

A Question for Glenn Beck: Is Bullying the Way of the Martyr

All of us, the media and the newspapers have our own bias.  I'm always learning about my own bias, trying to understand it, and questioning its validity.  I read different journals and newspapers with an understanding of their bias.  I'm a regular reader of the Wall Street Journal, but on occasion want to absolutely scream about their bias and political agendas.  A Wall Street tool is one thing, but . . . well, you finish the sentence.  It does keep me up on the smart conservatives as well as the political stooges (its section on the arts is superb, and book reviews can be useful).

However, I always watch for Thomas Frank's column in the Journal.  Frank is a student of culture and ideas, a PhD in history, but never reads like an academician (I think that's a good quality).  He brings a lot of moxie and a lot of smarts to his column, and is the resident progressive for the Journal.  For that I commend Murdoch. 

Like a smart, UChicago student of American intellectual history (he's not from the Friedman economics department), he can really dissect the noise.  Today's article is exceptionally useful for it's ability to parse the language of the right wing crazies (don't be too harsh on my bias, I'm liable to talk about left wing crazies in another post).  In his discussion of how certain conservatives use their supposed suffering at the hands of liberals in order to mine the airwaves and book publishers, I think he's got it all spot on.  You may want to think about what he has to say the next time you blunder onto the cable.

Here's the article: Conservatives and the cult of victimhood: when will the GOP stop whining about the 'elites?'

What Is the Anger and Rage All About? Not What You Think. The Real Changes Can't Be Repealed.

Over the past year we've been subjected to an awful lot of political noise, especially in the past few weeks.  Far more than usual, what with tea parties, House GOP egging on disruptive protestors, and bricks through windows.  But what's the noise really all about?

There are a number of potential answers to that question.  One pundit interviewed members of several tea parties and other assorted protests.  His sample revealed that a lot of the protestors were out of work.  So, perhaps the noise was about jobs.  Maybe, but I doubt it.

Of course, many suggest that the noise is primarily about the health care legislation, what's being called, pjoratively, Obamacare.  But I noticed that even the Wall Street Journal said that most of the changes in the bill were Republican in origin.  The prototype, as Frank Rich commented, is Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care bill--and Romney, as most of us know, is a dyed-in-the-wool Republican.  Although there are some fears, many groundless, I doubt that that is the real issue.

Inevitably, a Tennessee redneck said the problem is that f----ing N---er President of ours.  Although the press can usually dig up a nice quote like that by going to the right geography, that's a pretty minority perspective also.  Although that's a piece of the real issue, it's certainly not enough by itself to drive all the noise.

When jobs are tight, there's a major American bloc who argue against immigration.  Those "damned immigrants (that's nice language) are taking our jobs, using our schools, our hospitals, and they don't deserve them."  That complaint has centuries of history behind it, and, at bottom, it's just about fear of people who are different than "us"--whoever "us" is.

And certainly there will always be some arguing against change who insist that we're becoming a Socialist nation.  I suspect that that language is beginning to lose its cachet.  It's gotten pretty old.  Besides, even the illiterate herd understands that calling someone a Socialist is merely how we protest.  Most wouldn't recognize a Socialist if they saw one walking down the street with a big sign. 

So what's all the noise really about?  I believe that Frank Rich has his finger on the real issue (especially since I've been pontificating on the same conclusion for months).  And as Rich says, we'd have had the same noise if Obama's first priority had been climate change, immigration or financial reform. Instead, the conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House--topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a gay Congressional committee chairman--would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threated minority in the country no matter what policies were in play.

So what are the demographics?  The tsunami of change is bigger than any bill contemplated by Obama or Congress.  And the change is structural.  By that I mean that the changes are long term and widespread.  During my lifetime, America went from a manufacturing economy (as in WWII and the auto industry) to a service economy, and we won't be going back.  Today, in fact, we're not really a service economy, but rather, a knowledge economy.  Without education, most are becoming outsiders to even the middle class--and that's really scary.

But when I refer to structural change, at bottom I'm talking about changes within society and about the locus of power.  White blue-collar workers no longer determine much of the major decisions in this country.  Look at the unions, many of which were populated by white blue-collar guys.  In spite of the fact that unions had their finger in Obama's election, the president has no difficulty saying no to them.  He realizes that their power is limited and getting more so. 

The demographic issues can't be avoided or changed.  The Times recently reported that births to Asian, black and Hispanic women accounted for 48% of all births in America during 2008.  Furthermore, by 2012, non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority.  The Tea Party movement, too, is virtually all white.  The Tea Party stuff will eventually go away, if not because of politics, then it'll be about demographics. 

There are also religious changes of much significance.  It used to be that the WASPs ruled the political and economic roost.  Fifty years ago, if you were Irish Catholic, the doors to privilege in Boston were closed.  Joe Kennedy bought the home in Hyannis Port only after realizing he could not gain entry into a more exclusive Boston neighborhood.  He decided that Boston was no place to bring up Irish Catholic children.  Today, a study by the Pew Center found that Protestants, in spite of the Evangelical undertow, are about to become a religious minority.  Barely 51% claim to be Protestant. 

Ultimately, the street noise today is about the changing demographics of America.  Disenfranchisement from assumed privilege and rights is a very painful experience.  And that's the major reason why there's a lot of fear on the streets.

Five Keys to Brilliance: The Fuel for Genius.

I’m excited to learn that more than 3,000 visitors  have read my post, How to be brilliant, since last Sunday.  That post grew out of David Shenk’s new book, The Genius in All of Us.  It was largely focused on the research of Anders Ericsson, the well-known father of “deliberate practice.” 

But we know that deliberate practice is hard.  It’s so hard that no one can do it without the benefit of motivation, a lot of motivation.  What can we do to develop that motivation?  Why is it so many of us seem to fall apart when we face the challenges of deliberate practice?  The answer is surprising.  Carol Dweck, the leading expert in motivation and personality theory, has discovered that the key to growth and perseverance is our mindset.  In more than 20 years of research, she’s discovered that our mindset is not a minor personality quirk. 

The motivational mindset unfolds and drives every aspect of our lives.  Long-term motivation grows out of a very basic mindset, the growth mindset.  This is not about taking more risks or believing in yourself.  Instead, as Dweck says, the belief (mindset) that your qualities can be grown leads to a “host of different thoughts and actions, taking you down an entirely different road.”  What can you do to develop a growth or mastery-oriented mindset—so that you will face up to your challenges rather than be overwhelmed by them?  Dweck has found that a focus on effort, thinking about what you could do to stay on track, and the information you can gather is the key to genius.

Here, then, are Dweck’s five keys to brilliance, the fuel for genius.  Notice that all five keys are connected, and that the mindset changes what we strive for and what we see as success. 

1.  The belief that effort is a positive, constructive force.  Success is not mistake-free or always about winning.  Those are the wrong issues.  Success is about preparation and and effort. 

2.  Development and progress are important—not just the product or the outcome.  Undue emphasis on testing can be harmful if it conveys to students that the whole point of school is to do well on these tests, and if it conveys to them that how well they do sums up their intelligence.  Jack Welch, Lou Gerstner and Anne Mulcahy are fascinating because they transformed their companies by putting a culture of growth and teamwork in its place.  These people talk journey, an inclusive, learning-filled journey, rather than about their own royalty.

3.  Substantial change, stretch and growth are the business of life, and that’s a lot of fun.  In today’s volatile business world, stretch and growth are the key ingredients for success.  My paper, “Bluff your way into a new job,” is all about stretch growth.  Research shows that stretch growth provides some of the very best work opportunities.

4.  Brains can become bigger.  Challenge is good.  Daniel Coyle’s fascinating book, The Talent Code, nails the issue:  Greatness isn’t born.  It’s Grown.

5.  Being on a learning edge is the smart thing to do.  Gains from occasional training or developmental experiences are useful.  But the really smart approach to your career is staying in the learning mode all the time.  The research shows that the more we learn, the easier and faster we can learn.  Success in the talent age requires constant learning.

Changing how you feel about yourself and your future liberates you to focus on effort.  It makes motivation a part of daily living. 

In an interview, Carol Dweck summarizes the most important findings of her research.  This is what she has to say:

What has intrigued me most in my 30 years of research is the power of motivation.  Motivation is often more important than your initial ability in determining whether you succeed in the long run.  In fact, many creative geniuses were not born that way.  They were often fairly ordinary people who became extraordinarily motivated. 

By motivation, I mean not only the desire to achieve, but also the love of learning, the love of challenge, and the ability to thrive on obstacles.  These are the greatest gifts. . . .

In Defense of Failure. Failure Is Beginning to Get Positive Play, and for Good Reason.

The March 22 issue of Time has a thoughtful article on failure by Megan McArdle, the business and economics editor of the Atlantic.  The catchy subtitle reveals the direction of the article: Making mistakes is a great American Freedom. 

Although McArdle looks at economics and politics through the window of business failure, the setup lends itself to a discussion of personal failure as well.

But first, McArdle’s perspective.  McArdle emphasizes her belief that we should be searching for the lessons of this financial crisis, but “we can’t because we’re too busy searching for bad guys.”  As she argues rather elegantly, America gives its citizens the room to fail—and if they don’t succeed, to try, try again.  That, she implies, is made possible by bankruptcy, one of the pillars of this country’s growth. 

The opportunity to fail in business differs significantly in other cultures, and those differences impact business and entrepreneurialism.  McArdle points to important statistics to support her perspective.  Somewhere between 65% and 75% of all Americans say that they have considered starting their own business.  And plenty of Americans have started their own business in this disastrous recession. 

In contrast, only 40% of Europeans say they’ve considered starting their own business.  To a high degree the willingness to start one’s own business has to do with the legal and personal attitudes toward failure.  When startups shut down and fail, America stands ready with corporate and personal bankruptcy systems, among the most generous in the world.  As McArdle notes, While the E.U. publishes documents on overcoming the stigma of business failure, executives in Silicon Valley proudly make their bygone start-ups the centerpieces of their resumes.

But pick up any paper or watch the tube and you’ll find that many Americans have changed their attitudes toward failure.  Instead of trying to identify and understand the lessons of this crisis they’re busy searching for the bad guys.  Watch a legislative hearing and you won’t find committee members trying to learn the lessons from this failure and developing new policy, you’ll see them beating up on bankers, the Fed and the Treasury.  The truth (about failure) may set you free, but first it may infuriate you.  I suspect that’s what is happening.

But, the real secret of success in any context is not about beating up on our failures or doing our damndest to avoid them, but learning from them.  Making mistakes, as McArdle emphasizes, is a great American freedom.

For years some of our best scholars have been studying how organizations and people learn.  They have come to the conclusion that failure is crucial to the process of learning.  The real secret of success, then, is to learn from the past.

Although most of us would like to believe that failure can be avoided, the fact is that we’ll fail far more times than we’ll succeed.  Furthermore, we’d like to believe that when we do fail, we learn from our failure.  But far more often than not, we don’t learn from failure.  Experience offers only the raw data, the raw ingredients for learning.  It provides information about outcomes.  It does not guarantee learning. 

Research from the Center for Creative Leadership sorts between successful leaders and those not so successful.  They found that successful leaders were better at the following:

• Routinely gathering feedback on personal performance—including failure.
• Interpreting the information they received in constructive ways.
• Using the information to adjust personal behavior and improve.

FYI: Learning is not at all automatic.  It requires a thorough and systematic examination of our failures.  We all have made our path to expertise on the stepping-stones of more failure than we care to remember.

Quotation of the Week: The Economist on Healthcare Reform

This newspaper loathes needless government intervention.  But it also thinks that it is wrong for a country as rich as America to have tens of millions of people without health insurance.  Beyond them is the much larger number of people who fear falling into that postion through losing their jobs; and the larger number again who cnnot get affordable insurance because they have an existing medical condition, or because they are too old, or because they have exhausted the "lifetime caps" imposed by insurance companies.  The health reform plan represents the last chance, perhaps for decades, of erasing one of the least creditable differences between America and the rest of the industrialized world.

--The Economist Magazine, March 20th, 2010

I find it intriguing that the leading popular economics magazine, though usually anti-government, would take this position.  Written before the bill has been passed, the last two lines from the article need our attention also:

Mr. Obama's bill does a morally desirable thing in expanding health coverage, and it does a bit on costs.  That is, on balance, enough for it to deserve to pass.

The economist, first published in 1843 emphasizes its mission:  to take part in a "serious contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress."

Initial Jobless Claims Down Again for Week Ending March 20

This morning's Labor Department statistics continue the slowly building good news for workers and the economy. 

In the week ending March 20, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 442,000, a decrease of 14,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 456,000. The 4-week moving average was 453,750, a decrease of 11,000 from the previous week's revised average of 464,750.

I should have pointed out weeks ago that it's unwise to take these figures as perfectly accurate.  There is always a level of error, though small.  Interpreting such statistics is much like interpreting psychological/personality tests.  Use the statistic as a pointer towards what is happening.  Neither the psychological statistics nor the labor department statistics are perfectly accurate. 

I write this because many people seem to need complete certainty about life, job, numbers and statistics.  Maturity pooh-poohs such expectations.

Once again, here's Mark Zandi's interpretation of the initial claims figures:  Only when claims head down to 400,000 will the economy be creating enough jobs to maintain stable unemployment.  Closer to 350,000 will lower the unemployment rate and mean that the recovery is evolving into an expansion.  When we get to initial weekly unemployment claims of 300,000, boom times are back.

A week or two ago, using input from the national Human Resource organization, I commented that their survey of HR people found that a majority of manufacturing and service companies would be hiring during the second half of the year.  The report said that although firms were still terminating employees, they were also hiring for strategic reasons.  One of my cronies asked what that means.  I noted that in a tight financial situation, there are a lot of reasons for getting terminated, and not just poor performance.  Often it's for strategic reasons or new organizatonal alignments.

This is also a place to refer you to an outstanding profile of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in the April issue of the Atlantic.  I've found myself defending him and his work on numerous occasions.  He's one of the few that actually understands macro finance, and he's quite willing to challenge those that (naively) think you could have treated the financial industry differently.  Geithner's background is exceptionally unusual and for my money, a godsend at this time.  As you may know he's been ruthlessly pilloried by both conservatives and liberals and most anyone else.  What he's doing and recommending is a major restructuring of finance and the financial industry, of economic practices, and of economic theory.  The recession and his task of restructuring is in many ways a rejection of Milton Friedman's theories which had taken over the American political and financial system.  You can learn about that issue and its rejection by Richard Posner, a leading member of the Chicago School (Friedman, et al), in a recent Businessweek article here:  Slapped by the Invisible Hand.  I notice that everybody and his uncle on the web are recommending the article.  What Posner concludes is that we cannot trust financiers to put the common good ahead of profit and so government must step in to limit the risks bankers take and occasionally repair the damage they inflict.   

Oh, I forgot, if you want more detail on who loses their job, here's a blog I wrote sometime ago: Understanding who gets laid off. 

What a Really Smart Republican Thinks About His Party's Opposition to Healthcare. David Frum on the "Republican" Waterloo.

I learned years ago that most of us live in neighborhoods with homogenous political views, read commentators who'll reinforce our deeply held positions and listen to cable pundits who reflect our thinking.  So you know who watches Rachel Maddow and who watches Glenn Beck.  Not at all the same audience.

I must be in the minority because I try to read smart commentators on both sides of the argument.  Although I tend to lean slightly left, I'm an avid reader and devotee of David Brooks who leans slightly right.  However, I pay not the slightest attention to the wingnuts of the left or the right.  What goes on too often fits in my box for unproductive partisanship, meriting no timeslot.

So I was both intrigued by David Frum's strongly worded blog on Conservatives and Republicans, entitled Waterloo.  I assume my readers remember their world history and know that Waterloo was where the Brits and the Prussians put an end to Napoleon's return from exile and hopes for empire. 

The rather astute David Frum, former speech-writer for President George W. Bush, had a lot to say about Republican attempts to turn the healthcare movement into a Waterloo for the Democrats.  He conceded that the Republicans may have made their own Waterloo, much like their disaster with Clinton in 1994.

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.  There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal.  But they were trapped.  Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible.  How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? 

I would really like to see some intelligent opposition as well as deal-making on the part of the Republicans, but that seems to be completely out of the question as a result of the media. 

In response to all that's gone on in the last few weeks, Thomas Friedman has a still smarter insight on governance and political innovation from the mouth of Larry Diamond, a Stanford University democracy expert: If you don't get governance right, it is very hard to get anything else right that government needes to deal with.  We have to rethink in some basic ways how our political instituions work, because they are increasingly incapable of delivering effective solutions any longer.

Getting a Thin Envelope at College Admission Time. But Can the Parents Stand the Rejection?

It’s that time of the year when teenage (and parental) angst can hit the roof.  Will he/she get acceptance from the college of choice? 

Today’s WSJournal article on the titans, moguls and newsmakers who were rejected by the college of their choice made a very serious blunder.  A very serious mistake.  The article pivoted on the experiences of the kid who gets the rejection.  Clearly, Sue Shellenbarger of the Journal does not understand that the high school senior is not the only one with admission angst.  Often, it’s the parents.  And that’s not true only of the helicopter parents of today’s Gen-Yers.  

I’ve been around the barn on that issue with plenty of parents--as well as with myself and my own daughters, now in their forties.  It’s not a completely fun period for parents, even those of us with the psych background to understand the not-so-healthy-stuff going on in our own heads.  We parents have a lot invested in our progeny, want them to have the best, and many of us are willing to do whatever necessary to make that possible.  As a result, though the entire process was exciting, I found it filled with tension.

My own experiences as a parent may be revelatory.  Though tempered by time, I still have strong and fond memories of my daughters’ college decision, selection and acceptance processes.

The eldest, who graduated from high school in 1962, had a sterling grade point average and resume.  Her high school advisor had told us that she deserved to go to one of the top schools.  Prior to that conversation, I had never thought in those terms.   

My daughter and I spent several days going through college catalogs at the local university until she (we?) decided that the U of Chicago was the place for her.  Just the pictures of that school were a heady experience for this blue-collar dad.  Inevitably, we went to see the famed institution and to check out Northwestern.  Of course, we were enthralled by the “Chicago gothic and ivy.”  But we were unbelievably awed by the faculty, the school’s resources and its history.  My daughter was at the admissions meeting with another 50 or so potential students for about 30 minutes, walked over to me and said, “OK, Dad.  This is where I’m going to go.  We can go home now.”  I wanted to take her to Northwestern but she let me know in no uncertain terms that she was duly disinterested, so we just went straight home.  A couple months later the thick envelope was in the mail.  It never crossed our minds that anything other than acceptance would be her experience, that is, until two colleagues of mine admitted that their kids had been rejected. 

Of course, she loved Chicago and the only occasional negative was the work load.  As the student web at Chicago says, “The most academically rigorous college in America.”  I suspect that’s true.

Although she had two backup colleges that were offering full scholarships, that went nowhere.  I went into hock, but it was one of the four or five best investments I’ve ever made.

By the time our middler was thinking college, I had left my faculty position and was consulting.  My income put an end to fears of monstrous college expenses.  That second daughter, not the academic superstar, settled  on Boston University with Ripon and U MN for backups.  I sent her to Boston where she met a "crazy" buddy of mine, the associate minister at Memorial Church, Harvard, who willingly squired her around BU with his wife, a BU student.  I was very happy with her choice of the College of Basic Studies at BU because I’d always thought that she had some academic catch-up work to do.  She’d had some physical problems, gotten behind academically, and needed those first two years in CBS.  I wasn’t certain whether it was her doing or my buddy’s playfulness, but when she got off the plane from Boston she had an army camouflage jacket and hat with an unlit cigar in her mouth.  My wife and I doubled over with laughter.  When I asked whether she’d be smoking that stogie, she responded with, “I don’t think so.”  She didn’t smoke it.

When she failed to get admitted on early decision, but was put on the wait list, I found it more painful than she.  I was crushed.  I remember her chiding me:  “Oh dad, give it up.  I’ll survive, so you can too.  Let’s look at the backups.”  As I think about it now, my feelings were childish, and my daughter was more mature about the rejection than I.  But I was quite certain she would be missing out on a unique opportunity, not easily duplicated elsewhere. I remember being in the doldrums for a week or more.   

So, we got everything going for Ripon, an easy admittance for her.  But a month later, we had a celebration when she was admitted to BU.  CBS was a phenomenally superb place for her.  As an academic, I believe that she was able to catch up with her academic losses from high school.

But our youngest was perhaps the most unique.  She was . . . well, you know.  Midwestern, motherhood, apple pie, cheerleader, academic brain, motor mouth and a willowy blonde beauty to top it all off. (After college she modeled in Europe until I suggested rather firmly that modeling was a disease, not a vocation.  She came home after a year, went back to a graduate professional school and has a fine job as a professional now.)  Yeah, and with all her personality goes a problem that I hadn’t been able to help her resolve.  She had a strong sense of entitlement that I knew could be problematic.  My concern about that issue went deep into my gut, causing me to struggle emotionally with its meaning and resolution. I was too aware that those entitlement expectations were at least partly my own failure as a parent.  Thankfully, her experience as a mother, a professional, and life, have enabled her to succeed at managing an overweening sense of entitlement.

But finding the right college for her was difficult.  Not Chicago, because she didn’t want to compete with her sister.  Besides, Chicago was “nerd city.”  Not Northwestern, because “the students look like the buildings.  All the same.”  And not Swarthmore, because it “didn’t feel right,” (that’s a valid decision for a teenager). 

While in the Philadelphia area, she went to the admissions office at Penn to talk to their staff.  Curious about a four hour session in admissions, she told me that after talking to her, seeing her grades and SAT scores, they started helping her fill out an admissions application right then and there.  She brought the financial aid material home to me, and then sent back her already completed personal profile.  Surprised by admission’s response to her, I called my buddy at Harvard wanting to know what was going on.  He responded with a lot of laughter, described my daughter with a great deal of accuracy just to confirm that his memory was on target.  I’ll never forget my shock at his response (this was in 1967).  “My daughter,” he said with much laughter, “was a classic Midwestern WASP.  Penn would be absolutely delighted to add her to their ethnic mix.”

Although her admission to Penn was nearly guaranteed, she wanted a trip to New York City to look at Columbia University’s Barnard College.  Without saying anything about the issue, I had long since decided that Barnard might be the best place, not only for her education, but also for her to have to deal with those entitlement issues that were beyond me.  I was quite certain that New York confrontations would either make or break her, and I was quite willing to gamble on it making her.  All of the Erwin females are tough, tough women.

By the time she was accepted at Barnard, I was both fatigued and happy for her.  Needless to say, she had to confront the entitlement “stuff” almost immediately, but she did so with both pain and eventual success.

I’m very aware in writing this that the possible rejection of our children was of far more concern than any rejection I’ve ever had in business or all of my life since their birth.  I had much more riding on that experience, though some of it was psychologically inappropriate.  I'm also aware that, once again, truth may be stranger and more interesting than fiction.

In the Journal article, Shellenbarger interviewed others who received college rejections, including Warren Buffett, Ted Turner, John Schlifske of Northwestern Mutual, the Nobelist Harold Varmus, and Meredith Vieira of the Today Show.

I found the advice of Lee Bolling, President of Columbia University, who was rejected by Harvard, to be among the most thoughtful.  Don’t let rejections control your life.  To allow other people’s assessment of you to determine your own self-assessment is a very big mistake.  The question really is, who  at the end of the day is going to make the determination about what your talents are, and what your interests are?  That has to be you.  That’s very true for us parents as well as for our kids.

Success Is Not Just About Practice, Practice, Practice. It's Also About Better, Better, and Better Coaching.

I’m finding that the public at large is beginning to gain an understanding of the development of expertise through what Anders Ericsson calls “deliberate practice.”  It’s been touted in all kinds of popular magazines and talked about at the water cooler.  In fact, the public is beginning to understand that the development of expertise takes a long time and a lot of effort.  That means that whether you’re trying to improve your golf score, your chess game or your project management skills, it’s not going to happen overnight.   

In their attempts to understand deliberate practice, I’ve noticed that people get the practice bit fairly well, and that they’re trying to figure out how to stay motivated and persevere in their practice and development. 

But there’s one disconnect.  Practice, practice, practice can reinforce some very poor habits and not bring you the success you want.  Practice will not help you improve your skills without regular coaching and feedback.  And that’s easier said than done.

Anders Ericsson, the father of deliberate practice, says that not only will our practice require full attention and concentration, failure is likely to arise (that’s an understatement) and that gradual improvements with corrections and repetitions are necessary.

The key phrase is gradual improvements with corrections. To become more successful we’re going to need better coaching.  Finding effective coaches on the job is a task of itself.  If coaching is available from your manager or colleagues, that’s one thing.  More often than not they can help you with all that you need. 

Over the long term, however, you may find that you really need a master coach.  In larger firms that will mean that you start working the network to find someone.  Some managers and most executives can get their company to fund a coach to work with them over a long period of time.  I usually spend ten to twelve months with a client.  It’s not unusual, however, for me to work up to two years with an exec.   

Do you need the best coach you can find?

It’s really not necessary, however, to start with the best coach you can find for developing a new competency.  As Daniel Coyle notes in the Talent Code (see my review), a large number of world-class talents start with seemingly average teachers.  But what’s important is to be able to identify when you’ve learned all you can learn from that coach.

I studied piano as a kid from the time I was in the fourth grade through high school.  Even as a kid, I realized by the time I was in the sixth grade that that I’d advanced beyond my teacher, and with my grade school music teacher’s help, found a better teacher.  Toward the end of the ninth grade, when I’d advanced so much that I could recognize some really terrific piano players around school who were obviously getting better coaching, I started asking around.  Eventually one of the top high school players suggested her teacher, a University of Michigan piano major with a master’s who had studied with the great Artur Schnabel at Michigan.  As soon as I walked into her living room and saw two Steinway concert grands, I knew that I was in a different ballpark than anything I’d ever experienced.

But looking back at that last teacher I realize something of much importance.  She was an outstanding pianist, and merely a very good teacher. 

The great coaches not only understand their discipline, whether piano, relationship or project management, or even strategy formulation, but also understand the individual and can adapt their coaching to the individual.  That requires both a deep knowledge of the specific discipline, as well as a deep knowledge of the coaching process and the ability to identify and adapt to an individual’s need.  That’s why Daniel Coyle indicates that most of the great coaches he met were all in the sixties or seventies.  (At my age, I have a real investment in that conclusion.  Ha!)

Remember this principle: Better and better coaches will be needed to support your practice, practice, practice.