Unfolding process of Cognitive talent

What is talent 

As human beings, we use our five senses, our body muscles, and our cognitive abilities - combination of all three in different proportion - to perform a task. Initially our performance in  a task is average. If we however practice it repeatedly, slowly and surely, we manage to acquire a talent in performing that task. Talent is not a 'potential' ability; it is a demonstrated ability in a person who can replicate the performance of a task  consistently in different situations.

A singer primarily uses his sense of 'hearing' along with his body muscle of 'vocal chord' to sing. His task is to sing. A sportsman, like a batsman, primarily uses his hand/body movements to coordinate with his ' visual sense' of judging the ball's trajectory. His task is batting. An innovator primarily uses his 'cognitive abilities' to rearrange the earlier thoughts of innovators along with his psychomotor skills to create a new engine, a computer or just draft a new idea. His task is innovating an engine. All three performers use all three sets of abilities, but the emphasis on each of the ability is varied. 

We therefore call dancer as an Aesthetic performer (because he primarily uses his five aesthetic senses), sportsman as a Psychomotor performer (because he primarily uses his finely honed muscle movements) and knowledge worker as Cognitive performer (because he primarily uses his cognitive ability to categorise data and correlate with other unlinked categories).

A&P performers can easily 'name' a task ( which they want to excel and convert it into a talent),  such as dancing, painting or playing cricket, to identify their talent zone. Cognitive performers, on the other hand, find it difficult to identify their task because cognitive task is multi-dimensional.

What is cognitive talent/task

In knowledge work, a cognitive task requires a combination of

- Subject Knowledge in specialities and sub specialities such as mechanical engineering ( not just engineering) or civil law (not just law)
- Domain Knowledge about domains such as manufacturing, banking, software, and
- Accompanying set of Skills based on the type of jobs such as front end jobs like sales and service and back-end jobs like  manufacturing, design or quality.

Unlike singe-dimensional tasks in aesthetic and psychomotor fields, cognitive task in knowledge work is multi-dimensional. It demands a combination of subject knowledge, domain knowledge and accompanying skills. Because of this multi-dimensionality, knowledge work exists in multiple varieties.

Unfolding of Cognitive talent

Talent unfolding process of A&P performer is well known and understood by researchers. Cognitive/knowledge performers can use this knowledge to guide them. Both A&P performer and cognitive performer use four phases of talent unfolding, although the duration and challenges faced in each of them differ widely. If you observe these differences closely, you will be able to anticipate the challenges better if you are a cognitive performer.

1. Talent exploration of A&P performer versus Ability exploration of cognitive/knowledge performer 

Because of uni-dimensional nature of task, A&P performer can chose his talent zone, say of dancing, at the age of 5, because the task of dancing at the age of 5 remains same when he becomes 25. His talent exploration phase commences at the age of 5-7 and continues for next 4/5 years to explore different options.

For cognitive performer, his cognitive ability exploration starts at the age of 6 and continues till the age of 22. Slowly and surely, he funnels his resources on a narrower area to increase his chances of developing his talent. For instance, by the end of high school, he chooses to focus on a narrow area of engineering or accounts. Later he may continue to narrow down the focus further, by say choosing to do a post graduation in a specific technology, or a course in law.

Knowledge about Data to Knowledge conversion will go a long way in helping a cognitive performer in making smart choices and even to guide him better in identifying and nurturing his abilities.

2. Talent development of A&P versus Competency development of cognitive/knowledge performer 

Once the talent (either of piano or violin) is decided at the end of Talent exploration phase, A&P performer starts developing his talent from the age of 9-10 and commits all his efforts and time in developing his talent for next 6-10 years. He gets all the necessary help from his coaches, support from parents, to develop all the necessary skills to become the top class in his talent.

Cognitive performer, on the other hand, choses a task or job at the end of Ability exploration phase. While choosing his job, he unwittingly choses his domain. The domain chosen could be automobiles, Image processing or software. Even if a person choses to join a BPO, he works in a specific domain, such as mobile call handling or financial products selling.  

While engaging in a task/job, cognitive performer converts his abilities into competency. In a competency, an individual has to synthesise his subject knowledge, domain knowledge, and develop accompanying skills required to perform the task. An engineer may join sales department of a Engineering and construction company and develop his Sales competency, or a CA may join a MIS department and develop his competency in 'Management decision making'.

While A&P performer takes long time ( 8-10 years) to develop his uni-dimensional talent, competency development takes shorter time frame of 2-3 years. Unlike A&P performer, cognitive performer gets no assistance from anyone either to identify the gap in the skill or to fill the gap quickly. For instance, many cognitive performers suffer poorly in their task due to lack of basic skill of perception-management.

As such, process of competency development is not well understood, and neither coaches are used as guide. This often lead to several changes in the work-path of a cognitive performer. This is why you see many cognitive performers change many jobs in the first part of their work-life: sales engineers becoming design engineers, software engineers leaving software, or salesman moving from selling medicines to selling shampoos.

Some cognitive performers, who succeed in their first task, develop multiple competencies one after another. The example of Noble Prize winner, Venkatram Ramkrishnan, depicts this development of multiple competencies vividly.

Some cognitive performers, though, find their their unique competency quickly and, instead of developing another competency, develop the same in a focussed manner.  Like A&P performers, they engage in Talent development.  I know of many Sales professionals, for example, who have spend considerable part of their lives in developing their Sales competency into an exceptional talent. Management consultants, trainers, Consultants in Engineering, Lawyers, Software and hardware engineers are some other examples. They are the happier lot of cognitive performers because they have found their element. 

3. Talent expression phase of A&P versus Competency convergence of Cognitive/Knowledge performer

For A&P performer, this is the stage where they express their uniqueness. Till now they were involved in the technical mastery of their talent area, be it violin or piano or chess. At this stage, they 'leave behind' all the technical mastery in their armory, and develop their own 'style' or 'innovation', which is truly unique.

Some cognitive performers use their multiple competencies to find an area where they can use all their developed competencies. They find a task where, everything they have achieved in life, becomes useful to them in their new task. This is converging all the competencies together in one task. I have met many corporate professionals who do not reach this phase at all.

4. Talent embedding phase 

This phase is common to both A&P and cognitive performers. Till this phase, the talent was an 'end' for which all their activities and decisions were meant to support. In this phase, they find a purpose or value where their talent becomes a 'means' to achieve the 'higher end'. Talent, instead of leading, becomes the follower. Talent is embedded in the lives of the performers. Nandan Nilekani's work as UAID Head is one such example.

Summary 

If you are a cognitive/knowledge performer, this is what is important to be remembered:

1. Ability Exploration: As compared to 4-5 years for A&P performers, your ability exploration phase is about 20 years long. Unlike A&P performer, you do not have to commit to a path early. That is both bane or a boon, depending how you use this period. In other words, to capitalise on the situation, you have to be one step ahead of the unfolding process.

2. Competency ( or talent) Development: Like A&P performers, you can focus on one unique competency and convert it into a talent. However, you also have another option. You can develop 2/3 major competencies in the next 10 years of life, provided you know how to do it.

Unlike A&P performer, you have lot of constraints though. During this phase, A&P has no family responsibilities. He also gets huge teaching/coaching support to develop his talent. On both counts, you have a handicap. You have to learn to develop competencies within your given constraints. That is why, you have to be one step ahead of the unfolding process. 

3. Competency convergence and talent embedding

Do not chase the illusive 'talent', as books seem to tell you. Just focus on 'converging your competencies'. If you are one step ahead of the unfolding process, you can jump this stage and move to the stage of talent embedding.

If you remain behind the unfolding process, you are constantly chasing, trying to control the damage. 

Parenting in a Montessori way

Montessori's view of child is so refreshingly simple and insightful that if you could practice those principles at home it will hugely benefit your child. So here are seven ideas that can be used to develop your child ( if he or she is less than 6 years).

1. Help the child to do his own activities.
Before this can be done, it is important to arrange important artifacts, which the child uses, to suit the child's size. For instance, keep the child's toothpaste and toothbrush at the height where he can easily reach. Keep her clothes in a 'separate shelf' which is compatible to her height. ( You will be surprised to see that the child loves order, especially at 3) Use child's commode seat in the bathroom. Get him tools that match with his size, such as spoon and fork.

Once the infrastructure is set in, let the child do activities by herself. If the child is willing to dress himself, let him do. If the child is willing to eat by herself, that is a better option. Although these activities take too long a time, and often create lot of mess, the trouble is worth the effort.

This is helpful in two ways. One, it allows the child to co-ordinate his hands and body easily. Mastering this coordination of body is an important milestone in the child's development. ( if you watch a mentally handicapped child, you will realise the importance of promoting child's body-coordination). Two, it makes the child independent.

2. Engage child in actual physical games,not virtual games:
Engage in activities where his body coordination is important, for instance climbing the slide. As coming down the steps is more difficult than climbing the stairs, coach the child to do on her own. Let the child commit mistakes infront of you, rather than behind you. In the same way, help the child to engage in difficult games, such as rope climbing. This hastens the body coordination of the child.

4. Use toys that compel child to engage with it actively.
Engaging a child in a 'purposeful' activity ( that makes the child understand the end of the activity) helps the child to focus his wandering attention and apply his intelligence and 'body coordination' together, which is another Montessori principle of developing your child.
For instance, use picture puzzles of animals so that the child can 'make the animal' by fitting different pieces.Even while taking a balloon, take 'empty' balloon and teach child to fill 'air' by mouth. Children typically like to 'color'. Provide him all the material to colour and paint. If you observe your child really 'concentrating' in painting ( or any of his activity), leave him alone for as long as he wishes.
Because of the above principle, there are many 'do nots'. For instance, avoid using passive toys like cars, because they are not 'purposeful'; they can be dropped at any moment by the child. Even TV watching is very passive and should be discouraged by using innovative tricks. Cartoons, by the way, needs to be avoided because it tends to promote imagination, before the mind is 'developed'. This in turn introduces child in a new pattern of engaging in 'fantasies'.

5. Respect the child's identity:
Listen to the child by being in child's shoes. For instance, do not feed child until she says she is 'hungry'. Force feeding at a fixed time prevents the child to 'sense' her hunger.
If you have promised something, please keep the promise until a pattern is set in. If you can't bring him something due to lack of money, be sure to 'explain' it. Children surprisingly understand the constraint of money better than we think, i have found.
Because of the choice given to child in Montessori to do ( or not to do) an activity, child's identity gets created slowly in Montessori House of children. I have heard of a child in a Montessori, who refused to do any activity in a school for one year. And yet after 3 years, he was a normal child.

6. Use every instance to enrich child's vocabulary:
Child at the age of 3 is fascinated with language. Child however understands word through sounds ( i.e phonetically), not through alphabets. Therefore do not hasten to teach child to 'spell' the word; instead offer her the 'sound of words' whenever practical. Try to categorise words in sections, because that helps child. For instance, introduce 'kitchen' words separately than 'bathroom words'. Words help child to classify objects and make sense of the chaotic impressions that are bombarding him.
Montessori method introduces language phonetically. Only after the child can replicate the sound of words, alphabets are introduced. And then grammar is introduced.

7. Introduce numbers when child shows inclination:
Below 5, the absorbent mind of child absorbs concepts as 'concretes'. Numbers are concepts. Therefore always introduce numbers through concrete instances, like 1 marble or 2 marble. Both marbles should look same. Child cannot 'understand' that the same number is applicable to chocolate, kilometer, or money. Even when additions have to be shown, add 1 marble+ 2 marble and show it as 3 marbles. Montessori uses spindle rods to introduce the concept of counting and uses 'beads' to help counting.

Every child is distinct, and therefore you will have to adapt the above ideas accordingly for your child. If you have a good Montessori House of Children near your house, it is a good idea to take help of a Montessorian in devising specific strategies for developing your child. For children who are above-average curious or active, or who tend to listen to adults meekly, a Montessorian is required to adopt a different style and method.

Please remember that these ideas are not to make your child more intelligent. Intelligence definitely assists development, but at this young age, it may also bypass it. Rewards and punishments are powerful tools of development, but which require large space to set the context. We have therefore not dealt with it here.

You are unlucky if you have cognitive talents

In a research findings@ of 120 talented individuals sampled from six fields comprising aesthetic fields like music and sculpting, psychomotor sports fields like tennis and swimming, and cognitive fields like mathematics and medicine, 20 most talented individuals from each of these field were asked questions about acquiring their extraordinary talents over a period of 20 odd years. Their parents and teachers were also interviewed to corroborate the answers.

The research findings brought out many interesting, and sometimes counter-intuitive conclusions, such as 'extraordinary talents are not spotted at an early age to succeed'.Infact, none of the 120 talented individuals, not even the musicians and sportsman, in the sample were child prodigies or were discovered due to their 'extraordinary' talent.

But more than the generic findings, the 3 observations on nurturing cognitive talent versus other talents clearly brings out the huge challenges that you knowledge workers - programmers, engineers, managers, chartered accountants, lawyers, medical consultants - have to surmount in 'identifying and nurturing your cognitive talent'.

1. While development of aesthetic and psychomotor talents is visible, development of cognitive talent is invisible: If you are good in Music,dance or sports, your ability is visible to all, even to a layman. This helps friends and family members to automatically recognise these talented children as 'fast learners' and use the surrounding eco-system of teachers, competitions and social recognition to initiate the cycle of learning at an early age.

In contrast to this, for cognitive performers such as in mathematics and medicine, almost all of the action takes place in their minds. Nothing is visible to others. Until some expert teacher in that specific subject recognises the huge talent, say after solving a 'mathematical problem', the talent remains 'unrecognised' and therefore 'not encouraged'. The virtuous cycle of learning starts late.

2. While aesthetic and psychomotor talents, due to their nature, are identified at an early age, cognitive talents are identified very late: Because their talents depend on 'senses' and coordination of muscles, the musicians in the above sample began their formal studies in music by the age of 6 and the sportsman by the age of 7. This helps the individuals with aesthetic and psychomotor talents to explore and engage early in lives and produce demonstrable and objectively verifiable 'work' by the age of 11-12. This in turn provides them the necessary confidence to 'choose' their talent area, which in turn helps them invest huge time and energy on one 'talent', further increasing the probability of success.

In contrast, the mathematicians in the above sample began their formal studies in mathematics by the age of 13. Because they start late they cannot produce any demonstrable and verifiable work quickly. This delay in 'focusing' on one talent path splinters their time and attention, which further delays their learning on their talent area.

You may think that students with high IQ ( IQ above 160) can choose their talent field easily. But that is not true. A book by Ruth Feldman on these high IQ 'Quiz Kids' spells out the difficulties these cognitive performers face in 'choosing their talent path'.

3. Trajectory of cognitive talent development makes it difficult for cognitive performers to nurture their talent:

Because the talent of musicians and sportsman is recognised early, by the age of 20, they are spending 4-6 years per day on nurturing their talent in the second phase of their learning, perfecting their talent. Their parents provide the monetary support for talent development, while different type of teachers and coaches actively help them to sharpen their talents.

In contrast, trajectory of cognitive performers starts late. This means that even when cognitive performers have identified their talent area, they cannot get the required time to practice, because other responsibilities - such as earning for oneself - come in the forefront. The hormones of adolescence further derails their talent development journey by distracting their mind and time.

Parental support, by that age, is practically absent due to societal factors. Teacher support is available for 'researchers' who are doing Phds in universities, but for other cognitive performers, even this support is non-existent. Even the companies, who stand to gain the maximum from their talent, do not actively support the development of their cognitive talent, because it does not benefit them directly.

Isn't this surprising? In aesthetic and psychomotor fields, talent development is understood well enough and one can use also the eco-system to sharpen one's talent.

But if you are a cognitive performer ( such as programmers, managers, sales individuals, consultants, advertising professionals, lawyers and practicing medical consultants) which perhaps constitute 70-80% of the performers in a population, you are simply unlucky. Neither you have the knowledge ( of training methods and processes required to identify and nurture the talent), nor do you have the supporting eco-system ( competitions, coaches and training time) to help you identify and sharpen your talent.

But if you are working in cognitive domains, what can you do? At least, you could start at the beginning. Removing the confusion around the word 'talent' could be the first step. In this blog, we shall describe the knowledge and the eco-system that you could use to develop your cognitive talents.

@ Benjamin Bloom: Developing talent in young people

Do you have the skill set of a Manager?

Madhukar was very happy when he got promoted as a Manager of a bank branch. He had waited for it very long and was already planning to take many initiatives in the branch. After six months, Madhukar was so unhappy with the job that he sought for a change.

This phenomenon is so common in organizations that HR executives call this a double jeopardy for an organisation. They say " When we promote a good performer, we lose a good asset and acquire a liability ( a bad manager)'. It is a total loss for the organisation.

Recently i read about Dilip Vengsarkar's loss of elections to head Mumbai Cricket Association- MCA.Following issues were brought forth in the various articles: Can cricketers become good cricket administrators? Can cricket administrator do a good job without knowledge of cricket? It is the same question we face in organisations: Can a good sales performer become a good sales manager? Can one become sales manager without any skill of selling a product?

First difference is between the skill-set of cricketer and administrator. I have used Sanjay Dixit's article here to list the skill-set of cricketer and cricket administrator. A Test cricketer learns the art of batsmanship, the nuances of bowling, the finer aspects of cricketing strategy and all about the modern developments in training methodology. A cricket administrator has to learn the politics of managing different stakeholders, the legal complications involved in the job, the financial aspects, Income Tax and Service Tax issues, and liaison with various agencies. As the cricketer has no opportunity to learn these skills while playing cricket, he is a novice in using these skills. He is more than likely to fail as a cricket administrator !

Some cricketers, on the other hand, pronounced Mumbai cricket dead after Dilip Vengsarkar lost the elections. Does this mean that sportsmen alone can do a great job of running an association? A good example to contradict this view is of S K Wankhede who was MCA's president during the best of Mumbai's cricketing years. He was not a cricketer, much less a Test player. Mumbai's Wankhede Stadium was his handiwork. He spawned a system in which the cricketers did the specialized jobs, such as coaching and selections and he promoted a fair system where only the best could represent Bombay.

Options for learning the job of manager

What is the lesson from the above story? Both skills are necessary - the skill of administration and the skill of nurturing cricketing talent - to head a cricket association. What can you do?

If you are a cricketer, for instance, what options do you have to become a cricket association's head? You have to acknowledge the skill you do not have, and find someone else in the team who has the complementary set of skill, the skill of administration. This is one option. However, if administrative part of job generates the 'power' required to perform the full role, you cannot handover that part of job to someone else without jeopardising your basic role. In other words, some parts of job cannot be 'delegated' to someone as easily because it sacrifices the integral component of the role.

This happened with Madhukar. He tried to delegate the job of 'man-management' to his deputy in his branch, but that slowly robbed him off all the power he required to perform his role of 'branch manager'. At the end of six months, he knew he cannot function effectively as a branch manager, even though his understanding of banking industry and customers ( business domain) was bringing more business to his branch. However, if Madukar was in Army, he would not have faced any such problem. Army is a very hierarchical organisation with clear differentiation of superior and subordinate. Managerial rule-set of Army is different than in Madhukar's bank. Managerial rule-set determines how things are done in an organisation, how performance is monitored and disciplined, how power is displayed and how 'authority' and 'knowledge' are intertwined in an organisation.

In other words, Madhukar failed as a Manager, because his option of delegating part of his job did not 'match' with the managerial rule-set of his bank. As you would have guessed, this managerial rule-set of organisation is not written explicitly in any manual. One has to be skillful in 'inferring' this rule-set from working in an organisation. Often individuals fail in managerial roles, because they cannot 'read' this managerial rule-set and therefore misalign with the organisation ! An experienced sales manager, moving to another organisation, in the same industry ( which means he has the same domain knowledge of the product and industry) may also fail because he could not align with the implicit managerial rule-set of the new organisation.

Please note that we are here discussing about the first level of manager who synthesises the work of 'doers'. ( Please read my blog of 'Paradox of doers' of 4 Aug 2006 to understand the characteristics of doers) More than skill-set, it is the mind-set of Manager which is very difficult to adopt for a performer when he is getting promoted. Job of Manager is to 'synthesise' the task output of different performers, like a orchestra conductor who synthesises the instruments of different musicians. The job of manager is therefore 'ends-driven', while the job of performer is 'means-driven'. For a performer, this orientation is very difficult to change because it means ignoring talent if need be, sacrificing quality when the time is critical, and promoting interdependent working instead of independent working.

What can you do?

If you are a performer - be in programming, design or sales - and you do want to become a manager in your function, plan for it. Preparation is helpful, because it reduces the 'surprises' and gives you more time to respond.

First, understand the differences in skill-set of your current role and the manager. If you do not know it, talk with HR person. Because managerial positions are defined differently in every company, it is necessary to understand the precise role in your company. Do not use book definitions of managerial roles. Secondly, get introduced to some of the skill-sets even though one cannot learn them by 'reading' a book about them. Talking with some mentor is useful. Thirdly, practice some skills, if possible. For instance, skills of man-management cannot be learnt only by reading a book of 'how to delegate'. It requires practice. Seek support of mentors or coaches to do the practice. Fourthly, in a skill-set, focus only on a particular aspect of the skill which you think may be difficult for you. For instance, if you think that 'confronting your subordinates on their lack of performance' is a big challenge for you, learn that specific skill.Fifthly, understand the mind-set required by talking with a manager. Mind-set cannot be adopted just by listening to someone, but it helps to become aware of the requirements. Sixthly, find a manager-mentor or coach and interact with him very often in the initial transition period to fine-tune your approach and actions. Planning alone is never enough.

How to make experience count? (Version 2)

(I am writing this blog again, because of the feedback i have got on my last blog. Many readers told me that they found it very difficult to 'apply' the ideas of 'deliberate practice' research that i talked in the blog. So here is another attempt.)

Typically, when we learn something new, we go through the learning phase and try hard until we master the activities well enough. For instance, take the example of driving. Until we learn to drive in the traffic, drive up on slopes while stopping, and can park well in small paces, we practice hard. As soon as we reach that stage, which the researchers claim to happen in approximately 50 hours of practice, we stop working on it further. We reach our comfort zone. That happens with our job experience too. Be it presenting to the customers, persuading a difficult subordinate, or convincing the superior on a tough plan; we all learn enough to do the tasks reasonably well, and then remain at that level. That is our comfort zone. And once we reach that comfort zone, we just go through the paces.We stop learning from our experience, because we stop practicing.

Researchers(1) however have found that the excellent performance - whether in sports, music, surgery or writing - is produced only when one goes beyond this comfort zone and practices deliberately. Contrary to the popular belief, it is not innate talent that produces excellence; it is this 'deliberate practice'. Despite the huge talent of Tiger Woods, for instance, he could achieve his excellence only after he practiced deliberately for 10,000 hours ( which researchers call as 10 year rule). His innate talent did not help him reduce the hours of deliberate practice; instead it helped him start early in his practice. In other words, excellence is produced through experience of a deliberate type. It is the way performers practice, the areas they practice that produces excellence.

For corporate professionals, who develop only through experience, learning the tools of deliberate practice is not just necessary; it is almost essential. Let us understand how to use this research for excelling in corporate world.

Excellent performers, be in chess, surgery, writing or sports and music follow these four rules that are useful for corporate professionals:

1. Excellent performers know their 'areas' of practice: Excellence is produced not by practicing on anything: they practice very very specific things. Often, it is very different than what is considered typical. For instance, expert violinist concentrate on practicing 'solo' instead of performing in actual orchestra or playing with colleagues. Sports person work more on off-the-game routines instead of getting match practice ! Expert cooks practice on the activities 'before' cooking, not on the activities 'during' cooking.

Corporate professionals must find their 'areas of practice' to become better programmers, sales managers, design engineers or financial analysts. For instance, application developers have to practice understanding 'non functional' requirements of an application before they start coding. Every individual needs to find his 'areas of practice'. For instance, a sales professional may need more practice on 'understanding customer specs', while another sales professional may need more practice on 'convincing customers'. Coaches and mentors are helpful in identifying the right areas of practice.

2. Excellent performers practice for the future role, not just for the current position: In other words, excellent performers do not wait for the problem to come to them.They anticipate the next mountain to climb, and prepare themselves for it by practicing before hand. If you have watched the career of Rafael Nadal, you would have observed the application of this rule.

I am always surprised to see that corporate professionals miss this rule more often than not. Even when they are waiting for promotion ( developer to module leader, or sales officer to sales manager) they rarely think through and work on practicing the new role before hand. They just walk into the new role unprepared, suffer a performance dip and spend disproportionate time and effort to undo the damage.

3. Excellent performers perceive more than average performers: Excellent performers do not have high memory to perceive more. When chess pieces were kept randomly, researchers found that excellent chess players remembered only 7-9 positions of chess pieces, which was similar to average chess players. But if the board of a actual live game was shown, excellent chess players remembered much more ( > 20 positions) than average chess players ( about 10). In other words, excellent chess players had higher 'long term working memory' because their mental model remembered the 'interactions of pieces'. Because excellent performers perceive more, they react faster, they notice smaller differences, observe warning signals faster than average performers.

The same is true of Jack Welch or Jeff Immelt. They are known for their fast reflexes and reading between the lines. But they also perceive more things because their mental models of 'business elements' ( how industry functions) and 'management elements' ( how their company functions) is more accurate ( and therefore reflects as-is reality better) than average performers. Business element model is also called as domain model in general parlance. Building this domain model and perfecting it regularly is therefore a critical practice for becoming a top class corporate professional.

Depending on one's hierarchy, every top corporate professional has a mental model of both - domain and management - to function excellently. A highly effective project manager, for instance, also has a rich working model of 'project management' to manage a project effectively!

4. Excellent performers seek constant and quick feedback to improve: Without quality feedback, there is no improvement. This is one of the basic rules that differentiates average from excellent performers. In sports and music, getting objective feedback is possible, even though difficult.

In the knowledge work of corporate professionals this is even more difficult. At lower heirarchy, one can innovatively seek feedback from colleagues, superiors, or even through usage of HR tools. I know of a senior manager in a multinational company who seeks feedback from his subordinates every quarter in a formal setting. But at higher levels, getting feedback is almost impossible without learning 'meta-cognition'- it is the ability to see yourself performing, while you are performing. Coaches can be helpful not only in offering accurate feedback, but also in designing 'crucibles' that will offer better quality feedback.

Are you using these four rules in making your experience count?

(1) Dr Anders Ericsson's work is described in many of his books. For a short summary, read this article.

How to make your experience count?

One often assumes that experience will automatically create an expertise that will become difficult to replace. However you would have also met professionals whose 10 years of experience is 1 year multiplied by 10 years ! What differentiates the two professionals?

Dr Anders Ericsson's exhaustive work on expert performers helps us understand what can be done. He has discovered that innate talent does not cause excellent performance; instead it is achieved only through conscious practice, what he calls as 'deliberate practice'. Deliberate practice is a kind of training in which the person concentrates on one item at a time, constantly listens to the feedback, and then corrects himself. This is done continuously. His 900 page book cites cases of excellent performers from varied professions: surgery, music, firefighting to computer programming. If you have limited time, you could read his short article.

Here are four actions you can take to make your experience count ( all four actions are not independent, but co-related):

1. Break your objective of gaining 'expertise' into different behaviours: If you are a project manager, for instance, bifurcate your expertise into small and manageable outcomes such as Manage customers and Manage internal team. Bifurcate these outcomes into visible behaviours, such as 'Confront customers when customer fails to meet his side of expectations' or 'Understand customer's business' etc. If you are a design engineer, you may bifurcate into 'Capture customer requirements correctly' and ' Understand the limitations of technology-in-use'

2. Find time to engage in deliberate practice of this behaviour: Dr Ericcson has found that uni-dimensional performers like violinists spend at least 10 hours every week. For a multi-dimensional performer like a corporate professional, who is working on many different 'skill sets', this time limit may not be relevant. What is however important to remember is that developing expertise requires practice every day with 'concentration'.

Dr Anderson discovered that violinists took a nap after lunch. "The argument they made," says Ericsson, "was that the real constraint on how much you could practise was not the number of hours in the day, but the number of hours in the day you could sustain full concentration. If you couldn't sustain your concentration, you were wasting your time."

For a corporate professional who is working on numerous items simultaneously ( multi-tasking is supposed to be an in-thing today!), this is important to remember because he will have to find time to concentrate only only on 'one item'.

3. Set up careful experiments to practice Unless corporate professional, like a golf player, learns to set up 'experiments' to practice different shots from the same location, he cannot learn.

If a corporate professional is successful say in negotiating with customers, the corporate professional has to find 'why he is successful' to know 'the various actions he unconsciously does' to succeed in negotiations. He won't find this until he experiments with different 'variables'. If he does not experiment, he may 'fail' one day not knowing 'what went wrong'. If he experiments and knows why, he can replicate his success 'confidently' in different settings and situations. Like a expert performer, he can even do 'damage control' when the negotiation seems to be lost.

4. Get constant feedback on your actions ( behaviour) to correct and improve. Getting quick and accurate feedback is the most difficult task in a corporate setting, because there are too many variables 'on the table' in a complex corporate setting. For instance, how can one evaluate one's skill to negotiate with a successful customer who is satisfied with the past record? The performance goal exercises conducted once in a year in companies provide feedback that is 'too late' and 'too gross'.

A corporate professional therefore has to use lot of ingenuity in getting feedback on his intended actions. 360 degree appraisal is a good feedback tool on perfecting some type of behaviours. This is why ability to set up experiments is critical for assessing one's performance and getting accurate feedback on a specific behaviour or action. It is not surprising to observe that even solo performers like sportsman need coaches for setting careful experiments to get quick and accurate feedback.

Due to the difficulty of setting experiments and getting accurate and quick feedback in corporate setting, it is natural that one cannot use this method for mastering all type of behaviours. Instead, one has to choose the specific set of behaviours which are meaningful and critical for your career. It could be mastering the skill set of Program manager; and that too a program manager who can manage, say clients, of Healthcare. Even that mastery of small skill set is enough to provide you a platform from which you can explore many more options.

If you however ignore this, you will become like Sreenath. I met Sreenath a year back. With an experience of over 12 years ( and that too in good organisations), he came to me because he was not getting a job, not the job. Isn't that surprising?

What is the level of your job satisfaction?

In my coaching experience, 5 out of 10 coachees at a 5 minus experience leave jobs because of 'not enough job satisfaction'. Job satisfaction is too big a concept. If we can bifurcate it to three levels, based on what psychologist Daniel Nettle did with the concept of 'happiness', it will help us understand how to negotiate job dissatisfaction better.

The basic level, or the first level of job satisfaction, comprises of momentary feelings, like the satisfaction of having a nice friend group at the office, or even having a understanding boss who allows you to come late. The second, or intermediate level of job satisfaction, is a state of mind. This level involves judgement about feelings, not feelings alone. The third and highest level of job satisfaction is more permanent and results from having a job that satisfies a deeper meaning or having a job with significance, like a job done to propagate a social cause like pollution.

What is your level of job satisfaction? If it is the first level, you are in a tricky waters. At this level, even though the 'presence' of momentary feelings is not enough to help you stay in the current job, 'absence' of these feelings can act ( and often do act) as a trigger to look for a different job.

Second level of Job satisfaction is about the judgement of those momentary feelings. Everyone has a different way of getting job satisfaction. Some find satisfaction in a job that provides constant novelty ( often a big reason for software programmers), some find it in a job that helps them constantly learn new areas, some find it in a job where lot of people-meeting is involved. Some like jobs that have low action>feedback delay, such as in customer service or sales. In these jobs, you get feedback on your action almost immediately. There are endless ways of beheading the multi-headed monster of job-satisfaction, as they say.

Third level of job satisfaction comes from a job that has deeper significance to you. I helped a coachee two years back to shift from a high-paying corporate job to well-paying job in education segment because the coachee wanted 'meaning' in his job. As he said, 'i want to have some purpose in my life'. Today i meet many youngsters, even with just 2 years experience, who look for 'meaningful' jobs, because money does not motivate them due to their well-to-do background.

In my experience, 3 out of 10 coachees face challenges of job-satisfaction at the first level. It arises, i think, because of mistaken belief that 'job dissatisfaction is an aggregate of unsatisfactory moments". If parents had these belief, they would have disliked 'parenting', because parenting is full of 'frustrating' moments. Instead, parents enjoy the process of parenting thorougly. In the same way, a job has both positive and negative moments, and it would be wrong to judge the level of dissatisfaction only by negative moments. But that is how it happens with some.

4 out of 10 coachees face challenges of job satisfaction at the second level. Professionals find it difficult to negotiate this because they seek solution to job-satisfaction with a mindset of solving Sudoko puzzle. Sudoko puzzle has one clear objective, no possibility of changing the objective midway although the goals may change, and one clear solution. On the other hand the puzzle of job satisfaction has multiple objectives which can change midway, can be reached through different goals and actions, and worse still, can have more than one solution. This puzzle of job satisfaction requires a different mindset.

What is your level of job satisfaction or dissatisfaction? If you have a problem of job satisfaction in your current job, you will be able to overcome the hurdles of job satisfaction if you can identify it's level. If, instead, you are satisfied in your current job, your level of job satisfaction will 'instruct' you about the next course of action for you.

Surprisingly, even entrepreneurs also face this challenge; except with one difference. While the cost of job satisfaction is paid by the employer of corporate professional, in the case of entrepreneur, he pays it through his own pocket.

Do emotions use you or you use emotions?

Here is a case of Pratham:

Pratham, with a four year experience, works in a company. When i met him in Jan 2011, he wanted to work with this company for a long time. However, when he called me in April, he wanted me to help him find a new job. When i asked him why, he said he is leaving because he had got a "B' rating in the year end appraisal. I was surprised because B rating is second best rating in his company. When i probed further about his decision of leaving, he said " Amit, my colleague, is not as good as he is, but he however has got A rating. So how can i stay in a company which does not value talent'.

Emotions are using Pratham. Emotions are important 'signals' to tell us that something is wrong. Like temperature indicates the status of physical state, our emotions indicate the status of our mental state. But high temperature does not decide the treatment to be taken, because high temperature may also result due to 'high infection'. So too is emotion. Emotion, like temperature, cannot decide the course of action to be taken.

But when emotions use us, emotions are used as a 'criteria' to decide the course of action. When emotions are used as 'input' to take decisions, we use emotions. When emotions use us, we react like Pratham. When we use emotions, we respond after weighing other inputs. When we use emotions, emotions are the source of understanding, but when emotions use us, they compel us to act!

From the viewpoint of career, when emotions use us, we stop learning about our 'Self'- who we are, what we like and value. When we use emotions instead, we name the emotion and find the underlying belief that is causing the emotion. For instance, if Pratham uses his emotion, he may find that his emotion is 'anger towards his company' for not recognising his talent. ( or it could be anger towards his boss).

With some probing, Pratham may be able to articulate his underlying belief of what 'talent' means to him. By articulating his belief in accurate words, he may be able to understand that his belief of talent is different than what what his company (or boss) believes?. For instance the company/boss may believe that Amit is 'talented' because he is a better 'team worker' than Pratham, although Pratham may be intelligent than Amit. These differing views of talent will help Pratham understand the priorities of his company/boss, and therefore will help him correct his career course.

With this crucial learning, Pratham is likely to make fewer blunders later in his career. On the other hand, because emotions are using him, Pratham has missed all this learning and can make the same mistake again and again. I have narrated one event in Pratham's life. Multiply this with hundred/thousand such events, and you will realise the importance of Pratham using emotions (instead of being used by emotions) on his career progress!

Emotions are the biggest source of both blunders and opportunities in a student/professional's life. However, even a coach cannot help you separate between the two if you cannot process emotions. Like Pratham, you will be blind to your own actions ! Unless Pratham learns to use emotions, he is victim of circumstance. Instead of using coach to understand himself better, he uses coach to justify his actions or to control the damage that is resulting from his actions. This is another reason why professionals cannot use career advice of a coach.

Using emotions means taking three steps. It means learning to name the emotion i.e understanding the difference between two emotions, say 'anger' and 'frustration' ( as in Pratham's case!) . Second step is to unravel the underling belief of emotion by peeling layers one above another. Third step is to undertake reality check of belief that will help you decide whether to continue or modify the belief.

One of the biggest unintended consequence of Using emotion is your ability to understand your self bit by bit from daily events of your life ( in contrast to attending retreats or going to Himalayas). Only after you understand your Self more accurately, you can take charge of your career course, instead of reacting and following other's course.

Where do you stand in your life? Do you use emotions or do emotions use you?

Post script: If emotions use you, this is the second FAT - failure attracting trait - that hinders your career progress.

Learning from Succession plans of big IT companies

Please read this link in yahoo on the succession planning of top IT companies.

http://in.finance.yahoo.com/news/Succession-Planning-Some-ians-1973853613.html

As a careerologist, here are three lessons i would like to draw from these examples:

1. Successor should be an Insider. If you are changing jobs after 35-40, it is difficult to reach the top. This is part of 'core group' theory.

2. Successor should have a complementary skill set to the incumbent, not supplementary. If the incumbent is an 'organisation-driven' person, the successor could be 'customer-driven'. Whatever you are doing well, please stick to it. Do not try to be like the 'top boss'?

3. It is important to learn the 'soft organisational keys' to drive big agendas in the organisation, not the hard skill set. One can 'learn' these keys only after staying in an organisation for a long time. ( There is an art in learning these keys. If you have it, you are lucky. Others have to consciously develop this art.!)

Any comments?

Failure-attracting tendencies in career

In my career research, I have found that some traits 'attract' failure. I call them FAT - failure attracting tendencies- traits. These traits are such that they constantly tend to place a person into a 'structure' that leads a person unwittingly into a situation that attracts 'failure'.One such FAT trait is 'Inability to ask for help' from our friends, elders, mentors and our well wishers. Be it finding the right course or the right job after graduation, we need to obtain information from others to guide us. We should not be like Manoj.

I met Manoj, of about age 30, during one of my family trips to South India. Early morning, after waking in the morning, he asked for a sweet 'Sonpapdi'. I thought he wanted a high dose of calorie. Later i discovered that he keeps on eating lot of sweet during the day. I found that he also liked vegetables cooked in Masala. Not surprisingly, he complained about 'acidity' on day 3 and vomited. Reasons for acidity were obvious to any objective observer. When i checked with his wife and family members, i discovered that Manoj refuses to listen to any advice or seek any help on his food habits. Does it require an astrologer to predict that Manoj will face a major health challenge in his 40's?

Why doesn't Manoj ask for help even when he is suffering? Answer to this simple question is not so obvious. In my research, i have found that people like Manoj stop asking other's help or suggestion because his earlier experience of getting help from others has not been 'reinforcing'. This happens due to three reasons.

Firstly, people like Manoj do not know 'when to ask for help'. Without this knowledge, they seek help for everything. Others perceive them as naive simpletons, ready to be exploited. Secondly, even when they know 'when to ask for help', they do not know 'whom to ask'. They ask wrong people who do not have the requisite information and therefore provide too generic advice ! Thirdly, even if they sometimes know when and whom to ask for help, they do not know 'how to ask for help'. They ask wrong questions, and get inappropriate answers. In short, every experience of asking for help results in 'bad' experience. Either people exploit them for asking for help, or even if they manage to find the right person, because of wrong questions they get help that is too generic. This 'reinforcing' cycle consolidates their hypothesis that 'asking for help is not useful'. Slowly and surely, they stop asking for help from others. They become like Manoj.

Over a period of time, due to this accumulation of bad experience, Manoj becomes 'dead' to suggestions from his friends and family. Because people also exploit Manoj sometimes, Manoj stops listening to others. And because Manoj always get generic advice, he feels his case is different from others and therefore other's suggestions are not useful for him. In short Manoj stops listening to other's suggestion and advice.

This however creates a curious situation in Manoj's life. He not only stops listening to advice on 'food habits', he may also stop listening people's advice on other important matters of his life. He 'closes' the system around himself, and isolates himself from others inputs and feedback. He becomes blind to his own mistakes. This creates a classic 'recipe' for an impending failure !

On the other hand, developing this skill of asking for help ( when, whom and how to ask for help) makes a big difference in a person's career. I have found that many students, professionals and entrepreneurs face more than 'normal problems' in their career because they cannot ask for help.

Why can't professionals use career advice?

I met Ajit last week who has a 5 year experience with software firm. He was seeking a job in a new company and wanted to know 'what is the right job he should find'. When i inquired with him, i found that he was working only for last 6 months in his current job. When i asked him the reason for leaving job, he replied that he was having problem with his current boss. I told him that his problem is not 'finding the right job', but learning 'how to deal with difficult boss'. He responded ' I will learn that later' and further asked me if i will help him now in finding the right job now?

This is a typical way in which corporate professionals approach career-making. They wait for 'important' problem to convert into 'urgent' problem. They do not address the problem when it is 'important'.So when the problem becomes urgent, they neither have the time to address the problem symptom; nor the requisite freedom to use different options.
This is why professional players approach their game in a different manner. If Roger Federer or Nadal used this approach in their career, they will solve their problem only after they have lost the match. Instead professional players employ coaches. Coaches help them identify their 'important' problems in advance and prepare them before they become 'urgent'. This is what helps them consistently win games over a long period of time.

This is what a coach can do for corporate professionals. A coach can convince Ajit in using the available situation to solve the problem, instead of bypassing the problem. A coach can therefore help Ajit to develop his skill of managing difficult bosses, so that Ajit's career does not get blocked in the future due to difficult bosses. A coach can help Ajit to solve his 'important' problems before they become 'urgent'.

Without a coach, a corporate professional , like a professional player, will only react to situations and problems. A coach, by proactively identifying 'important' problems that one is likely to anticipate in a career, helps a corporate professional develop the necessary skills in advance. A corporate professional, with a helpful coach, can build his career on his chosen path , instead of changing the path to avoid the roadblocks.

Is marriage relationship an indicator of career success?

In a recent survey of about 3000 couples it was discovered that an average couple ( http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/man-woman/Average-couple-argues-2455-times-a-year/articleshow/8464221.cms) bickers 7 times a day. Of course, this is a survey of western couples. In India, i guess this number could be less in older generation couples, but in the young generation this could be a representative number. How is marriage relationship related to career-intelligence?

Researchers have found that biggest single reason for a tiff in a marriage is not listening to what the other half is saying. In other words, people tend to 'advocate' more than 'listen and inquire'. Surprisingly, this is also the most common bottleneck faced by a professional who is wanting to enter the ' top most core group' of an organisation.

As a professional grows in an organisation, he or she has to learn to 'advocate' less and 'listen' more to bring together the diverse viewpoints on a subject, problem or a decision. Without bringing these diverse points, the decisions are suboptimal and root causes of a problem remain unresolved. Where is a playground to learn this skill?

In an organisation, this skill is difficult to learn, because there is no playground to learn this skill. As one grows and acquires seniority in an organisation, because of power, juniors tend to listen to seniors. Even when juniors are 'told' to 'speak' their mind, juniors often make mistakes in stating 'irrelevant' points or highlighting 'narrow issues'. Senior executives soon lose their patience and revert to become 'advocates' of their viewpoints. A senior executive therefore does not get to practice the skill of listening and inquiring.

For an executive, marriage relationship is surprisingly one of the best playground to develop this skill of listening and inquiring. One other playground is in his/her relationship with same-age friends, where his viewpoints are questioned and deliberated.

Without learning this skill of 'listening and inquiring', one cannot cross the invisible glass barrier of entering the 'core group of team' in an organisation. Apart from other benefits of marriage relationship, this is how marriage directly helps an individual in building one's career.

Is 2011 World cup win a more challenging victory than 1983 World cup win?

Planning for mental conditioning

It was in Dambulla where, as Virender Sehwag mentioned, they started visualising the 2011 World Cup final. "We had planned a year ago what we needed to do in order to set ourselves up to win the World Cup," Upton said.

Paddy Upton, mental conditioning coach of Indian team, spoke of the year the team had been through: the anticipation, the preparation, the hard work. "We set on this a year ago. Gary and myself and Eric Simons asked the question, 'Are we ready to win the World Cup?' And we felt we had the team to win it, the skill and the talent, but mentally we possibly weren't ready."

This mental conditioning work done for carrying the burden of such monumental expectation makes this 2011 world cup win a more special win than even 1983 World cup win. I know two wins are difficult to compare. However winning a tournament with so high expectation ( 2011 World cup) requires a radically different degree of mental effort and skill than winning a tournament with no expectations! This is why in sports it is far more difficult to consistently win for 4-5 years than winning for a year. ( And that is why Roger Federer so highly respected in a tennis world which he dominated for so long!) Skill aspects are easier aspects to learn and prepare; what is more difficult is undergoing the mental conditioning work required for so long a time.

Bearing mental stress

We do not know the details of Upton's mental conditioning work that he did with Indian team, but some of the aspects are visible now in the post-match interviews. For instance, to find a way to adjust to the nervousness, Dhoni said the players tried dealing with nerves in different ways. "We said avoid it, do this, do that," but the strain was always felt. When Dhoni was asked how Yuvraj had been in the dressing room during the tournament, he replied with a smile: "He has been vomiting a lot".

Yuvraj told ESPNcricinfo, as he crossed the Wankhede to return to his dressing room, that he had been physically ill several times during the tournament. "Anxiety, anxiety," he explained. "This was the World Cup and that anxiety can really be heavy."

Some of the players had been struggling to sleep properly. Dhoni added, "If you ask the players, they were not eating well because of anxiety. Not pressure, but anxiety. There would be food in front of you but you wouldn't feel like eating it."

All that mental preparation helped. As Upton said, in his team meeting on Friday,'Guys we have been talking about exactly this for a year, and we have been preparing for it and we know we are ready.' Upton added that 'while there were nerves, we went in with the confidence that we are better prepared than the opposition'.

Release of pressure

The burden that Yuvraj and his team-mates had been carrying around over the last six weeks ( which was simmering slowly for a year) suddenly fell away after the final. Everything had turned into lightness. Harbhajan Singh wept into the India flag, Yuvraj singh and Sachin Tendulkar could not hold back their tears. Dhoni, who normally replies to questions only in English, even when asked in Hindi, switched languages several times on Saturday night in the post match conference.

Lessons for corporate executives from Indian team's goal achievement

Mental preparation is as important as skill preparation in achieving any goal. But in corporate life, how much attention is given to improving the mental conditioning? It is almost taken for granted. Or worse still, mental conditioning work is equated with gung-ho statements like 'Be positive' or ' Be decisive' or some such irrelevant homilies.

Another unpredictable path of thinking competency individual

Born in Kolkata to a family full of doctorates and postdoctorates. Graduate in Physiology from Utkal University. Learnt the art of cooking from in-laws, who hailed from Sylhet in East Bengal, a place well known for their uniqueness of cooking.

Did his Hotel management course from Taratala in Kolkata. Joined Taj group in Mumbai from Campus. Simultaneously did an evening course in Marketing. Joined Ananda Bazar Patrika's advertising department where he did space marketing.Set up his advertising agency in Mumbai. After 6 years, started up a restaurant in Mumbai. His wife designed the interiors of his restaurant.

Name of this person is Anjan Chatterjee, founder of speciality restaurants such as Mainland China, Oh ! Calcutta, Machaan, Sigree and Flame & Grill. It was 20 years when the first restaurant was launched. I read this story in TOI of 23 March 2011.

Is anything of Anjan Chatterjee's path predictable in the initial years of his? Family background of doctorates, degree in physiology, and then course in marketing. Only hint in the background was perhaps his learning cooking at in-laws place ! But this too cannot be predicted before the event, although it is 'obvious' after the event.

Observe some interesting career-tracks in this story. Cooking is a doing competency that he learnt at in-laws place. But was he a good cook much before that? Doing competency individuals typically dive deeper in their competency before they start a business from that. Business is too much of a diversion for masters !

Therefore, my guess is that Anjan Chatterjee , although passionate about cooking, may not be master cook. Instead, Anjan seemed to have combined his cooking passion with his intellect of marketing/business to find a unique calling for himself which combines head and heart. And this change seem to be driven by Gain, not Pain. ( See my blog on child's career for pain versus gain motivations!)

In this case, the uniqueness is about combining thinking competency with doing competency! In most of the cases, you will observe that thinking competency individuals change their paths in other thinking competency, related or unrelated.

Is mid life crisis (or quarter life crisis) rooted in real-life issues?

This is a resume of a person: Wrote for Hindi commercial soaps, marketed a music label, worked for a technology firm, started a band. His name is Keith Menon, who started a AWOL ( away without leave) program. One can join this program, move from one place to another at a modest budget, and then write their experiences on web.

I have met some individuals, between the age of 28-32 who face a different version of this confusion. Some of them want to work for NGO, some want to change jobs because they get bored, while some others want to find 'meaning' in life.

In my career research, i have found that this is a genuine need felt by all of us. Our great grandfathers ( who were born in 1940s/ 50's) never had to deal with it because they continued to fight for survival ( cloth, shelter and decent living for their children) till the age of early 50's. My father could built his house only after he retired. And because they continued to struggle late in life, finding some other 'objective' in life was too late for them.

Individuals born later in the decade of 1970's were not so lucky. They got their minimum sustenance till the age of mid 30's of their life. They therefore faced the question of 'what next?' in their life far earlier and were forced to answer them. We called it mid-life crisis. Today's generation faces this question even earlier, because they do not have to struggle to meet their sustenance. Their fathers are working in good companies, have a decent shelter in a big town, and also have experienced car and other small luxuries of life.

For them the question of 'what next' is real and is faced with full impact. As their full life is ahead of them, they are forced to resolve this problem. In my career, i have met individuals for whom this question has different connotations. For some it is question of finding their calling, a profession which will help them express themselves completely. For some, it is a question of finding meaningful existence in life ( I do not want to work 9 to 5 and die one day...). For some others, it is a question of identity ' who am i and what do i want in life'?. All of them have one feature in common: all are striving towards self actualisation.

As i have observed in my coaching experience, this drive of self actualisation is not always rooted in real-life issues. Sometimes it is rooted in ignorance of 'what is career'. Sometimes , it is a result of absence of dense engagement in life that causes lack of any values. Sometimes, it is routed in 'identity'. Sometimes it is due to inability of meeting self-expectations that are unrealistic. In other words, the mid-life crisis or quarter life crisis is not always rooted in real-life issues.

Finding calling for thinking competency individuals

As i have noted elswhere, finding a calling for professionals who have 'thinking' competency is a very tough ask. For 'Doing' competency individuals - such as musicians, dancers, cricketers, and chess players - it is easier. Here is another example of a tough ask that i watched on a Zee TV on 2nd Jan.

This individual, let us call him Rajiv, passed from a college in Delhi. Went on to start a business. Managed to do it for two years. Rajiv was selling clothes.

Rajiv then joined an advertising agency which a friend of his started. After a period he shifts to a bigger ad agency, ULKA. Ulka got work for Hero Honda. Prahlad Kakkar was directing the film; however he had a cardiac trouble, when he landed in Delhi. He was hospitalised. The ad work could not be stopped. So the cameraman became the director and Rajiv became assistant director. This was the first experience of doing something what he liked. Seed was sown.

While dropping Prahlad Kakkar to the Delhi Airport, Prahlad Kakkar tells Rajiv that his place is in Mumbai. After 6 months, Rajiv lands in Mumbai. Rajiv comes and works in a ad agency in Mumbai and then starts his own ad agency. During one of his work, he comes along to work with Amitabh Bachan, on his Madhushala album.Seed grew into a big plant.

That introduction leads him to make a movie with Amitabh Bachan. The movie flops. He concluded that the movie flopped because he did not know how to write a script. Seed had grown into a plant, but not yielding a fruit.

Second script is written after a long time. Rajiv was unable to find a financer for this. However, Aamir Khan saw the script and that enabled him to find a financer and producer. Plant with seed had now yielded a fruit.

Could you guess the name of this individual? By the way, it is not John Mathan, who also had advertising background. But in all such career stories, one can trace the path.

Do you see how much time/effort and fortuitous incidents have to happen to just find a calling? And then equally large amount of time/effort has to be put to own that calling? It is absolutely impossible to find when the seed will get sown and then equally fortuitous to guess which seed will be nurtured and flowered further to make it a calling. After the event, it looks obvious. Before the event, it looks risky guesswork.

Only when such many stories are put together, one can see a common patterns and convert hindsight into foresight. If you happen to meet such a mentor, this risky guesswork can be converted into practical plan. A mentor can also help you see things before they become an event. A mentor can give you the necessary support to own the seed. And perhaps, he or she can also help you save some time and large effort!

In corporate work, we can only produce task output without influencing 'task outcome'

In a recent ATP tennis tournament of Indian Wells, California, 2010, i was watching semifinal match between Andy Murray and Soldering. The match looked close. At the end, Soldering won the match in three sets, 6-4, 3-6, 6-3. Statistics however at the end of match was surprising. Both had won equal points: 79. Both players won equal points, but one player won the match at the end. Andy Murray and Soldering put in same efforts in the match, produced same output, but the outcome of the match was determined by 'who won the points at what time'!

I see this phenomenon regularly in a corporate world. Two individuals working in a company may work equally hard, but may end up producing different outcomes. That is, one may get less 'credit' for the task accomplishment than the other. It looks so unfair to the loser, like it looked so unfair for Andy Murray. But if you pause for a moment, you will not be surprised.

Unlike in a tennis match, the work in a corporate world is always done by a team. In a team situation, where the work is knowledge work, it is very difficult to decipher 'who did what'. How does one decide, for instance, that a 'smart' idea of one team member contributed more than the 'long hard work' of another team member? Therefore, logically speaking, in such a situation, 'perception' plays a critical role in determining the 'winner' than the real merit. With no method of determining 'truth', that is the only way out.

You may wonder that this rule may work in a demanding field like research, where research contributions are strictly monitored. But i was surprised. One of my friend who is a researcher in physics ( doing her PhD) also experienced the same phenomenon. When the research was over, she found herself 'fighting' for getting the credit of success. Phenomenon was no different than a corporate world!

But if Soldering's win was a surprise to me, the result of next match in the same tournament was shocker to me. It was a match of Nadal versus Ljubicic. Nadal won more points than Ljubicic at the end. It was 98 versus 92. But yet, Ljubicic won the match in the third set in a tie breaker. It is so difficult to believe.

Now what other proof do we need to appreciate that we can only influence 'output', not 'outcome', even in a one-to-one match. If it is so valid in a one to one situation, how can it be different in a team work of corporate life ( where it is more probable because of additional factor of 'perception')?

Understanding country's historical background is important to achieve a part of career objective

According to one Harvard study, one of the four objectives which man seeks to achieve during his life is legacy. One of the common way of leaving behind legacy is doing something for the society or the country. Most of the corporate executives however do not start working on this objective until they have retired and therefore often fail to prepare themselves for doing anything meaningful in their later part of life.

I was therefore surprised to read Nandan Nilekani's book "Imagining". After reading the book, one realises that his entry in Government UID project was not a chance event. In career, 'opportunity' becomes an opportunity only when you are prepared for it. This book shows his preparedness. Although the book took about 3 years in the writing, I am sure it was working on his mind for much more longer than that. The book depicts his method of understanding India's background and challenges to find what he could do in this scenario.

In the process, however he has created a book which can be used by all corporate professionals. (This is opportunity for you!)

It is a very good book that brings together the relevant part of Indian history to understand where India stands today. It fills in numerous gaps of information that may be irking you. For instance, it would help you understand how this 'double hump' demographical change in Northern versus Western/Southern states is fueling the 'Marathi' movement in Maharashtra. Or why accidental introduction of English language to 'control' the English empire by British India has unwittingly helped India today? Or how these small revolutions in Stock exchange automation or Telecom have contributed to India's growth in such a big way? Or what challenges is India facing on education and health front?

For a corporate professional, who does not have the time and patience to understand the country's challenges in a meaningful way, this book of Nandan Nilekani offers a 1000 feet perspective of India's historical background and the emanating challenges, so that one can delve into deeper details of a relevant portion ( of IT or eduction or health) depending on one's interest and concern.

Is career building a mystery or a puzzle?

( Mystery versus Puzzle idea was made popular by Gladwell in his Enron's article)

Let us understand this distinction better. One can view traffic congestion problem, for instance, in a city as a mystery or a puzzle. If it is a puzzle, then one shall identify traffic patterns, build appropriate signaling system, negotiate traffic through one-way and two-way roads, and build flyovers where the four-way traffic is equally dense. If one views it as a mystery, then one shall view it as phenomenon of natural urbanisation in a country and therefore find ways to 'manage' the increasing intake of rural population, determine 'threshold' level of a city that can assimilate a specific size of population at a particular rate, decide ways of reducing population intake into traffic intake ( say by forcing people to use public vehicles), and then arrive at an effective strategy of reducing urban congestion.

As you will observe, mystery solving involves making several judgments, taking many ' intuitive calls' on the unfolding of future, and making murkier decisions based on inadequate data. Puzzle solving on the other hand means getting more and more data, finding better way of getting data, and using algorithms to find the right decision. Puzzle typically has one conclusion, Mystery has many. If puzzle is solved wrongly, it is easy to find a culprit. In Mystery is solved wrongly, it is not possible to blame any one. So what do individuals do when forced with this choice. Does it take any Prophet to predict that they will naturally choose puzzle-solving paradigm?

The same has happened with Career-building. Solving a puzzle of career building is far more easier than solving the mystery of career building. We therefore find our career goals, determine the gaps to reach the goals, and fill those gaps. Naturally a puzzle can be solved in many ways. So some others solve it by building the right skills and traits that are universally right, such as thinking positively. They ignore the finding that all successful people do not have the right skills/traits. Based on the cricketing skills, who would have chosen Virendra Sehwag in a cricketing team? And that too in a national cricketing team?

Which paradigm do you chose to build your career? Unfortunately, the choice is not in our hand. Open-ended problems, like traffic congestion or career building, cannot be solved by using a puzzle paradigm. If you solve them like a puzzle, the solution is always inadequate, often a wrong one, and leads to many other unintended harmful consequences. In the problem of traffic congestion, we face the impact of wrong solution every day and conveniently ignore its consequences. In the problem of career building, we face the impact of wrong solution directly in our lives and pay for the unintended consequences every day.

The real question therefore is how to adopt mystery paradigm to build your career. If we agree on the question, then we are on the same table, and can proceed to find answers to the question.

What is your career script?

Last week, in one of the Television show, I was listening to an interview of Smita Talwalkar. She is a film producer, who is producing good meaningful Marathi cinema, a model, an actress. She must be around the age of 40.

When asked about her past, she mentioned that when she was working as a TV announcer at the age of 18, she was working with Smita Patil. After a year or so, Smita Talwalkar got married, while Smita Patil went on to make an acting career in a film. Smita Patil made a mark as an actress. They could rarely talk to each other, but she used to tell her children and husband about their association on the TV. ( Perhaps she also missed what she could have achieved?) When they met together in one of the film shootings, though, Smita Talwalkar was surprised to hear Smita Patil praising her decision of making a family and living her life. She said ' Whatever you have achieved in your family can never every be compared to what she would have got in work".

How many of us have courage to write our own career script and live it through? Most of us, as we grow, summon enough courage to do it at the later age. Some cannot do it even till the end of life, as they keep on chasing money and security throughout their lives. But at the age of 18, it is rare to write one's career script.

In my journey of exploring interesting careers, I have met very few individuals of this type. We love seeing these characters in movies and make those movies famous. 3 idiots was a movie of such an individual. It is so exciting to fantasise about these characters and wanting to become like them.

Although these characters in movies are motivating and encouraging, it is not very useful, because it is important not to chase a mirage in careers. 20 years back i started searching individuals who build careers by 'setting goals'. When i found them, i observed that they exist only in certain professions and conditions.

If you therefore find individuals, who have written their career script, at an early age, please inform me, either on this blog, or through email id. It is important to investigate and get to know the 'reality'! I know that 'reality' is not always good for some individuals. Some time, however, it is a matter of life and death for some individuals. Like it is when i tell corporate professionals that building careers for them is not through setting goals !