TEMASEK POLYTECHNIC

Which of these do you do? Check the areas below that you might like to discuss with your coach.

• All or Nothing Thinking: Seeing things as black-or-white, right-or-wrong wiith nothing inbetween. Essentially, if I’m not perfect then I’m a failure.
• • I didn’t finish writing that paper so it was a complete waste of time.
  • There’s no point in playing if I’m not 100% in shape. Ÿ They didn’t show, they’re completely unreliable!

• Overgeneralization: Using words like always, never in relation to a single event or experience.
  • I’ll never get that promotion Ÿ She always does that…

•  Minimising or Magnifying (Also Catastrophizing):Seeing things as dramatically more or less important than they actually are. Often creating a “catastrophe” that follows.
  • Because my boss publicly thanked her she’ll get that promotion, not me (even though I had a great performance review and just won an industry award).
  • I forgot that email! That means my boss won’t trust me again, I won’t get that raise and my wife will leave me.

• “Shoulds”: Using “should”, “need to”, “must”, “ought to” to motivate oneself, then feeling guilty when you don’t follow through (or anger and resentment when someone else doesn’t follow through).
  • I should have got the painting done this weekend.
  • They ought to have been more considerate of my feelings, they should know that would upset me.

• Labelling: Attaching a negative label to yourself or others following a single event.
  • I didn’t stand up to my co-worker, I’m such a wimp! ŸWhat an idiot, he couldn’t even see that coming!

• Jumping to Conclusions:

  1) Mind-Reading: Making negative assumptions about how people see you without evidence or factual support.Your friend is preoccupied and you don’t bother to find out why. You’re thinking:

• She thinks I’m exaggerating again or Ÿ He still hasn’t forgiven me for telling Fred about his illness.

2) Fortune Telling: Making negative predictions about the future without evidence or factual support

• I won’t be able to sell my house and I’ll be stuck here (even though housing market is good).
• No-one will understand.I won’t be invited back again (even though they are supportive friends).

• Discounting the Positive: Not acknowledging the positive. Saying anyone could have done it or insisting that your positive actions, qualities or achievements don’t count…
  • That doesn’t count, anyone could have done it.
  • I’ve only cut back from smoking 40 cigarettes a day to 10. It doesn’t count because I’ve not fully given up yet.

• Blame & Personalization: Blaming yourself when you weren’t entirely responsible or blaming other people and denying your role in the situation
  • If only I was younger, I would have got the job
  • If only I hadn’t said that, they wouldn’t have…
  • If only she hadn’t yelled at me, I wouldn’t have been angry and wouldn’t have had that car accident.

• Emotional Reasoning: I feel, therefore I am. Assuming that a feeling is true – without digging deeper to see if this is accurate.
  • I feel such an idiot (it must be true). Ÿ I feel guilty (I must have done something wrong).
  • I feel really bad for yelling at my partner, I must be really selfish and inconsiderate.
• Mental Filter: Allowing (dwelling on) one negative detail or fact to spoil our enjoyment, happiness, hope etc
  • You have a great evening and dinner at a restaurant with friends, but your chicken was undercooked and that spoiled the whole evening.

The concept of competence remains one of the most diffuse terms in the organisational and occupational literature (Nordhaug and Gronhaug, 1994). Exactly what does an author mean when using any of the terms of competence?

The concept of individual competence is widely used in human resource management (Boyatzis, 1982, Schroder, 1989, Burgoyne, 1993). This refers to a set of skills that an individual must possess in order to be capable of satisfactorily performing a specified job. Although the concept is well developed, there is continuing debate about its precise meaning.

Others take a job-based competence view that according to Robotham and Jubb (1996) can be applied to any type of business where the competence-based system is based on identifying a list of key activities (McAuley, 1994) and behaviours identified through observing managers in the course of doing their job.

A useful view is to look at competence to mean a skill and the standard of performance, whilst competency refers to behaviour by which it is achieved (Rowe, 1995). That is, competence describes what people do and competency describes how people do it.

Rowe (1995, p16) further distinguishes the attributes an individual exhibits as “morally based” behaviours – these are important drivers of behaviours but especially difficult to measure – and “intellectually based” behaviours as capabilities or competencies. Capabilities are distinguished as these refer to development behaviours – i.e. are graded to note development areas to improve behaviours in how people undertake particular tasks.

Young (2002) develops on a similar theme and builds on Sarawano’s (1993) model, linking competency and competence to performance and identifies competency as a personal characteristic (motives, traits, image/role and knowledge) and how the individual behaves (skill). Competence is what a manager is required to do – the job activities (functions, tasks). These in turn lead to performance of the individual [manager].

Jacobs (1989) considers a distinction between hard and soft competences. Soft competences refer to such items as creativity and sensitivity, and comprise more of the personal qualities that lie behind behaviour. These items are viewed as being conceptually different from hard competences, such as the ability to be well organised. Jacob’s distinction fits neatly into Young’s model with hard competences referring to identifiable behaviours, and soft competences as the personal characteristics of the individual.

Further distinctions relate to the usefulness of measuring competenc[i]es. Cockerill et al. (1995) define threshold and high-performance competences. Threshold competences are units of behaviour which are used by job holders, but which are not considered to be associated with superior performance. They can be thought of as defining the minimum requirements of a job. High performance competences, in contrast, are behaviours that are associated with individuals who perform their jobs at a superior level.

In the UK, the Constable and McCormick Report (1987) suggested that the skill base within UK organisations could no longer keep pace with the then developing business climate. In response, the Management Charter Initiative sought to create a standard model where competence is recognised in the form of job-specific outcomes. Thus, competence is judged on performance of an individual in a specific job role. The competences required in each job role are defined through means of a functional analysis – a top-down process resulting in four levels of description:

• Key purpose
• Key role
• Units of competence
• Elements of competence

Elements are broken down into performance criteria, which describe the characteristics of competent performance, and range statements, which specify the range of situations or contexts in which the competence should be displayed.

The MCI model now includes personal competence, missing in the original, addressing some of the criticisms levelled at the MCI standards. Though the model tends to ignore personal behaviours which may underpin some performance characteristics, particularly in the area of management, where recent work has indicated the importance of behavioural characteristics such as self-confidence, sensitivity, proactivity and stamina.

The US approach to management competence, on the other hand, has focused heavily on behaviours. Boyatzis (1982) identifies a number of behaviours useful for specifying behavioural competence. Schroder (1989) also offers insights into the personal competencies which contribute to effective professional performance.

Personal competencies and their identifying behaviours form the backbone of many company-specific competency frameworks and are used extensively in assessment centres for selection purposes. This is because behavioural (or personal) competence may be a better predictor of capability – i.e. the potential to perform in future posts – than functional competence – which attests to competence in current post. The main weakness of the personal competence approach, according to Cheetham and Chivers (1996), is that it doesn’t define or assure effective performance within the job role in terms of the outcomes achieved.

In his seminal work “The Reflective Practitioner”, Schon (1983) attempts to define the nature of professional practice. He challenges the orthodoxy of technical rationality – the belief that professionals solve problems by simply applying specialist or scientific knowledge. Instead, Schon offers a new epistemology of professional practice of ‘knowing-in-action’ – a form of acquired tacit knowledge – and ‘reflection’ – the ability to learn through and within practice. Schon argues that reflection (both reflection in action and reflection about action) is vital to the process professionals go through in reframing and resolving day-to-day problems that are not answered by the simple application of scientific or technical principles.

Schon (1983) does not offer a comprehensive model of professional competence, rather he argues that the primary competence of any professional is the ability to reflect – this being key to acquiring all other competencies in the cycle of continuous improvement.

There are criticisms of competency-based approaches to management and these tend to argue that managerial tasks are very special in nature, making it impossible to capture and define the required competences or competencies (Wille, 1989). Other writers argue that management skills and competences are too complex and varied to define (Hirsh, 1989, Canning, 1990) and it is an exercise in futility to try and capture them in a mechanistic, reductionist way (Collin, 1989). Burgoyne (1988) suggests that the competence-based approach places too much emphasis on the individual and neglects the importance of organisational development in making management development effective. It has also been argued that generic lists of managerial competences cannot be applied across the diversity of organisations (Burgoyne, 1989b, Canning, 1990).

Linking competency models to organisation outcomes

Some writers have identified competencies that are considered to be generic and overarching across all occupations. Reynolds and Snell (1988) identify ‘meta-qualities’ – creativity, mental agility and balanced learning skill – that they believe reinforces other qualities. Hall (1986) uses the term ‘meta-skills’ – as skills in acquiring other skills. Linstead (1991) and Nordhaug and Gronhaug (1994) use the term ‘meta-competencies’ to describe similar characteristics. The concept of meta-competence falls short of providing a holistic, workable model, but it does suggest that there are certain key competencies that overarch a whole range of others.

There is however, some doubt about the practicability of breaking down the entity of management into its constituent behaviours (Burgoyne, 1989a). This suggests that the practice of management is almost an activity that should be considered only from a holistic viewpoint.

Baker et al. (1997) link the various types of competence by first establishing a hierarchy of congruence as a backbone to the model. In broad terms, they describe the congruence of an entity to be the degree of match or fit between some external driver to the entity and the response of that entity to the driver. This method enables them to take into consideration the idea that management, as an entity, and the individuals who perform the function do so within a particular environment. Measurement of congruence or goodness of fit, has been attempted in studies of operations (Cleveland et al., 1989, Vickery, 1991). Baker et al.’s hierarchy is shown in Figure below, with four levels of congruence: 1) Organisation level, 2) Core business process level, 3) Sub-process within core process level, and 4) Individuals level.

At the organisation level, there is congruence when a firm adopts a strategy that is consistent with the competitive priorities derived from the firm’s business environment. The strategy, in turn, determines the operational priorities of the firm, following Platts and Gregory (1990), Baker et al. (1997) using their own terminology, consider these operational priorities to drive the core processes of the firm. These, in turn, can be broken down into a number of sub-processes – and congruence is needed between the sub-processes and the core processes. At the individual level, the skills and knowledge should also match the priorities driven by the sub-processes.

This hierarchical model follows a traditional approach that structure follows strategy (Vickery, 1991, Cleveland et al., 1989, Kim and Arnold, 1992). Others view that competences are a part of the structure of the firm and should influence strategy making, Bhattacharaya and Gibbons (1996) point out that Prahalad and Hamal (1990) and Stalk et al. (1992) take this approach.

The hierarchical model has been tested analysing case studies of seventeen manufacturing plants that won Best Factory Awards during the period 1993-95 in the UK (Cranfield) and established benchmarks. Baker et al. (1997) found some direct cause-effect links between enabling competences at the sub-process level and competitive performance (at the core process level). However, they also found many ‘best practices’ such as employee empowerment and team working which were harder to link to specific competitive competences.

This model provides an insightful way to break down the complex issue of how individual performance influences the competitive competences of the firm. Baker et al.’s research is limited within the manufacturing sector where core processes are often easier to identify and define with a clear delineation of individual effort, technology and product. It is also established on the basis that structure follows strategy – whereas, most firms will already have structure and will be adapting their strategies continuously as the external environment changes.

Figure 1. Hierarchical model of competence (Baker et al., 1997)

Cheetham and Chivers (1996) describe a model of competence that draws together the apparently disparate views of competence – the ‘outcomes’ approach and the ‘reflective practitioner’ (Schon, 1983, Schon, 1987) approach.

Their focus was to determine how professionals maintain and develop their professionalism. In drawing together their model, they consider the key influences of different approaches and writers. The core components of the model are: Knowledge/cognitive competence, Functional competence, Personal or behavioural competence and Values/ethical competence with overarching meta-competencies include communication, self-development, creativity, analysis and problem-solving. Reflection in and about action (Schon, 1983) surround the model, thereby bringing the outcomes and reflective practitioner approaches together in one model shown in Figure below.

Cheetham and Chivers model of professional competence is useful in bringing the concept of individual competence to bear on the competence of the organisation in a non-manufacturing context, but it still falls short of providing a useful model to link an individuals behaviour with the business results of an organisation across industries – a generic model if you will.

Figure 2. Model of professional competence (Cheetham and Chivers, 1996)

Young (2002) creates a generic model neatly, by developing his individual model further to the organisational perspective adopting the concept of core competence, as articulated by Prahalad and Hamal (1990) and further developed by Stalk et al. (1992) and Tampoe (1994), suggesting that the collection of individual competences within the organisation create the organisational core competence.

This model provides a way to understand how developing competency (personal characteristics and behaviours) at the individual level enables an individual to demonstrate competence (the functions and tasks of the job) which in turn cascades through a hierarchy of the organisation (core competence and other activities supporting the organisation) to deliver business results.

Figure3. Individual variables of competency, competence and performance and organisation core competence (adapted from Young, 2002)

Bibliography

ALESSI, S. M. (1988) Fidelity in the Design of Instructional Simulations. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15, 40-47.

ALLIGER, G. M., TANNENBAUM, S., BENNET, W., TRAVER, H. & SHOTLAND, A. (1997) A Meta-Analysis of the Relations among Training Criteria. Personnel Psychology, 50, 341-358.

ANDERSON, J. R. (1982) Acquisition of Cognitive Skills. Psychology Review, 89, 369-406.

ANDERSON, P. H. & LAWTON, L. (1997) Demonstrating the Learning Effectiveness of Simulations: Where We are and Where We Need to Go. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 24, 68-73.

BAILEY, J. & WITMER, B. (1994) Proceedings of Human Factors & Ergonomics Society.

BEDINGHAM, K. (1997) Proving the Effectiveness of Training. Industrial and Commercial Training, 29, 88-91.

BRINKERHOFF, R. O. (1988) An Integrated Evaluation Model for HRD. Training & Development, 42, 66-68.

BRINKERHOFF, R. O. (1989) Achieving Results from Training, San Francisco, Josey-Bass.

BURGOYNE, J. & COOPER, C. L. (1975) Evaluation Methodology. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 48, 53-62.

BURGOYNE, J. & SINGH, R. (1977) Evaluation of Training and Education: Micro and Macro Perspectives. Journal of European Industrial Training, 1, 17-21.

BUTLER, R. J., MARKULIS, P. M. & STRANG, D. R. (1988) Where Are We? An Analysis of the Methods and Focus of the Research on Simulation Gaming. Simulation & Games, 19, 3-26.

CAMPBELL, D. T. & STANLEY, J. C. (1966) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Design for Research, Chicago, Rand-McNally.

CAMPBELL, J. P., DUNNETTE, M. D., LAWLER, E. E. & WEICK, K. E. (1970) Managerial Behaviour, Performance and Effectiveness, Maidenhead, McGraw-Hill.

CLARK, R. & CRAIG, T. (1992) Research and Theory on Multi-Media Learning Effects. IN GIARDINA, M. (Ed.) Interactive Learning Environments; Human Factors and Technical Consideration on Design Issues. Berlin, Springer-Verlag.

COLLINS, D. B. (In Press) Performance-Level Evaluation Methods Used in Management Development Studies from 1986-2000. Human Resource Development Quarterly.

DEDE, C. (1997) The Evolution of Constructivist Learning Environments. Educational Technology, 52, 54-60.

DRUCKMAN, D. (1995) The Educational Effectiveness of Interactive Games. IN CROOKALL, D. & ARAI, K. (Eds.) Simulation and Gaming Across Disciplines and Cultures: ISAGA at a Watershed. Thousand Oaks, CA., Sage.

DRUCKMAN, D. & BJORK, A. (1994) Learning, Remembering, Believing: Enhancing Human Performance, Washington DC, National Academy Press.

EASTERBY-SMITH, M. (1980) The Evaluation of Management and Development: an Overview. Personnel Review, 10, 28-36.

EASTERBY-SMITH, M. (1994) Evaluating Management Development, Training and Education, Aldershot, Gower.

EASTERBY-SMITH, M. & ASHTON, D. J. L. (1975) Using Repertory Grid Technique to Evaluate Management Training. Personnel Review, 4, 15-21.

EASTERBY-SMITH, M., THORPE, R. & LOWE, A. (1991) Management Research: An Introduction, London, Sage.

FEINSTEIN, A. H. & CANNON, H. M. (2002) Constructs of Simulation Evaluation. Simulation and Gaming, 33, 425,440.

FILSTEAD, W. J. (1979) Qualitative Methods: A Needed Perspective in Evaluation Research. IN COOK, T. D. & REICHARDT, C. S. (Eds.) Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research. Beverly Hills, Sage.

GAGNE, R. M. (1984) Learning outcomes and their effects: Useful categories of human performance. American Psychologist, 39, 377-385.

GOPHER, D., WEIL, M. & BAREKET, T. (1994) Transfer of skill from a computer game trainer to flight. Human Factors, 36, 387-405.

GREDLER, M. E. (1996) Educational Games and Simulations: A Technology in search of a (Research) Paradigm. IN JONASSEN, D. H. (Ed.) Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. New York, Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

GREENO, J., SMITH, D. & MOORE, J. (Eds.) (1993) Transfer on Trial: Intelligence, cognition and instruction, Norwood NJ, Ablex.

GUBA, E. G. & LINCOLN, Y. S. (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation, London, Sage.

HAMBLIN, A. C. (1974) Evaluation and Control of Training, Maidenhead, McGraw Hill.

HAYS, R. T. & SINGER, M. J. (1989) Simulation fidelity in training systems design: Bridging the gap between reality and training., New York, Springer-Verlag.

HESSELING, P. (1966) Strategy of Evaluation Research in the Field of Supervisory and Management Training, Anssen, Van Gorcum.

HODGES, M. (1998) Virtual Reality in Training. Computer Graphics World.

HOLTON, E. F., III (1996) The Flawed Four-Level Evaluation Model. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7, 5-21.

JENKINS, D., SIMMONS, H. & WALKER, R. (1981) Thou Nature are my Goddess. Naturalistic Enquiry in Educational Evaluation. Cambridge Journal of Education, 11, 169-89.

KELNER, S. P. (2001) A Few Thoughts on Executive Competency Convergence. Center for Quality of Management Journal, 10, 67-71.

KIRKPATRICK, D. (1959/60) Techniques for evaluating training programs: Parts 1 to 4. Journal of the American Society for Training and Development, November, December, January and February.

KIRKPATRICK, D. L. (1994) Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels, San Francisco, Berret-Koehler.

KIRKPATRICK, D. L. (1998) Evaluating Training Programs: Evidence vs. Proof. IN KIRKPATRICK, D. L. (Ed.) Another Look at Evaluating Training Programs. Alexandria, VA, ASTD.

KRAIGER, K., FORD, J. K. & SALAS, E. (1993) Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 311-328.

MACDONALD-ROSS, M. (1973) Behavioural Objectives: A Critical Review. Instructional Science, 2, 1-52.

MCCLELLAND, D. C. (1973) Testing for Competence Rather Than Intelligence. American Psychologist, 28, 1-14.

MCKENNA, S. (1996) Evaluating IMM: Issues for Researchers. Charles Stuart University.

MILES, R. H. & RANDOLPH, W. A. (1985) The Organisation Game: A Simulation, Glenview, Il, Scott, Foresman and Company.

MILES, W. G., BIGGS, W. D. & SCHUBERT, J. N. (1986) Students Perceptions of Skill Acquisition Through Cases and a General Management Simulation: A Comparison. Simulation & Games, 17, 7-24.

MOSIER, N. R. (1990) Financial Analysis: The Methods and Their Application to Employee Training. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 1, 45-63.

PATTON, M. Q. (1978) Utilization-Focussed Evaluation, Beverly Hills, Sage.

PEGDEN, C. D., SHANNON, R. E. & SADOWSKI, R. P. (1995) Introduction to Simulation using SIMAN, Hightstown, NJ, McGraw-Hill.

PIERFY, D. A. (1977) Comparative Simulation Game Research: Stumbling Blocks and Steppingstones. Simulation and Gaming, 8, 255-68.

RACKHAM, N. (1973) Recent Thoughts on Evaluation. Industrial and Commercial Training, 5, 454-61.

REDDIN, W. J. (1970) Managerial Effectiveness, London, McGraw Hill.

REEVES, T. (1993) Research Support for Interactive Multimedia: Existing Foundations and New Directions. IN LATCHEM, C., WILLIAMSON, J. & HENDERSONLANCETT, L. (Eds.) Interactive Multimedia. London, Kogan Page.

RICCI, K., SALAS, E. & CANNON-BOWERS, J. A. (1996) Do Computer-based Games Facilitate Knowledge Acquisition and Retention? Military Psychology, 8, 295-307.

ROSE, H. (1995) Assessing Learning in VR: Towards Developing a Paradigm. HITL.

RUSS-EFT, D. & PRESKILL, H. (2001) Evaluation in Organizations

A Systematic Approach to Enhancing Learning, Performance, and Change, Cambridge, MA., Perseus Publishing.

RUSSELL, S. (1999) Evaluating Performance Interventions. Info-line.

SALZMAN, M. C., DEDE, C., R., B. L. & CHEN, J. (1999) A Model for Understanding How Virtual Reality Aids Complex Conceptual Learning. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8, 293-316.

SCRIVEN, M. (1972) Pros and Cons about Goal-Free Evaluation. Evaluation Comment, 3, 1-4.

SEASHORE, S. E., INDIK, B. P. & GEORGOPOULUS, B. S. (1960) Relationships Among Criteria of Effective Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44, 195-202.

SPENCER, L. M. & SPENCER, S. (1993) Competence at Work: Models for Superior Performance, New York, John Wiley & Sons.

STAKE, R. E. (1980) Responsive Evaluation. University of Illinois.

STANNEY, K., MORRANT, R. & KENNEDY, R. (1998) Human Factor issues in Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7, 327-351.

TEACH, R., D. & GIOVAHI, G. (Eds.) (1988) The Role of Experiential Learning and

Simulation in Teaching Management Skills.

TEACH, R. D. (Ed.) (1989) Using Forecast Accuracy as a Measure of Success in Business Simulations.

THOMAS, R., CAHILL, J. & SANTILLI, L. (1997) Using an Interactive Computer Game to Increase Skill and Self-efficacy Regarding Safer Sex Negotiation: Field Test Results. Health Education & behavior, 24, 71-86.

WARR, P. B., BIRD, M. W. & RACKHAM, N. (1970) Evaluation of Management Training, Aldershot, Gower.

WHITE, B. (1984) Designing Computer Games to Help Physics Students Understand Newton’s Laws of Motion. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 69-108.

WHITEHALL, B. & MCDONALD, B. (1993) Improving Learning Persistence of Military Personnel by Enhancing Motivation in a Technical Training Program. Simulation & Gaming, 24, 294-313.

WHITELOCK, D., BIRNA, P. & HOLLAND, S. (1996) Proceedings. IN EDITIONS, C. (Ed.) European Conference on AI in Education. Lisbon Portugal, Colibri Editions.

WIEBE, J. H. & MARTIN, N. J. (1994) The Impact of a Computer-based Adventure Game on Achievement and Attitudes in Geography. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 5, 61-71.

WIMER, S. (2002) The Dark Side of 360-degree. Training & Development, 37-42.

WITMER, B. & SINGER, M. J. (1994) Measuring Immersion in Virtual Environments. ARI Technical Report 1014.

WOLFE, J. (1981) Research on the Learning Effectiveness of Business Simulation Games: A review of the state of the science. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 8, 72.

WOLFE, J. (1985) The Teaching Effectiveness of Games in Collegiate Business Courses: A 1973-1983 Update. Simulation & Games, 16, 251-288.

WOLFE, J. (Ed.) (1990) The Guide to Experiential Learning, New York, Nichols.

WOLFE, J. & CROOKALL, D. (1998) Developing a Scientific Knowledge of Simulation/Gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 29, 7-19.

WOOD, L. E. & STEWART, P. W. (1987) Improvement of Practical Reasoning Skills with a Computer Game. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14, 49-53.

YOUNG, M. (2002) Clarifying Competency and Competence. Henley Working Paper. Henley, Henley Management College.

What is a goal?

Hold on just a moment though, what do we mean by a ‘goal’?Everyone at some point in their life has heard that it is important for us to have goals. Goals provide you a map to your future, whether in business, life, and career or indeed sport. It seems obvious, but a football team playing without a goal to aim for is just kicking a ball around. But, other than the more obvious physical goals as the target of a particular game, what exactly is a goal? And how do you know when you have achieved it? Is it even very important to have goals? A sporting goal is a useful analogy though; here we are more interested in the non-sporting variety. The OED definition of a goal is “an aim or a desired result”. That’s useful, but I prefer the Wikipedia version which defines a goal as “a specific, intended result of strategy.” They amount, ultimately to the same thing: the intended achievement of a desired result. The dictionary definition, however, suggests that the goal exists with or without you. Why is this important? I hear some question already. Let me share an example: On the horizon is a mountain, its peak visible on this glorious day. It is your goal. You are aiming to reach the peak of this mountain. According to the dictionary the goal is the mountain peak. According to the encyclopedia, the intended result is that you reach the mountain peak as a result of the journey (intended strategy) you are making. What’s important, the existence of the goal or the journey to its attainment? Let me refer briefly back to soccer… Is the existence of the goal at the end of the pitch the thing that makes the game, or is it the strategy (and tactics) employed by players to score (reach) the goal? The reason for being pedantic at this stage is to stress that we refer (in English) to goal as both an entity and as the intended result of our actions. For the purposes of this article, I refer to goal as both – an entity that we are able to describe in one or more of the five senses we enjoy and as a specific, intended result. I believe that it is critical that a goal can be described in one or more of our senses – otherwise we will never know what it is.

“A man without a goal, you are like a ship without a rudder.” Thomas Carlyle

You know people, perhaps yourself, who would be lost without a “To Do” list. Daily, weekly, monthly tasks that result in specific intended results. Many people will consider this as their goals. Indeed, you can call them ‘goals’ if you wish. But I want to distinguish this concept further. I call these daily, weekly, monthly tasks “Outcomes” – they are important steps on the way to achieving goals but they are a small part of the overall intended result. I’ll borrow from my own To Do list for today. It includes, strangely enough, writing the first three sections of this article. Now, is my goal to write three sections of an article? Is it to write an article? I can answer yes to both yet it doesn’t tell us the full story – my Goal is to develop my business and as a part of that, I want to reach a wider audience for the purpose of building my brand, building my reputation and establishing myself as a trusted expert that you will now consider to design and run a training programme or undertake coaching in your organization. This article is just one part of that strategy, and this section, just one part of this article. The primary and secondary research I’ve undertaken to be in a position to write, I trust, knowledgeably about goal-setting has been another part… and so on. It is the goal that helps us determine the appropriate outcomes necessary to reach the goal, the specific outcomes help determine the actions we undertake to achieve them. The whole series together, makes a strategy. For ease and clarity, I consider a “Goal” to be longer-term and the intended result of a strategy. “Outcomes” are the result of the steps, milestones or activities that we achieve en-route to achieving the goal. When I was a child, schoolteachers and relatives would often ask “And what do you want to be when you grow up?” I honestly didn’t have a clue. My friends seemed to have got the hand of this and I discovered that the expected answers seemed to be focusing around jobs or careers “I want to be a Fireman/Doctor/Train Driver”, or perhaps something bolder like “Rock Star/Famous Actor” – or around money… “I want to be a millionaire”. Apparently it didn’t matter what you wanted to be – it still required that you studied hard, preferably got all A Grades – oh and it was critically important that you “eat all your greens”. Quite how Brussels sprouts are a necessity for success has never been answered fully to my satisfaction. By the time I was a teenager, I was at the “I dunno” stage. And by the time I was choosing my A level subjects it seemed that my options were becoming limited. Artist was ruled out on the recommendation of my delightful art teacher who claimed that my lovingly crafted painting “hurt her eyes” and Author was ruled out because I had little taste for over-analyzing Jane Austin’s Northanger Abbey. To my knowledge, none of my friends answered “I wish to be a wage slave pushing paper from one side of a building to another, politically maneuvering myself into a position of power and authority, attending useless meetings each day and commute for 4 hours” so what went wrong? Well, perhaps it is the goal-setting process.

What is goal setting?

Inadvertently, or deliberately, people asking us when young “what do you want to be…” have set us on a process of goal-setting. They are asking us to peer in our mind’s eye into the distant future and describe our goal. With little worldly experience, we most likely think of people we admire that through their job demonstrate what is valuable to our young minds. What would you like to achieve in X years that having achieved it will satisfy your personal values? Would you ask a ten year old that question? No? It’s unlikely that they would understand – but with the massive leaps in education and increasing pressure on children to know a whole lot more than the current generation of mature adults, they may well be asking you that question and be surprised if you can’t answer it. I digress, but we are effectively asking that when we say “what would you like to be…” Goal-setting is a process by which we choose our intended result, decide what we want to achieve in the longer-term AND determine HOW we are going to attain the goal (i.e., the strategy). Therein lies the problem for many people in regard to goal-setting… the process necessarily includes the strategy to achieve the goal. When relatives with kind intentions ask “what do you want to be…” the strategy they advise to achieve whatever you said, invariably refers back to the need to study hard, be a good child, don’t answer back and above all… “Eat your greens!” As you get older, the advice may become more specific and even, more useful. You begin to discover which areas of knowledge and skill you most enjoy and are better equipped to clarify your personal goal as you become increasingly aware of what is important to you. Goal-setting for your career, life and business is strongly advocated and endorsed in hundreds of books and papers and articles. Most emphasize the importance of writing your goals down as part of the goal-setting process.  

Is goal-setting important?

Ask almost anyone about the importance of goal-setting and they will affirm that it is incredibly important. Here is a small selection of verbatim responses to the question “How important is goal-setting?”

• “The difference between successful people [and people struggling] is the setting of tangible and measurable goals.”
• “I believe goal setting does work and needs to be written down. “
• “If there are no set goals, things either happen, or they don’t.”
• “With measurable goals you are in action to fulfill them”
• “… there’s no excuse for failing to progress if you don’t take ownership of your own goals”
• “Setting yourself some goals is always going to be effective”
• “I have been setting goals for myself for over 10 years. I believe that the goals enable me to achieve the things that I want”
• “People who are successful tend to be the same sort that write down goals”

So there seems to be consensus that goal-setting is important, yet there is some evidence to support it, yet, as we shall see, from research undertaken for this study, having written the goal down is perhaps not the most important concern. What we will see is that the process of goal-setting is perhaps more important than the goal itself! There is some strong support for the concept of SMART goals. Goals that are Specific and Stretching, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Time-bound. There’s a great deal of common sense reasoning that supports the idea of SMART goals – and there’s some excellent robust research.  

Why set goals?

Edwin Lock and Gary Latham have undertaken a great deal of leading research about goals and goal-setting and neatly suggest that setting goals implies dissatisfaction with the current condition and a desire to attain an outcome Locke and Latham, 2006.

Why Specific and Stretching?

In Locke and Latham’s 2006 study and previous articles, there is an emphasis on the positive relationship between goal difficulty and performance. Locke and Latham, 1990; Locke and Latham, 2002. That is, the more difficult the goal is to achieve, the higher the level of performance is manifest – albeit moderated by commitment to the goal. Earlier studies had already identified that specific and difficult goals led to greater performance than easy and/or vague goals Latham and Lee, 1986

Commitment to achieving a goal – Attainable and Realistic

Hollenbeck and Klein, 1987 suggest that an individual’s commitment to a goal (building on Locke’s research and many others) is dependent on a combination of the expectancy that the individual has of achieving success, and the difficulty of achieving the goal. In the commonly used mnemonic, SMART goals, this is usually considered as the ‘AR’ of SMART – Attainable and Realistic. Though Hollenbeck and Klein help point out that when we set a goal, it may well seem that the goal is attainable – I can do everything that I need to do to achieve this and am prepared for the cost in time, effort, etc. – and it may well seem to be realistic – Given the resources that I have and the current environment, this goal can be practically achieved.

Measurable and Time-bound?

I don’t think it would be possible to undertake research on something that had no measure nor a time restriction – how would you know that you had achieved success if there was no measure, and if there is no time limit, when would you stop measuring or even not measuring. So these remain ‘common sense’ though a post-modernist might disagree. So there is support for the concept of SMART goals – now why is it so important that we ‘write’ them down? There are some who suggest that writing something down increases commitment to the goal but the evidence is anecdotal. For some individuals, the act of writing something down assists clarity through a conscious process because they consider something written to be a personal commitment. Does that mean it is true for everyone? To help answer this, we undertook primary research to mirror the mythical Yale Study. Through a simple questionnaire, respondents were asked if they had set goals for themself on leaving school, college or university, when this was and if they had written it down. They were then asked to estimate their total personal wealth now. The results are quite shocking.    

Results from our survey

215 individuals completed the online questionnaire over a seven week period. Respondents were mostly UK-based (80%), with further respondents from Asia (11%) and the USA (9%). This researcher invited respondents through social networks, Ecademy and LinkedIn and direct contact with companies across the UK, Asia and US. 70% of respondents are in full-time employment and the remainder either self-employed or business owners. Only results shown to be significant at 0.05 are discussed.

• At the end of their formal education, 69.8% had a personal goal of whom only 11.2% had written their goal down.

Goals and personal wealth

• Of those that had written their goal, their average personal wealth is GBP115000, whereas those who had not written their goal down, their average personal wealth was GBP295000. That’s more than two and a half times as much! Completely contrary to the supposed Yale Study.

We asked respondents when they left formal education and analyzed this against their estimated personal wealth.

• Those leaving formal education in the 1970′s have an average wealth of GBP475000, 80′s GBP195000 and 90′s… GBP325000!

It seems reasonable that those who have been in the workforce longer would have greater personal wealth and so it is… almost. The anomaly appears to be those who left formal education during the 80′s.

• Those leaving in the 70′s have generated on average 13,500 each year since leaving. 80′s grads a miserly 7,800 and those bright young things from the 90′s, a whopping 21,600!

So what’s going on?

It may have something to do with SMART goals.

SMART goals and personal wealth

Those who set Specific Measurable only goals average a low 25,000

• Add Time-bound to specific and measurable and this goes up to 50,000
• Just Attainable and Realistic goals – now this is averaging 150,000
• Specific, Measurable, realistic and time-bound and we rise rapidly to 475,000
• Go the whole hog, Specific, measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Time-bound – and we reach 605,000

We seem to be finding some useful answers here. Don’t worry so much about writing your goals down, just so long as they’re SMART. So is that it? No. There’s a couple of very interesting additional significant statistics in our survey. They deal with the type of goal.    

Goal focus and personal wealth

Respondents were asked if they were willing to share their own personal goal, 60% did so and these break down into four main focuses: Career, Lifestyle, Money or Ability. We also asked how satisfied respondents were with their achievement.

• For those with a Lifestyle goal focus, average wealth is 95,000 and ‘satisfied’ with their achievement.
• A Career focus, average wealth is just over 100,000 and ‘somewhat satisfied’
• A Money focus, average wealth is 162,500 and ‘satisfied’ and lastly,
• An ‘Ability’ focus, average wealth is 780,000 and ‘very satisfied’!

Go on, have a guess on the statistical conclusion… yep; those who left formal education in the 90′s focus more on ‘Ability’, 80′s focus on career and lifestyle, whilst the 70′s predominantly Money. Surely a reflection of the environment of the time. The great thing about focusing on what you are ‘able’ to do will help the goal-setting process be more effective. Following Locke and Latham’s findings that ability to achieve the goal moderates performance – too difficult and uncommitted individuals do not perform, whereas, stretching yet within my potential ability aids commitment to goal attainment. Respondents were asked if they were willing to share their own personal goal, 60% did so and these break down into four main focuses: Career, Lifestyle, Money or Ability. We also asked how satisfied respondents were with their achievement. The first three are ‘Outcome’ goals – that is, they specify a particular tangible outcome. Ability focus is a ‘Performance’ goal – such goals focus on an ability or capability of the individual.

• For those with a Lifestyle goal focus, average wealth is 95,000 and ‘satisfied’ with their achievement.
• A Career focus, average wealth is just over 100,000 and ‘somewhat satisfied’
• A Money focus, average wealth is 162,500 and ‘satisfied’ and lastly,
• An ‘Ability’ focus, average wealth is 780,000 and ‘very satisfied’!

Go on, have a guess on the statistical conclusion… yep; those who left formal education in the 90′s focus more on ‘Ability’, 80′s focus on career and lifestyle, whilst the 70′s predominantly Money. Surely a reflection of the environment of the time. The great thing about focusing on what you are ‘able’ to do will help the goal-setting process be more effective. Following Locke and Latham’s findings that ability to achieve the goal moderates performance – too difficult and uncommitted individuals do not perform, whereas, stretching yet within my potential ability aids commitment to goal attainment.  

Outcome goals – some issues

The problem facing many people with regard to ‘Outcome’ goals is that there is an element that is outside the power of the individual. An example of the potential issues with an ‘outcome’ goal comes from a rather sad testimony from one particular research participant:

“My goal was to have $3 million in the bank for my retirement by age 55. I achieved my goal with great satisfaction early at age 43. Unfortunately my bank was at the centre of a fraud and went under. 16 years later, I am still working and slowly rebuilding my goal. So, goals are important and we need to know what we want to achieve in life – just choose a goal only including yourself and don’t leave all of it in one place.”

Outcome goals are most often subject to others and to the environment. The greater the attainability of a goal through yourself only – I.e. Your own performance – the more you are in control of goal achievement. Goals that have a high dependence on others and/or external circumstances are considerably more difficult to influence. As an extreme example, one survey participant has goal to win the lottery! Now there are certain things that you can do to increase the likelihood of this becoming reality, buying tickets is a useful component, but how many? Interestingly, another participant who had a ‘money’ goal did indeed achieve their goal – through winning the lottery! Though that wasn’t the original plan and they rated themselves ‘somewhat satisfied’ in having completely achieved their goal. Whilst touching on monetary goals, another participant reminds us that being specific about your goal is important: “My goal was to be a millionaire by 35… I achieved it the moment I stepped away from the foreign exchange counter at Jakarta airport!” Following up with our survey participants revealed commonality in the way they went about setting goals and their subsequent actions to achieve their goals. We’ve already seen how those with the greatest success in terms of personal wealth had SMART goals. This isn’t to say that success can only be measured by means of personal wealth at all – the original intention was simply to test the mythical Yale Study results. And, of course, someone could have set themselves a perfectly good SMART goal – but due to their own environment, had not accumulated as much personal wealth in terms of a standard currency – indeed, a person could have less in terms of monetary wealth yet be considerably better off in terms of the value they can obtain from less money.  

Performance goals

An interesting aspect that began to show itself through the results was personal satisfaction in goal achievement. People who set ‘Ability’ type goals, or ‘Performance’ goals reported to be ‘very satisfied’ with their achievements – whether completely achieved goals or not yet complete. In part, this suggests the importance of personal values and suggests a question about the process by which they set goals. Through a random selection of fifty respondents we found that there is some commonality in the manner in which goals are set:

• When we compare the groups of ‘Very Satisfied’ with their achievement and ‘Satisfied’ or ‘Somewhat Satisfied’ with their achievement. The first group were more likely to have SMART goals. The goal is described in sensory terms – what will be seen, heard and felt, and for a small number, smelt and tasted. Respondents were clear about what achieving the goal will do positively for them and the cost to themselves (and others) of achieving their goal. Their goal, they considered personally stretching yet ‘knew’ that they were capable of achieving it themselves. More than 60% stated their goal in the present tense – ‘I am’ rather than ‘I will be’.

This provides a template for a useful goal-setting process that we’ve turned into an easy-to-remember acronym: SWING.

Goal setting process

• A SMART and Sensory performance goal
• What will I positively Win and lose
• Am I In control of achieving this goal?
• Stated as Now
• Guarantee – this is an added psychological process to ensure personal motivation towards achieving the goal.

Schedule your first coaching session with us and we will be using SWING to guide your goal setting and establish the outcomes we guarantee. Book here.

Final thoughts

From our survey, those individuals who set performance goals using slight variations of this process represent a small, though statistically significant fraction of the sample that have a net higher annualized personal wealth accumulation

• (2.15 times) and are more satisfied than individuals who use only one or two aspects of this process.
• It is not the writing down of the goal that makes the difference; it seems to be the emphasis on performance or ability and the process of thinking through the goal. And for those of you, like me, who just didn’t get round to setting goals way back and worry that you might have missed out – well you can’t go back and revise history, but you can create a new one now.

Bibliography

Hollenbeck, John R. and Howard Klein, J. (1987), ‘Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 72 (2), 212-20. Loche, Edwin P. (ed.) (1986), Goal setting, Generalizating from Laboratory to Field Settings, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books) 101-17. Locke, Edwin A. and Gary P. Latham (1990), A theory of goal setting and task performance, (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall). Locke, Edwin A. and Gary P. Latham (2006), ‘New directions in goal-setting theory’, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15 (5), 265-68. Locke, Edwin A. and G.P. Latham (2002), ‘Building a practically useful theory of goal-setting and task motivation’, American Psychologist, 57 (9), 705-17.

· Ann, the leader of the high-performing team had joined the company 5 years previously as a sales representative. She was good at her job and always exceeded her targets. She was promoted to team leader after 3 years and had infused her own enthusiasm, determination and will to her team. Her team members were happy, hard-working and also successful, most exceeding targets.

· Joe, the leader of the low-performing team had similarly joined the company 5 years previously, though as sales team leader. Joe’s team were, by contrast, unhappy and unsuccessful in achieving targets. This had been the case for all 5 years. The team members had changed frequently over this time, only one member remained from the original team that Joe took over.

Ann was enthusiastic when we spoke with her about her success. Saying “It’s great to have such a wonderful team.I enjoy working with them and we’re doing well.” She went on, “My boss is great, really believes in me and lets me run things the way I want. I like that, and I try to treat everyone in the team the same way. When they are down about something, maybe their kid is in trouble or sick, I let them take time out if they need to, so long as the work gets done sometime, it doesn’t have to be 9 to 5. I trust them to make up the time, and they do, and more!”

Joe was belligerent when we spoke, “I have tried everything possible to make these people work harder and make target. They’re always moaning that their kid’s sick or they have to visit the doctor. Always skiving off, taking toilet breaks, going for coffee. If I turn my back for one instant, they’re gone.” When prompted, Joe continues, “My boss is pretty useless. Only ever comes round at the end of the month to [tell me off] for not making target. To be honest, I’m fed up, I don’t ‘think I’ll ever get this team to perform and the stress is making me sick.”

There are of course, several things here we could expand on, but what was clearly apparent was that Ann’s boss believed in her and she in turn believed in her team and their abilities, that she could trust them and that they would deliver. Joe’s boss, didn’t appear to be that concerned for Joe and didn’t help. Joe in turn, trusted staff to ‘skive’ and believed that she would never get the team to perform.

When someone else, particularly someone in authority over you (a leader, parent, boss, teacher) believes in you and your abilities it helps you to believe in yourself and your team. What you believe on the inside, becomes manifest on the outside. This is usually the attitude that you portray and the way you communicate.

Leadershift! Tell someone that you believe in them! If, by some chance you are wishing that your parents, teachers, boss etc showed their belief in you… or even vaguely tempted to go “if only…” Go forth right now, find someone that you care about and say the following: “I believe in you. You can achieve anything you want to achieve.”

Here we identify the most important leadership characteristics and how you can develop your leadership character. When we started using the game of golf as our classroom to develop leadership we noticed a similarity between the way people play golf, and their leadership characteristics.

1. Who is in your Inner Circle?
• The people closest to you can raise you up or tear you down. Take a long hard look at those who are in your inner circle and fill it, if necessary with people who build you up.
2. Develop SMART goals in each area of your life.
• Know specifically what your goal is, know how you will measure it, make sure that you can attain it (with the help of your inner circle). Make sure your goal is realistic (if someone else has done it, it is!) And put your stake in the ground for time. When will you achieve this goal? Can it change, sure it can… you can move the goal posts anytime you like.
3. Breakdown your bigger, longer term goals into smaller, shorter term chunks.
• Any goal worth having is going to take time to reach. Breaking it down into smaller steps makes it much more manageable. I recommend that you “think week’ – after all you can pretty well predict a week ahead. But a month… that’s tough, all sorts of things could happen in a month. For example, establish steps that you will have completed by Friday each week (time to celebrate at the weekend!)
4. Work with an accountability partner. Check with your inner circle regularly to review your progress.
• Wouldn’t it be nice if you could trust yourself to have the self-discipline to do this alone? Sure… but believe me, you wouldn’t actually be reading this if you were that self-disciplined. Work with someone in your inner circle who will support you, cajole you, nag you… whatever it takes. You already know what works for you, so invite them to do so and return the favour.
5. Celebrate your conquering of each milestone.
• Don’t wait till the end result. Constantly promising yourself that one day you will celebrate. No, choose to celebrate every milestone. My wife and I have a stupid little dance we do… in private I might add because it really isn’t something you would like to see… but we have fun and it’s our shared symbol of an achievement worth celebrating.
6. When you reach the goal, choose to stretch yourself to new heights.
• So you’ve developed yourself well and achieved the goal you set. Well that just proves that you are a lot more capable than even you thought. Now let’s raise your game and set new standards to achieve.
7. Remember – leadership develops daily, not in a day. Keep on keeping on.
• It won’t happen tomorrow. You don’t absorb new competencies or character traits by simply exposing yourself to them. No, you need to put your development into practice each and every day. Repeat what works, learn from what doesn’t. Adapt, change and keep on keeping on. Eventually it’ll come ‘naturally’ and you may even forget that previously you weren’t this good.

No-one who ever achieved anything great truly did it alone. Build you inner circle, set clear SMART goals and plan each of the smaller steps necessary to achieve them – this is all part of successful personal development. I look forward to hearing about your celebrations.

The search for talent is ongoing. Individuals seek to develop their talents, companies seek to identify talent and retain it, succession planning requires it, politicians plan for it, and the world wants to find it. But what is it?

I was having dinner at a friend’s home and the subject came up because their 11 year old son had recently brought home his school report card which stated from his art teacher: “[His] talent is yet to be fully developed.” His mother, always one for a quick tongue responded “His only talent is making excuses for not doing his homework.”

The young boy sat at the table grimacing and whilst his mum meant it in jest, there was an element of truth in it. I said “I see a glittering future as a political spin-doctor.” The boy’s eyes lit up. This so-called talent had a purpose.

The word “talent” is bandied around for so many things and we don’t always truly understand what is meant by “talent”. So to the trusty dictionary…

Talent: innate mental or artistic aptitude (as opposed to acquired ability); less than genius.

So what is innate?

Innate: existing in one from birth; inborn; native: innate musical talent.

Now, my core business is experiential training and a behaviouralist, so if talent cannot be acquired… Better find a better definition…

Talent: natural ability to do something well.

‘That nasty word ‘natural’

Natural: based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.

The Thesaurus, always illuminating, and find ‘talent’ associated with words like ‘ability’, ‘ ‘adeptness’, ‘adroitness’, ‘charisma’, ‘facility’, ‘gift’, ‘knack’, ‘wisdom’, ‘gumption’, ‘capacity’, ‘brilliance’ and ‘genius’

Is it seems that you are either born with a talent or not. No acquiring a talent, developing it certainly, but if the foundation is not there…

Companies seek ‘talent’ for succession planning, as do politicians. It is most often associated with leadership or management ‘talent’.

Companies are also hooked on retaining talent. And surely that’s right, once you have talent in your organisation, you really don’t want to lose it. Many, inspired by a Mckinnsey article in 1997 “The War for Talent” took this to extreme, indulging ‘talent’ and doing everything they could to keep them engaged, satisfied, even delighted. Malcolm Gladwell, author of The Tipping Point, wrote an article in the New Yorker magazine in 2002 entitled “The Talent Myth”. By then the whole ‘War for talent’ was under a dark, ominous cloud called Enron. The McKinssey article had, after all, been largely based on what Enron was doing at the time and how everybody should emulate it.

The trouble is that ‘talent’ is most often ascribed to the very brightest, highly motivated individuals who are very driven. And being bright (intelligent) does not, necessarily, mean talent. Being ‘driven’ is not the only criteria for success.

I have met and worked with many talented individuals. In fact, I believe that every single person has talent. What that talent is and how it can be used by companies is another matter.

If we accept that talent is something that you are born with, surely we need to know how do we identify talent, and how do we leverage that talent?

Identifying talent

I’ve seen this in many organisations. The brightest and best are identified as part of the talent pool – there’s some fanfare, a suite of training programs, perhaps MBAs are taken and the talent are promoted. Meanwhile, the non-talent morale has sunk, many have quit or actively seeking new positions, commitment has dropped and performance suffered. The talent, being highly driven, take this upon themselves and make up for the loss, working extra hard and many burning out. There follows a new initiative to regain the work-life balance and a big drive to retain talent.

An alternative

We can talk to the existing talent – the best leaders, managers, the best individual contributors – not just from your own organisation but others too, and uncover their foundational talents that enable them to be all that they are. It really can be quite surprising:

• The Sales head of a global telecomms company, highest sales, driven, emulated by staff. Talent: Running!
• The CFO of a globally renowned auditing firm, admired by staff, relied on by the entire organisation, inspirational and respected. Talent: Artist!
• Executive Head Chef, world famous, near-worshipped by other chefs. Talent: Calculus!
• The COO of an International Bank, greatly respected, charismatic and exceptional innovative customer service. Talent: Acting!
• Innovative Entrepreneur, adored by staff, gregarious, fun and incredibly creative. Talent: Comedian!

There are many other examples, some obvious, many not. What is common to most of the people we have interviewed is that their talent itself is not what enables them to do what they do, it is how they do the talent.

I suggest that we do something a little different. Why not find what the underlying and true individual’s talents are and then leverage them towards the leadership or management attributes you need? Or perhaps, we can identify their talent and find out where they best fit in your organisation and for some, outside it.

Leveraging Talent

Taking someone’s talent and leveraging it into the workplace requires a little creative thinking. Fortunately, creative thinking is something that we can develop. It’s part de Bono’s lateral thinking and part conceptual mapping. Some connections make absolute and logical sense, others require us to dig into the talent and how that talent is done by the individual.

Using the examples cited above, I shall briefly outline the main connections that the individual leveraged – either on their own ‘naturally’ or through coaching.

• “Running was all I ever wanted to do. I’d get up early every morning and race the postman on his bike. For me, it was freedom. Now, I run with my team, we race the competition and we enjoy the freedom we gain from our bonuses and commission.”
• “As a kid, I was always drawing. I loved to draw. Cartoons especially, and comics. When I was at primary school I drew my first comic which turned into a series and a long story – intricately entwined with sub-plots and different characters. By the time I went to university, I’d all but stopped drawing, taking accountancy because that’s where the jobs were. Today, I guess I’m still drawing comics in a way. I look for the sub-plots in the accounts, what’s the other story behind the main one and that’s how I teach my staff. Look for the sub-plots – it makes auditing a whole lot more fun.”
• “Calculus was easy. Everyone else thought it was really difficult and stupid, but I found it easy. I’d get a thrill from finding the right answer. It’s obvious to me now, my recipes are just a form of calculus, you take indgredients A and B and turn them into X. I don’t ‘think I’ll tell my chefs that, they might think I’m a nerd and not the great artiste.”
• “I first acted in a play at kindergarten. I was a tree. But I was the best tree ever. My parents adored my acting, always encouraging me, in fact they wanted me to continue through drama school and everything. I think they thought I would be a movie star. I did try for a while when I went to university but I never had any money. After uni, I joined a local drama club, met my wife and we soon had our first child. So I left the acting world and joined a local bank – great prospects, regular wages and, a subsidised mortgage. I suppose that a COO is rather like a director in a play, making sure that the right people are in the right place at the right time with the right script. Brilliant!”
• “I was always the joker of the family. My brother bore the brunt of most of my wilder practical jokes – and some of them weren’t really funny at all. It got me in a lot of trouble at school. In the end I quit and worked on a market stall. I worked for this really sour faced bloke selling vegetables – blimey he was miserable. He hated my joking with the customers, but they loved it and kept coming back, so he didn’t ‘stop me. I’m still a joker, I like a laugh and I like to keep the guys happy. I suppose being the centre of attention does something for me. That’s why I set this up (the company), being the centre of everyones’ attention and we make money. I always say, if you can’t have a laugh while your living life then life will laugh at you.”

Find your talent and find a way to use it.

Copyright © John Kenworthy

Technical aptitude alone is insufficient

Jimmy Connors, winner of 109 professional singles tennis titles says “There’s a thin line between being #1 or #100 and mostly it’s mental.”

In his well-researched book, Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman shows that it’s our attitude more than our aptitude that determines our altitude. Whilst our society lauds intellectual giants and power, Goleman’s research concludes, “At best, IQ contributes about 20 percent to the factors that determine life success, which leaves 80 percent to other forces.” Other EQ researchers, Robert Cooper and Ayman Sawaf consider this too conservative. In their book, Executive EQ: Emotional Intelligence in Leadership and Organizations, they write, “— IQ may be related to as little as 4 percent of real-world success — over 90 percent may be related to other forms of intelligence — it is emotional intelligence, not IQ or raw brain power alone, that underpins many of the best decisions, the most dynamic and profitable organizations, and the most satisfying and successful lives. Malcolm Higgs and Vic Dulewicz set out to disprove this “faddish idea” relenting after their own research that actually, Emotional Intelligence is of far greater importance than IQ and something they term “management quotient”.

There’s a growing consensus in the academic and popular literature that our attitude and our mindset are more important than our technical capability that make a difference to our success. As Zig Ziglar puts it, “Your attitude, not your aptitude, will determine your altitude.”

Difference makers have a better attitude

Consider all the things that Tiger could use as an excuse at the 2008 US Open:

Hadn’t played in a competition for 2 months

Recent knee operation – reduced fitness

Further damaged knee on swing during the tournament

Highly skilled and determined competitors

Poor first round

Pressure of historical wins

Expectations very high on his performance

Does not need the money

After blowing a three shot lead with 8 holes to play, Woods rallied and came to the 18th hole and stood over a birdie put to avoid an infamous defeat. He came through. Sudden death on the 7th saw an end to his fierce competition and Woods again took the trophy.

How many of us would find that sort of resilience within us?

Three steps to achieving your success

It’s all very well understanding and believing that our attitude is more important than our aptitude, but exactly what can we do about it? What makes the difference that you can develop?

There appears to be three major differences between those that achieve great success in their field, and those who remain in the obscurity of mediocrity.

• Successful people know what they want to achieve. They have a clearly defined goal.
  
• They are constantly seeking ways to learn and improve.
  
• They consistently present a positive attitude.
  

This isn’t intended to be an exhaustive and comprehensive list of must haves, but to highlight key difference makers that anyone is able to adopt.

Clear goal you are pulled toward

There’s plenty of discussion on setting goals for yourself and how important it is to have a clear vision, a picture of your future.

Rather than go through all of that now, I’d refer you back to a couple of other articles I’ve written on the subject. Here though, I’d like to explore three different modes of how you get to your goal:

Push mode, Pull mode and Drift mode:

Push Mode

If you have to drive others towards an objective, even drive yourself towards it, I call this being in push mode.

Push mode is typified by focusing your attention on problems that need to be resolved, or things that need fixing. Many people use a ‘todo’ list or a GTD (getting things done) system. Are you one of them? Take a look at yours now and see if it is a list of problems.

The fun, creative or enjoyable things rarely make it onto a ‘todo’ list – rather there is a tendency to say that once the list is done and I have time, then I’ll do the fun stuff.

What’s more, you will already know that the things we pay attention to are the things that grow and the things we don’t pay attention to tend to fade away. So if we focus on problems (call them challenges or issues if you must but they are still the same thing), we will find that the problems grow. So here’s a radical thought, if we focus our attention on interesting, exciting, fun things, they will grow. And our problems, won’t they fade away?

“But you don’t understand. I have to get this report done, I have a ton of emails to clear, I have to attend this meeting, I have calls to make to angry customers, and if I don’t I’ll get fired. I simply don’t have time to talk to people, take it easy, smell the flowers…”

And when your stress levels have made you so sick that you can’t work, let alone afford the hospital bills you’ll feel what exactly? Accomplished? Valued? Important?

Nothing more satisfying than lying in bed recovering from a heart attack knowing how much your contribution is missed.

I’m not saying that these things (some of them anyway) don’t need to be done but that by not focusing on them, they will (and do) fade away. Oftentimes, they just get done. Without stress, without worry.

In Push Mode, we are continuously pushing ourselves (and others) towards our goals relying on our own effort to keep us on our straight and planned track. Obstacles that we face in our way are enemies to progress which may force us to re- plan our route. Our motivation stems from outside forces, the concrete and measurable goal is frequently thought to be motivation enough and any resistance to achieving the goal, self-inflicted or external resistance, is just another obstacle.

In Push Mode, when progress is slow, we re-plan and consider time management a priority. Only, unless you have discovered the secret to warping the space-time continuum, you cannot actually manage time.

Pull Mode

Pull Mode, on the other hand, is about leadership and paying attention to growth and improvement.

Rather than focusing attention on problems to be solved or fixed or overcome, in Pull Mode we take time to clearly envision our future and allow the goal to pull us towards it. The results of Push Mode and Pull Mode may appear to be the same (that is the achievement of the goal) but Pull Mode takes less effort and allows our unconscious activity to take precedence over conscious linear processing.

The idea of Pull Mode is that you create a vision of the future that is so compelling for you (and perhaps for others) that you cannot help but be drawn towards it. The things that you need to do on the way become minor irritants that simply get done and anything that really is not important is not done and fades into insignificance.

“Hold on, what if something that is important is not recognised as being important?” Excellent question. Things that appear to need to be done, whether important or not, on your journey are your friends – they are obstacles to your progress but think of them in terms of friends, or learning opportunities.

Let me take a personal example if I may. Two things about running a business that I personally do not enjoy: 1, Filing, 2. Doing the accounts. I appreciate that some people just adore filing and doing the accounts but I don’t. In Push Mode, I resist doing them until I absolutely have to or, usually, risk a penalty. It is the penalty that drives me to do it. I still hate doing it but I dislike paying a penalty more. In Pull Mode, these things still come across my path but now I see them as friends – the chance to look again at scraps of notes, letters or offers. I have learned to change my mindset from doing the filing to my enjoyment of a clear desk and in-tray and just do it. It’s no longer something I resist. Do I enjoy doing it? No, I don’t if I think about it consciously, I just let it happen.

“But what if it should be done and its not that critical or important?” The chances are, for me, that it won’t get done. Importantly, if I find myself resisting doing something, I stop, tune into my thought processing and ask myself why I am resisting it?

For example, keen observers may have noted that I didn’t talk about doing my accounts in Pull Mode above. You’d be right. It is something that I continued to resist – I can’t really explain what it is about doing the accounts that I just don’t want to do, and I found this quite strange considering that I do enjoy building spreadsheets of budgets and am quite au fait with P&L and Balance Sheet – and then it occurred to me that I like thinking through future scenarios, but what’s done is done. I honestly can’t be bothered about it. Now, of course, there’s legal compliance… and I realised further, I really don’t like to be told that I have to do something. So what did I learn from this resistance? I learned that I am quite happy considering the future and do not wish to have to create organisation of the past. Decision? Outsource to someone capable and trusted.

In Pull Mode, you only do the things that you want to do that move you towards your goal such that the work you are doing is effortless. Obstacles that need to be overcome that meet with your own resistance are a warning flag to you that something else is going on – stop and allow yourself to consider what the resistance is trying to tell you.

“Isn’t it possible then that you’ll go into Pull Mode, and miss the important things that need to be done?”

Sure it’s possible, but unlikely to be important in the achievement of the goal. Things that are a requirement in your society but have no direct relationship to the achievement of your goal. Yet there’s a third mode of being that is neither Push nor Pull, and that’s Drift Mode.

Drift Mode

The stresses of Push Mode, always making things happen and forever coming up against obstacles and ‘time-wasters’, causes many people to fall into Drift Mode rather than Pull Mode.

Drift Mode is quite different to Pull Mode, somewhat ‘New-Agey’ in influence where one just ‘lets things happen’. call it karma, fate, life forces, whatever – it generally involves emptying your mind of worries and anxieties and just letting life happen to you. Whatever way the wind blows, you drift along with it.

You might end up on an agreeable shore when you allow yourself to drift over the seas of life, or you might end up somewhere unpleasant, or. most probably, you’ll just continue drifting along.

Pull Mode is different because there is a clear and articulated vision of your compelling goal that is pulling you towards it. The aimlessness of Drift Mode may be refreshing for a while, but the anxieties of life will soon catch up and cause as much stress as Push Mode already does for the vast majority of people.

PushMePullYou

This mythical creature in Dr Doolittle provides a metaphor for how many leaders feel about leadership. They are in Push Mode for themselves, driving the agenda and encountering resistance of their ‘followers’ who have to be pulled, some suggest dragged kicking and screaming, in the chosen direction.

No wonder many leaders are exhausted. Many drive themselves to an early grave or opt-out entirely and fall into Drift Mode.

“How do I know which mode I’m in?”

Do you take pride in hard work? Do you brag about working more than 50 hours a week? Do you use ToDo lists? Do you think that in order for things to happen, that you have to make them happen?

If you answer yes to most or all, you’re in Push Mode.

Do you have a compelling vision of your future self? Find your work effortless? Know that everything that needs to be done will be done?

Sounds like Pull Mode.

Have a sort of idea what I want in the future? Take it easy whenever possible and avoid unpleasant tasks? If things happen they happen, if they don’t ‘they don’t?

Drift Mode.

“Surely it’s better for your health to be in Drift mode than Push Mode?” Sure, if you have a lot of savings or a rich family to fall back on. But if you have no goal in life, just what are you doing here?

What can I learn?

People who achieve great success are always learning. They seek ways to improve and are prepared to work through the difficulties of change required to become better.

Peter Senge in his book, The Learning Organization, expands in great detail about his idea for organizations to constantly seek improvement in everything. But what about learning at a personal level? What if you are currently at the top of your game? Surely you’ve already learned.

Our learning journey can go through a series of steps and the height of our performance is determined by our technical ability and our mindset, our aptitude and our attitude.

The journey is not always easy or straightforward. Let’s return to Tiger Woods…

Prepared to change

You’re at the top of your game, you’re doing better than anyone has ever done in your field. Technically, you are the best in your business. You earn more than anyone else in the same line of business. You have a serious competitive advantage. Why would you decide to change something fundamental about the way you do what you do?

After seven years and 142 tournaments in a row, Tiger Woods finally joined the ranks of mortal golfers when he missed the cut at the Byron Nelson Championship May 13, 2005. Golf pundits argue that changing his swing is to blame.

There was another reason, his knee. A physical problem that seems to not want to go away. But what makes Tiger stand out so much from the rest is not just his aptitude for the game, his superior technical skill… it’s his mindset. In spite of being in a great deal of pain… he overcame it with a determination, the will and resilience that allowed his technical brilliance to shine.

A Positive attitude

We all have days (sometimes weeks and months) where everything seems to be going wrong. Whatever you try to do, however clear your goal – there just doesn’t seem to be any progress.

Sports psychologists refer to the period when everything is going well and peak performance is apparent as being ‘in the zone’. Golfers who find their rhythm and the ball lands just so. The athlete who has trained and is at their physical and mental peak runs the race of their life. The business person who’s found themselves in the right place at the right time with the right product or service.

Yet most of the time, we just ain’t there. We yank the club and the ball lands in the bunker. Our business would be just great if we just land this additional sale.

Some days, it’s hard to wake up and find the energy to put on a brave face and go out there knowing that today probably isn’t that day, hoping that it is but not really believing it. We known we have to learn and improve but just when is my breakthrough going to come.

It may not come today, but one thing I can assure you of – something about today is better than yesterday.

What’s better today?

Being prepared to learn and change and put in the required effort is a critical step in constantly improving. But this carries the suggestion that we should focus on what is wrong, or what needs improving.

If we’re going to consider being in “pull-mode” towards our goals and ambitions, a much better question to ask is “what’s better today?”

When you meet someone, or write a message it is ‘normal’ to ask “how are you?” or “How do you do?” Now in doing so, do you really, truthfully want to know the answer?

“Well, I’ve had this terrible problem with my stomach and I didn’t sleep too well last night for all the stress I’m under and…”

How would you respond if instead I asked you “what’s better today?”

Would you reflect on improvements made? Would it cause you to think about some things have indeed moved forward?

Try it, I dare you! It makes it a whole heap easier to keep on going towards that goal.

Your Choice

People who have achieved great success know what they want to achieve and have a clear vision of their future.

They recognise that their technical ability, their aptitude is one (small) part that contributes to their achievement and constantly strive to improve.

Most importantly, they keep on keeping on, keep turning up and are prepared to learn and change whilst maintaining a positive attitude.

Even Tiger has a bad round of golf – nothing like as bad as most of us but bad for him. Do you see him quitting?

You were created to soar at altitude like an eagle not peck the dirt like a chicken.