Excellent article on talent in the April 17 (2012) edition of the Financial Times. Philip Delves Broughton is brave enough to call out what so many managers are afraid to admit in public: "managers spend more time managing mediocrity than they do searching for excellence" (10).
In independent schools, we are obsessed (rightly so) with the notion of excellence, but as Broughton points out, "it is a mathematical fact that most of us are average. [...] Our managers, who are mostly thoroughly average themselves, know it. And those below us in the pecking order certainly know it." Doubtless these are inlammatory words to some, yet I submit that it is worth forcing one's self to read the remainder of his column. At the very least, it can serve as a "check" for our thinking.
Regardless of the independent school gathering/conference, we tend to hear the same message: it is important to attract, develop, and manage top talent. We prattle on about how everyone can be innovative and creative, dull or brilliant, and still be an A-player, to use a known mantra of excellence (10). However, Broughton proffers, "most management involves goading the stodgy middle."
Can everyone be innovative and/or creative, however? Broughton cites none other than Clayton Christensen, the guru of innovation at Harvard, who, in a recent issue of Harvard's alumni magazine, states, "I think about 40 per cent of people just are not going to be good at innovating regardless of what they do." Furthermore, he adds that [only] "5 per cent are born with the instinct," which leaves some 55% who comprise the stodgy middle, i.e. who could learn to be innovative, if led properly.
Broughton goes on to draw a parallel between the 40% who won't be good at innovating and the stodgy middle of any group that is faced with change: "you are never going to change them." Yes, you might choose to invest plenty of resources in these folks (think: professional development), but it becomes a manager's job to find a place where these folks can be useful within the organization. Broughton says that "managing the middle is best done with what might be called the Serenity approach, after the prayer [...] "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change / Courage to change the things and I can / and wisdom to know the difference."
He does underscore, though that the 55% of folks, the middle, is indispensable. Organizations need them.
So, I pose a question to readers: in regards to the "middlers," do they benefit from better management or from better leadership? Should Broughton have explored the notion of leadership in addition to management? Other thoughts? I will publish your remarks in the "comments" section.
ShareThis
Comments