industry
Reflections on the Quarterback problem
22/12/08 07:17 Filed in: Reflections
I never seem to read a piece by Malcom Gladwell
without seeing reflections from all over my life.
His latest article in the New Yorker is a
fascinating piece about finding the right talent to
do a job. One of the main thrusts of the piece is
that, provided you can find the talent, the right
people in the right positions can make a huge
difference. This is probably best summed up in this
section:
'Eric Hanushek, an economist at Stanford, estimates that the students of a very bad teacher will learn, on average, half a year’s worth of material in one school year. The students in the class of a very good teacher will learn a year and a half’s worth of material. That difference amounts to a year’s worth of learning in a single year. Teacher effects dwarf school effects: your child is actually better off in a “bad” school with an excellent teacher than in an excellent school with a bad teacher.'
I suspect this is no different in many other human endevours. Recently, my Mum had to go into hospital for a hip operation. I spent a few days in the hospital with her and we often chatted about doctors. She had been talking with some doctors whilst she was in hospital and one of the problems that some of the doctors have is that they are actually held back by other doctors. Some of the most talented surgeons can complete a number of operations a day by taking a factory approach and quickly moving from one to the next. Other surgeons claim this is not an appropriate way for work to be carried out and think that each surgeon should only carry out one operation per day. I have no doubt that the most talented surgeons could safely carry out multiple operations in day. But equaly, this is not an approach that will suit every surgeon, whatever the level of skill, and creating a more open and flexible system will inevitably lead to some surgeons causing more problems.
So we are left with a dilema. One approach is to create systems that enables the most talented and skilled individuals to do their work to the best of their ability. But how do we identify the most talented and how many problems would this cause because the system does not suit those who are less talented or not in a position that suits them? The other way is to create a tightly controlled system based on those individuals who are not the high fliers but which ensures that everyone can perform safely.
Arguabley a shining light of a company that enables talent is Apple. Although always an issue that provokes debate, few can argue that Apple is one of the leaders in software design, hardware design, in profitability, in marketing and in many other areas. One of the keys to their success must be having highly talented individuals do the right kind of work, Steve Jobs is a consumate figurehead for the organisation, Johnathon Ives is one of the most talented industrial designers in this generation and Tim Cook is widely praised as a COO. Apple enables the people with talent to deliver. Very infrequently does Johnathon Ive ever do anything but industrial design, and yet in other companies he might spend so much time as a figurehead so much that ultimately he might have little impact on the final design.
Enabling talent then clearly works, but where does that leave the rest of us? I'm not saying that only the elite few humans are talented, because it just is not true. Every person I have met has a unique combination of skils, experience and personaltiy that means that they have much to give the world. But so often people are not in positions where their talents can best serve. Sometimes it is timing, sometimes our personal situation intervenes, and sometimes we just need kick back and relax taking a back seat for a while. As human beings we don't want to be immediately replaced by someone else at the slightest indication that there is someone who might perform our job a little better. We need a little security in our lives. A world dominated by skill and talent, or at least percieved skill and talent, would probably be more like city banking with high rewards but equally high risks. I personally would prefer a world not so 'red in tooth a claw' as this.
It might not be the right thing to have a world dominated by talent alone, but surely the world could do with more people having their talents enabled. All to easily we can take a walk down the street and see poor design, poor management and poor delivery, things that have clearly come out of a system based on the lowest common denominator. The world could be so much better if those with talent, in the right position at the right time were not held back as they can be today. Today our risk and reward system is dominated by industry and hard work. Everyone can choose to work harder, and so by having a reward system related to our efforts, everyone gets an equal shot at the reward. But this does not reward ultimate delivery. Gladwell's teaching example clearly shows that some people can deliver a product 3 times better than others in the same job, and I suspect this is a cautious estimate.
We need to change our view of human industry and start rewarding people more for working in the right way rather than doing more work. We need to give people more and more opportunities to find and use their talents so that the fear from more flexible working is outweighed by the potential for people to find the right work for them. We need to find better ways of meaasuring talent so that the most talented can be picked out. The world has much to learn from the most talented individuals. Why are they so good at what they do and what can we do to enable them and the others that follow to do their work better.
Whilst the 20th centruy might have been the centruy of industry, I hope that the next century is the one where human being, as a social entity really does start to work smarter rather than harder.
'Eric Hanushek, an economist at Stanford, estimates that the students of a very bad teacher will learn, on average, half a year’s worth of material in one school year. The students in the class of a very good teacher will learn a year and a half’s worth of material. That difference amounts to a year’s worth of learning in a single year. Teacher effects dwarf school effects: your child is actually better off in a “bad” school with an excellent teacher than in an excellent school with a bad teacher.'
I suspect this is no different in many other human endevours. Recently, my Mum had to go into hospital for a hip operation. I spent a few days in the hospital with her and we often chatted about doctors. She had been talking with some doctors whilst she was in hospital and one of the problems that some of the doctors have is that they are actually held back by other doctors. Some of the most talented surgeons can complete a number of operations a day by taking a factory approach and quickly moving from one to the next. Other surgeons claim this is not an appropriate way for work to be carried out and think that each surgeon should only carry out one operation per day. I have no doubt that the most talented surgeons could safely carry out multiple operations in day. But equaly, this is not an approach that will suit every surgeon, whatever the level of skill, and creating a more open and flexible system will inevitably lead to some surgeons causing more problems.
So we are left with a dilema. One approach is to create systems that enables the most talented and skilled individuals to do their work to the best of their ability. But how do we identify the most talented and how many problems would this cause because the system does not suit those who are less talented or not in a position that suits them? The other way is to create a tightly controlled system based on those individuals who are not the high fliers but which ensures that everyone can perform safely.
Arguabley a shining light of a company that enables talent is Apple. Although always an issue that provokes debate, few can argue that Apple is one of the leaders in software design, hardware design, in profitability, in marketing and in many other areas. One of the keys to their success must be having highly talented individuals do the right kind of work, Steve Jobs is a consumate figurehead for the organisation, Johnathon Ives is one of the most talented industrial designers in this generation and Tim Cook is widely praised as a COO. Apple enables the people with talent to deliver. Very infrequently does Johnathon Ive ever do anything but industrial design, and yet in other companies he might spend so much time as a figurehead so much that ultimately he might have little impact on the final design.
Enabling talent then clearly works, but where does that leave the rest of us? I'm not saying that only the elite few humans are talented, because it just is not true. Every person I have met has a unique combination of skils, experience and personaltiy that means that they have much to give the world. But so often people are not in positions where their talents can best serve. Sometimes it is timing, sometimes our personal situation intervenes, and sometimes we just need kick back and relax taking a back seat for a while. As human beings we don't want to be immediately replaced by someone else at the slightest indication that there is someone who might perform our job a little better. We need a little security in our lives. A world dominated by skill and talent, or at least percieved skill and talent, would probably be more like city banking with high rewards but equally high risks. I personally would prefer a world not so 'red in tooth a claw' as this.
It might not be the right thing to have a world dominated by talent alone, but surely the world could do with more people having their talents enabled. All to easily we can take a walk down the street and see poor design, poor management and poor delivery, things that have clearly come out of a system based on the lowest common denominator. The world could be so much better if those with talent, in the right position at the right time were not held back as they can be today. Today our risk and reward system is dominated by industry and hard work. Everyone can choose to work harder, and so by having a reward system related to our efforts, everyone gets an equal shot at the reward. But this does not reward ultimate delivery. Gladwell's teaching example clearly shows that some people can deliver a product 3 times better than others in the same job, and I suspect this is a cautious estimate.
We need to change our view of human industry and start rewarding people more for working in the right way rather than doing more work. We need to give people more and more opportunities to find and use their talents so that the fear from more flexible working is outweighed by the potential for people to find the right work for them. We need to find better ways of meaasuring talent so that the most talented can be picked out. The world has much to learn from the most talented individuals. Why are they so good at what they do and what can we do to enable them and the others that follow to do their work better.
Whilst the 20th centruy might have been the centruy of industry, I hope that the next century is the one where human being, as a social entity really does start to work smarter rather than harder.