{"product_id":"talent-is-overrated-isbn-9781591842941","title":"Talent Is Overrated","description":"\u003cb\u003e\u003cb\u003e“Excellent.”—\u003ci\u003eThe Wall Street Journal\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eSince its publication ten years ago, businesspeople, investors, doctors, parents, students, athletes, and musicians at every level have adopted the maxims of \u003ci\u003eTalent Is Overrated\u003c\/i\u003e to get better at what they’re passionate about. Now this classic has been updated and revised with new research and takeaways to help anyone achieve even greater performance.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e Why are certain people so incredibly great at what they do? Most of us think we know the answer—but we’re almost always wrong. That’s important, because if we’re wrong on this crucial question, then we have zero chance of getting significantly better at anything we care about.\u003cbr\u003e Happily, the real source of great performance is no longer a mystery. Bringing together extensive scientific research, bestselling author Geoff Colvin shows where we go wrong and what actually makes world-class performers so remarkable. It isn’t specific, innate talent, nor is it plain old hard work. It’s a very specific type of work that anyone can do—but most people don’t.\u003cbr\u003e What’s more, the principles of great performance apply to virtually any activity that matters to you. Readers worldwide have been inspired by this book’s liberating message: You don’t need a one-in-a-million natural gift. Better performance, and maybe even world-class performance, is closer than you think.“Provocative.” —\u003ci\u003eTime\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e “A profoundly important book.” —Daniel Pink, author of \u003ci\u003eA Whole New Mind\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e “What an exciting book!” —Ram Charan, coauthor of \u003ci\u003eExecution\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e “I rejoice! What Geoff says comports totally with my own experiences in sports, law, and business.” —Herb Kelleher, founder, Southwest AirlinesGeoff Colvin, \u003ci\u003eFortune’s\u003c\/i\u003e senior edi­tor at large, is one of America’s most respected journalists. He lectures widely and is the regular lead modera­tor for the Fortune Global Forum. A frequent television guest, Colvin also appears daily on the CBS Radio Net­work, reaching seven million listeners each week. He coanchored \u003ci\u003eWall Street Week\u003c\/i\u003e on PBS for three years. He lives in Fairfield, Connecticut.Chapter One\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e The Mystery\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Great performance is more valuable than ever-       but where does it really come from?\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e It is mid-1978, and we are inside the giant Procter \u0026amp; Gamble      head-       quarters in Cincinnati, looking into a cubicle shared by a pair of      twenty-two-year-old men, fresh out of college. Their assignment is      to help sell Duncan Hines brownie mix, but they spend a lot of      their time just rewriting memos according to strict company rules.      They are clearly smart: One has just graduated from Harvard, the      other from Dartmouth. But that doesn't distinguish them from a      slew of other new hires at P\u0026amp;G. What does distinguish them      from many of the young go-getters the company takes on each year      is that neither man is particularly filled with ambition. Neither      has any kind of career plan or any specific career goals. Every      afternoon they play waste-bin basketball with wadded-up memos. One      of them later recalls, \"We were voted the two guys probably least      likely to succeed.\"\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e These two young men are of interest to us now for only one reason:      They are Jeffrey Immelt and Steven Ballmer, who before age fifty      would become CEOs of the world's two most valuable corporations,      General Electric and Microsoft. Contrary to what any reasonable      person would have expected when they were new recruits, they      reached the absolute apex of corporate achievement. The obvious      question is how.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Was it talent? If so, it was a strange kind of talent that hadn't      revealed itself in the first twenty-two years of their lives. Was      it brains? These two were sharp but had shown no evidence of being      sharper than thousands of their classmates or colleagues. Was it      mountains of hard work? Certainly not up to that point.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e And yet something carried them to the heights of the business      world. Which leads to perhaps the most puzzling question, one that      applies not just to Immelt and Ballmer but also to everyone in our      lives and to ourselves: If that certain something turns out not to      be any of the things we usually think of, then what is it?\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Look around you.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Look at your friends, your relatives, your coworkers, the people      you meet when you shop or go to a party. How do they spend their      days? Most of them work. They all do many other things as well,      playing sports, performing music, pursuing hobbies, doing public      service. Now ask yourself honestly: How well do they do what they      do?\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e The most likely answer is that they do it fine. They do it well      enough to keep doing it. At work they don't get fired and probably      get promoted a number of times. They play sports or pursue their      other interests well enough to enjoy them. But the odds are that      few if any of the people around you are truly great at what they      do-awesomely, amazingly, world-class excellent.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Why-exactly why-aren't they? Why don't they manage businesses like      Jack Welch or Andy Grove did, or play golf like Tiger Woods did,      or play the violin like Jascha Heifetz did? After all, most of      them are good, conscientious people, and they probably work      diligently. Some of them have been at it for a very long      time-twenty, thirty, forty years. Why isn't that enough to make      them great performers? It clearly isn't. The hard truth is that      virtually none of them has achieved greatness or come even close,      and only a tiny few ever will.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e This is a mystery so commonplace that we scarcely notice it, yet      it's critically important to the success or failure of our      organizations, the causes we believe in, and our own lives. In      some cases we can give plausible explanations, saying that we're      less than terrific at hobbies and games because we don't take them      all that seriously. But what about our work? We prepare for it      through years of education and devote most of our waking hours to      it. Most of us would be embarrassed to add up the total hours      we've spent on our jobs and then compare that number with the      hours we've given to other priorities that we claim are more      important, like our families; the figures would show that work is      our real priority. Yet after all those hours and all those years,      most people are just okay at what they do.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e In fact the reality is more puzzling than that. Extensive research      in a wide range of fields shows that many people not only fail to      become outstandingly good at what they do, no matter how many      years they spend doing it, they frequently don't even get any      better than they were when they started. Auditors with years of      experience were no better at detecting corporate fraud-a fairly      important skill for an auditor-than were freshly trained rookies.      When it comes to judging personality disorders, which is one of      the things we count on clinical psychologists to do, length of      clinical experience told nothing about skill-\"the correlations,\"      concluded some of the leading researchers, \"are roughly zero.\"      Surgeons were no better at predicting hospital stays after surgery      than residents were. In field after field, when it came to      centrally important skills-stockbrokers recommending stocks,      parole officers predicting recidivism, college admissions      officials judging applicants-people with lots of experience were      no better at their jobs than those with very little experience.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e The most recent studies of business managers confirm these      results. Researchers from the INSEAD business school in France and      the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School call the phenomenon \"the      experience trap.\" Their key finding: While companies typically      value experienced managers, rigorous study shows that, on average,      \"managers with experience did not produce high-caliber outcomes.\"\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Bizarre as this seems, in at least a few fields it gets one degree             odder. Occasionally people actually get worse with experience.      More experienced doctors reliably score lower on tests of medical      knowledge than do less experienced doctors; general physicians      also become less skilled over time at diagnosing heart sounds and      X-rays. Auditors become less skilled at certain types of      evaluations.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e What is especially troubling about these findings is the way they      deepen, rather than solve, the mystery of great performance. When      asked to explain why a few people are so excellent at what they      do, most of us have two answers, and the first one is hard work.      People get extremely good at something because they work hard at      it. We tell our kids that if they just work hard, they'll be fine.      It turns out that this is exactly right. They'll be fine, just      like all those other people who work at something for most of      their lives and get along perfectly acceptably but never become      particularly good at it. The research confirms that merely putting      in the years isn't much help to someone who wants to be a great      performer.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e So our instinctive first answer to the question of exceptional      performance does not hold up.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Our second answer is the opposite of the first, but that doesn't      stop us from believing it fervently. It goes back at least      twenty-six hundred years, to the time of Homer:\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Call in the inspired bard Demodocus.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e God has given the man the gift of song.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e That's from the Odyssey, one of many references in it and the      Iliad to the god-given gifts of various characters. We've changed      our views on a lot of important matters since then-how the planets      move, where diseases come from-but we have not changed our views      on what makes some people extraordinarily good at what they do. We      still think what Homer thought: that the awesomely great,      apparently super-       human performers around us came into this world with a gift for      doing exactly what they ended up doing-in the case of Demodocus,      composing and singing. We use the same words that the ancient      Greeks used, simply translated. We still say, as Homer did, that      great performers are inspired, meaning that their greatness was      breathed into them by gods or muses. We still say they have a      gift, which is to say their greatness was given to them, for      reasons no one can explain, by someone or something apart from      themselves.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e We believe further that such people had the great good fortune to      discover their gift, usually early in life. While this explanation      of great performance obviously contradicts the just-work-hard      explanation, it's much more deeply rooted and in some ways is more      satisfying. It explains why great performers seem to do      effortlessly certain things that most of us can't imagine doing at      all, whether it's forming a strategy for a multibillion-dollar      company or playing the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto or hitting a      golf ball 330 yards. The natural-gift explanation also explains      why extraordinary performers are so rare; god-given talents are      presumably not handed out willy-nilly.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e This explanation has the additional advantage of helping most of      us come to somewhat melancholy terms with our own performance. A      god-given gift is a one-in-a-million thing. You have it or you      don't. If you don't-and of course most of us don't-then it follows      that you should just forget now about ever coming close to      greatness.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Thus it's clear why most of us don't dwell on the mystery of great      performance. We don't think it's a mystery. We've got a couple of      explanations in our head, and if it ever occurs to us that the      first one is clearly wrong, well, the second one is what we really      believe anyway. And the nicest thing about the second explanation      is that it takes the matter of great performance out of our hands.      If we were really a natural at anything, we'd know it by now.      Since we're not, we can worry about other things.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e The trouble with this explanation-except it isn't trouble, it's      excellent news-is that it's wrong. Great performance is in our      hands far more than most of us ever suspected.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e New Findings on Great Performance\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e It turns out that our knowledge of great performance, like our      knowledge of everything else, has actually advanced quite a bit in      the past couple of millennia. Scientists began turning their      attention to it in a big way about 150 years ago, but what's most      important is the growing mountain of research that has accumulated      in just the past forty years. When this book was first published,      that research was little known outside of a small group of      academics; most people's beliefs about great performance were the      same as Homer's. The findings were strikingly clear and obviously      important. They just hadn't made their way into people's heads.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Interest in the reality of great performance has since exploded.      This surge in interest has triggered an avalanche of books and      articles-some of them accurate and helpful, others quite      misleading-prompting a secondary avalanche of new research. On the      whole, these newer studies have overwhelmingly supported the key      findings of the foundational research. A few studies have sought      to disprove the big-picture thesis of the work (and of this book).      About the best that can be said for such studies is that they      succeeded in attracting media attention, which in some cases      seemed to be their primary purpose. But a close look shows that      these studies mostly \"debunk\" claims that the foundational      research never made, or that their data do not support the      conclusions the authors draw, as we shall see.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e More important, the debate has moved beyond the scientific      journals and into the real world, where there really is no debate.      The new findings about great performance are revolutionizing the      way people everywhere learn new skills. People and organizations      worldwide have used the principles described in this book to get      better at all manner of pursuits: playing video games, drawing      pictures, drawing a handgun (from its holster), trading stocks,      inserting a needle into a patient's vein, writing software,      writing a story, selling anything, learning American Sign      Language, teaching math, taking photographs, performing      psychotherapy, playing countless sports and musical instruments,      and much else. In many cases the performance improvements are      dramatically greater than any advances previously achieved.      Ordinary people are discovering for themselves that the      researchers' findings are powerfully valid. Conducted by      scientists around the world, who have looked into top-level      performance in a wide array of fields, including management,      chess, swimming, surgery, jet piloting, violin playing, sales,      novel writing, and many others, these hundreds of research studies      have converged on some major conclusions that directly contradict      most of what we all think we know about great performance.      Specifically:\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e ¥    The gifts possessed by the best performers are not at all      what we think they are. They are certainly not enough to explain      the achievements of such people-and that's if these gifts exist at      all. Some researchers now argue that specifically targeted innate      abilities are simply fiction. That is, you are not a natural-born      clarinet virtuoso or car salesman or bond trader or brain      surgeon-because no one is. Not all researchers are prepared to      accept that view, but the talent advocates have a surprisingly      difficult time demonstrating that even those natural gifts they      believe they can substantiate are particularly important in      attaining great performance.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e ¥    Going beyond the question of specific innate gifts, even the      general abilities that we typically believe characterize the      greats are not what we think. In many realms-chess, music,      business, medicine-we assume that the outstanding performers must      possess staggering intelligence or gigantic memories. Some do, but      many do not. For example, some people have become international      chess masters though they possess below-average IQs. So whatever      it is that makes these people special, it doesn't depend on      superhuman general abilities. On that score, a great many of them      are amazingly average.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e ¥    The factor that seems to explain the most about great      performance is something the researchers call deliberate practice.      Exactly what        that is and isn't turns out to be extremely important. It      definitely isn't what most of us do on the job every day, which      begins to explain the great mystery of the workplace-why we're      surrounded by so many people who have worked hard for decades but      have never approached greatness. Deliberate practice is also not      what most of us do when we think we're practicing golf or the oboe      or any of our other interests. Deliberate practice is hard. It      hurts. But it works. More of it equals better performance. Tons of      it equals great performance.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e While there's a lot to be said about deliberate practice, a few      initial observations are key:\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e ¥    Deliberate practice is a large concept, and to say that it      explains everything would be simplistic and reductive. Critical      questions immediately present themselves: What exactly needs to be      practiced? Precisely how? Which specific skills or other assets      must be acquired? The research has revealed answers that      generalize quite well across a wide range of fields. It certainly      seems daunting to seek a common explanation for greatness in both      ballet and medical diagnosis, for example, or insurance sales and      baseball, but a few key factors do seem to account for top      performance in those realms and many more.","brand":"Portfolio","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":46301337977061,"sku":"NP9781591842941","price":18.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":false}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/1842\/7735\/files\/9781591842941.jpg?v=1767737743","url":"https:\/\/k12savings.com\/es\/products\/talent-is-overrated-isbn-9781591842941","provider":"K12savings","version":"1.0","type":"link"}