Archive for February, 2009

Short Attention Span

26 February, 2009

I can’t watch MTV, and my younger colleagues find long movies which rely on story rather than action impossible to watch. So I’d already suspected a shortening of attention span that was due to a “generational” difference rather than aging.

But the newest tools may shrink that even further, and limit the emotional developments of future generations according to an Oxford professor, Lady Greenfield. She points out that our emotional involvement in online entertainment is low, we receive instant gratification, and because everything is reversible we need fear no consequences. Although there are social activities online the sense of anonymity reduces the natural inhibitions that preserve social interactions.

Her presentation has led members of the government to admit that internet regulation is still too limited and doesn’t take broader implications such as the impact on children’s development into account.

But it’s not quite the whole story. For one thing many social networks echo networks in the real world. For example I’ve met and worked with almost all of my LinkedIn colleagues – I choose these criteria for connecting I realise that others are more open.

In one entirely virtual network that I belong to I have ended up meeting some of the people. This has led to some linguistic torture – we tend to date our first meeting to the online event not the “real life event”, and tend to refer to other people in the network as “friends” in discussions with friends in the “real world”. It’s become a strong network, offering support, humour, wise words and occasionally “virtual coaching”. I’ve edited thesis projects for others in the network, and canvassed their opinions on work issues.

Lady Greenfield does acknowledge that legislation isn’t enough, and that the answers lie in education and culture.

I’m somewhat more optimistic, I suspect our human need to connect will beat the potentially isolating effect of technology. It’ll just be faster than I’m used to.

Predicting Success

15 February, 2009

Looking back at the members of my class at business school it’s not those who were most successful at university who are now most successful in business. Which raises a question; “what was the point of going to business school?”

If business schools are supposed to be fitting us for the business world does that mean they’ve failed? Or did we the products of the school somehow fail.  The skills rewarded by an academic system are not always the skills rewarded in real world business. It’s something also highlighted in Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers, where he discusses research into the effect of intelligence on success. He finds that there’s a level of “intelligent enough” above which more IQ points don’t have a correlated effect on success. This is what got me thinking.

I recall that some of the students who turn out to be very successful in business weren’t worrying about being “best” at school, although they’re very competitive now that they’re in business.

students may have a different focus

students may have a different focus

They had a clear purpose, to learn “enough” for the real business world, more than that wasn’t a priority – and to be fair some of them were already running businesses on the side. Or perhaps I should say they were running businesses and studying on the side.

The students who did well in the academic system, have tended to move into larger companies, where the environment is more stable (questionable just at the moment!) where there is an established system in which they can work, where following the “rules” is rewarded.

The whole class was intelligent enough, and knew enough about business to be very successful. Both groups are creative, both are a mixture of introvert and extrovert, both contain groups who are good at maths, and not so good at maths. Both groups want to succeed and both work hard. So what was the differentiator?

An article by Kevin Cashman posted at Change This suggests it’s agility; the ability to accept and respond to change easily that is a predictor of success, certainly a better predictor than intelligence. They describe it as an

“integrative ability” to weave together and make sense of apparently disjointed pieces, crafting novel and innovative solutions. At the same time, we need the self-confidence to make decisions on the spot, even in the absence of compelling, complete data.

Looking back this also makes sense, the more successful students did seem to have a higher ability to handle complex and contradictory information – essential in running your own business. They also had the confidence to decide and didn’t look for some external rule. Or as my former boss used to remind me “it’s easier to apologise occasionally than to ask permission constantly”.

Outliers

11 February, 2009

bookicon2

Malcolm Gladwell’s latest book Outliers: The Story of Success investigates the real reasons some people become successful and others remain average.

His first conclusion is that sometimes success is an accident of birth – mostly because it means you reach the right age at the right time to take advantage of opportunity. He cites a range of evidence from hockey recruiters to the great industrialists in the US.

He also shows that success is a matter of hard work; he quotes Daniel Levitin‘s work “The emerging picture … is that ten thousand hours of practice is required to achieve the level of mastery assocated with being a world-class epert – in anything”. Which means I’ll never be a concert pianist, or an olympian, or a world-class programmer.

It’d be tough to look at success without also looking at failure, and he looks at some aircraft accidents and finds that the cause is sometimes cultural – related to how conversations work with figures of authority. Culture plays a part in failure, and success, particularly related to work ethic.

It turns out to be exactly as your mother told you – some people are born lucky, some people are born talented, but the really really successful people work incredibly hard.

Attitude

9 February, 2009

I work in financial services, and my company is going through a tough time, with divestments, cost cutting and redundancies announced already. In talking to colleagues I’ve heard some interesting comments.

This was much more fun when we had money to spend.

Too true. Some of the fun projects I had scheduled (involving developing social media for use within the company) are on hold.

It’s easy to look good when you’ve got a big budget; now’s the time the really smart people shine.

True, I’m taking a hard look for where we can combine budgets to get some results – Marketing and HR have some budget if we co-operate we can still get some stuff done. There are some needs from other parts of the company where we can share technology and content. This has to be good for the company.

If I’m smart enough, I’ll shine.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 345 other followers