Well, it appears that I've hit the job trifecta, detailed as follows:
Not bad. Wish I could take credit for it.
Sure, I've worked hard, made the most of what I've been given (using the tips I share here), etc., but the more I look at it, much of my career and success have been because of circumstances/luck.
This seems to jive with the findings in Outliers: The Story of Success, a book I've been reading lately. For those of you not familiar with the book, here's a summary from Amazon:
Outliers begins with a provocative look at why certain five-year-old boys enjoy an advantage in ice hockey, and how these advantages accumulate over time. We learn what Bill Gates, the Beatles and Mozart had in common: along with talent and ambition, each enjoyed an unusual opportunity to intensively cultivate a skill that allowed them to rise above their peers. A detailed investigation of the unique culture and skills of Eastern European Jewish immigrants persuasively explains their rise in 20th-century New York, first in the garment trade and then in the legal profession. Through case studies ranging from Canadian junior hockey champions to the robber barons of the Gilded Age, from Asian math whizzes to software entrepreneurs to the rise of his own family in Jamaica, Gladwell tears down the myth of individual merit to explore how culture, circumstance, timing, birth and luck account for success—and how historical legacies can hold others back despite ample individual gifts.
In the end, the author comes up with this equation for success:
Ability + hard work + luck/circumstance = success
He defines them as follows:
-
Ability: You need a base level of ability (i.e. you need to be "smart enough", but you don't need any extra smarts/ability above a general proficiency level.)
-
Hard work: The one thing that separates the good from the bad -- the good spend much more time doing/practicing than the bad (or the not-so-good.)
-
Luck/circumstance: Good fortune, your background, your culture, history, etc. -- certainly something that none of us can influence.
So yes, you need ability and have to work hard, but many people have the skills and are willing to work. It's the final X factor of luck/circumstance (some would call it God at work) that determines the level of your success. Two examples:
-
Bill Gates had access to a top-of-the-line computer program in HIGH SCHOOL that most college professors didn't even have. He was lucky he went to that school and then could follow it up with free time at the University of Washington's computer terminal.
-
Canadian hockey players lucky enough to be born in January through March have an overwhelming advantage versus others because age cutoffs for various youth teams is January 1. That means a kid born on January 2 is in the same class as a kid born on December 29. So at 10-years-old when the "elite" teams are picked, who do you think the better players usually are? Of course, the ones with almost a year's more growth under their belts. They then get better coaching, more practice, and more games played, making them better and better as the years roll on.
It's quite an interesting read -- and I highly recommend the book.
And in case you want to know more about it, here are some links I found from around the web:
any book about personalities that succeed on their endeavors is worth reading i'm looking forward to get hold of that book
Posted by: kyrious | April 04, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Fascinating and engaging book. I especially remember the chapter on childhood achievement and culture. I never thought of the innate patience that some cultures breed (i.e., rice growing regions) versus those less patience, and the effect that can have on academic success (i.e, mathematics and problem-solving). Also in favor of year-round schools, which he makes a case for.
Posted by: JeffrO | April 04, 2009 at 04:03 PM
The thing with kid's hockey reminds me of a conversation I recently had with my husband... The cutoffs here for kindergarten entry are September 1. Our daughter was born at the end of September. That means that she wouldn't start public kindergarten until she's almost 6 years old.
In the case of school, though, this doesn't seem (to us) like an advantage - more like a handicap. Because we want school to challenge her, which probably won't happen (in the early years) if she's the oldest, most advanced kid in her class.
(We each graduated highschool before turning 18, which certainly affects our views on the matter.)
Posted by: Anitra | April 04, 2009 at 05:42 PM
Haven't read the book. However, I think Mozart had a whole lot more than "base level of ability". In certain fields, like arts, you need to have a truly outstanding talent to succeed as well as proficiency and luck.
Posted by: kitty | April 04, 2009 at 06:04 PM
If you like Malcolm Gladwell's _Outliers_ as well as the concepts of careers and jobs, you may find his thoughts about job interviews interesting. His basic standpoint on job interviews is that they're very hit-or-miss affairs.
As I've observed, some people don't get to advance in their chosen fields because they absolutely are terrible in the whole job hunting cycle of resumes, interviews and references. Sometimes, when they strike out on their own and market themselves using other means, they stand out and get recognized (employers be damned.)
I've often wondered how many capable people are overlooked by employers because they didn't do well at interviews (which even some managers admit are horribly inadequate to begin with.) Yes, Corporate America is full of hiring managers who say to someone like Fred Astaire, "Can't act, can't sing, can dance a little."
Meanwhile, here's Gladwell's piece of interviews being no better than throwing at darts to determine actual job competence:
http://www.gladwell.com/2000/2000_05_29_a_interview.htm
Posted by: Robin | April 04, 2009 at 09:04 PM
Interesting how we can be in different careers and yet still hit the trifecta. Engineering also appears in all 3 lists.
Posted by: Miss M | April 04, 2009 at 09:12 PM
When I graduated back in 92 (Accounting) there wasn't a job to be had.
Now, we're in huge demand because of an aging work force.
I'd had to say and demographics are playing a huge part in it.
Posted by: TStrump | April 04, 2009 at 11:24 PM
I think it's simplistic to say that luck is the major factor and that only marginal ability is required. The reason certain people really excel is that they have an abundance of all three.
It's not as though Bill Gates was the only person with the luck to have access to what he had access to (he had classmates, after all) and it's not as though he was the only of those people to work hard. He also had a ton of ability, and it was the combination that made him into the world's richest man (his classmate, Paul Allen, didn't do too badly either.)
Also consider: your circumstances are not fixed. They can be changed with hard work (as can your ability!) Bill Gates was lucky to have computer access in middle school, but he worked hard to gain more of it as life went on. My own boss, Dr. Bonnie J. Dunbar, didn't exactly grow up in the best circumstances to become an astronaut, but she decided she wanted to do it and went out and did everything she needed to do to put herself in that place. I've known a number of successful people, and while some of them were "lucky" early in life, many were not.
Posted by: LotharBot | April 05, 2009 at 01:04 AM
Anitra,
I was born right after cutoff and was always one of the oldest in my class. I agree that I may have been less challenged in school than younger kids in my class. However, I don't think being more challenged is necessarily an advantage because, either way, everyone in the class gets the same curriculum. Some just have to work harder for the same grades. Perhaps my study skills suffered, but besides that, I don't see a downside to having an easier time. The time I spent not studying, gave me more time to pursue my interests, which translated pretty directly into my future career.
I think the determining factor is whether you can learn more at home or at school during that year between age 4 and 5. And that probably varies a lot between different families.
Posted by: Andy | April 05, 2009 at 01:12 AM
Woohoo! It's good to be a geek! :-)
Posted by: Paul | April 06, 2009 at 09:21 AM
Supply Chain & Marketing, woot :)
Technical management degree AND marketing.
Right now I am working in the SCM side, though.
Posted by: My Life ROI | April 06, 2009 at 03:44 PM
Gladwell, like Jared Diamond, is about excuse making. If success is circumstantial then so is failure. Make your own circumstances? Culture and intelligence as important factors? Nonsense.
The Gladwell/Diamond argument is countered by the fact successful people go from success to success, as do successful groups. Failure is also consistent.
Play God for a moment and drop any of the following anywhere in the world without assets; Ashkenazi Jews, Germans, Lebanese Christians, Norwegians, Overseas Chinese, Huegenot, SY Jews, or Greeks. Anywhere means anywhere, including Haiti. What will be the result?
Now, take any group with its origins in the Southern Hemisphere, aka The Failure Hemisphere, and drop them anywhere in the world. But give a million Euros to each person. The result?
It is foolishly optimistic of Gladwell to imagine the 'right circumstances' will solve the problem of a non-white, non-Asian minority underclass, whether in the U.S. or globally.
Posted by: Moe | April 24, 2009 at 02:56 AM