The Talent Myth: Are smart people overrated?

The New Yorker ^ | 7/15/02 (for issue of 7/22/02) | Malcolm Gladwell

[GeneD]

Long, I know, but worth digesting.

Here's an extra Q & A with the author.

[Old Professer]

Waste of (fill in the blank.)

[Chad Fairbanks]

I resent being called over-rated... ;0)

[free from tyranny]

Without reading the text, the title brings one person to mind. That person, above all others, may have all the "right qualifications." And those qualifications include a " Go directly to Hell...do not pass go!"

Anybody smart enough to know of whom I speak ?

[stupid1]

Are smart people overrated?
Well I know dumb people aren't.

[GBA]

Interesting. Bump for later reading...

[razorback-bert]

bump

[rohry]

Like all New Yorker articles this is WAY too long.

Most "smart people" that I know are brain dead. Can someone who actually read this tell me that I am wrong?

[itzmygun]

Me too. Have you ever read The Art of War? I know it sounds funny, but so many ideas found there can be used in business. This is one of the things spoken of - don't try to force everyone into the same mold, but use their talents accordingly.

Another great idea (I believe it comes from the Japanese) is: When there is a mistake, don't waste time trying to place blame, but find and fix the cause of the mistake. I wish my company would make this their motto. Our government could use a hefty dose of this too.

[PoisedWoman]

And quite often, the smartest, most cutthroat little MBA holding SOB is the wrong guy to get that promotion.

Not surprised to see you weighing in on this issue, OPH. I had opportunity to see this in action in the '80s. Fellow I wrote a book for, CEO of $3 billion company, was so obsessed with finding talent, he hired a headhunter and gave her office next to his in his private suite. They weren't just looking for degrees, but performance records. Hired a heap of talented guys, gave them departments, and almost free rein. The hotshots established fiefdoms within this successful company and brought it down. Very sad. Investors lost millions, thousands of workers lost jobs.

We were in the middle of our second book on management, in which he advised hiring people "smarter than you are" among other things. Needless to say, work stopped as CEO's reputation plummeted. He told me he'd be in lawsuits the rest of his life. He resigned his seat on board of state university school of business, a highly reputable guy who'd taken great pride in the fact that his company had returned more $$ to investors than any other in the industry.

Lesson learned, he went on to make another billion on his own. He had advanced degrees in law, accounting, business, but said it was by dint of hard work, not superior intelligence. Guess he should have appllied his personal standards to his managers.

[Lessismore]

You will get far more out of intelligent and well-trained employees than dumb ones during the first 5 years of their career. How they stack up after 20 years depends a lot on fortune -- good or ill -- and the character with which they and their families meet it.

[IronJack]

Are smart people overrated?

No, but stupid people certainly are.

[bourbon]

Here's a fairly interesting book which seems somewhat pertinent to the discussion here.

[HassanBenSobar]

I worked for McKinsey for two years as an associate. I left only about 4 months ago.

There are certain advantages that come from McK's hiring policy. Sure, they target 'talent', but often the key component is the selection of extremely DRIVEN and hardworking people. Yes, being smart matters too, but you don't need to be Einstein to be a good consultant or manager.

Some of you may have seen the Business Week article that come out recently, which touched on a few aspects of McKinsey and Enron. What struck me as particularly insightful was this: McKinsey was fighting the 'War for Talent' in the late nineties because, in fact, there was far more work than consultants to do it. The economy was red-hot. Unfortunately, once they got their war strategy ready, the dot coms were already looking less enticing to graduates (especially ones with big loans!). So the article, remarking on the large percentage of accepted offers for the class of 2000, said 'apparently the class of 2000 could see the dot com collapse coming, but McKinsey could not'!

As a matter of fact, many of us going into consulting were sneered at by the dot-com enthusiasts. Ahhh, having the last laugh is sweet.....

[Plumrodimus]

This reminds me of a company memo my manager accidently left out that the employees weren't supposed to see: do not hire for ability, we can train anyone to do this job.

[x]

I'm not going to begin to or pretend to read this. Moderate brains plus good habits and a specific knowledge of the particular environment can beat out abstract and theoretical genius. Stupidity, though, goes all the way through, and shouldn't be encouraged.

[parsifal]

A most wonderful post. I'm hardcopying it. So many fads in business and so much hero worship. Some of these same principals can be imputed to the Art of War. The best general is one who never has to fight a war. The best CEO is one who never has to pull off a brilliant rescue of the company. parsy.

[Intolerant in NJ]

"What I.Q. doesn't pick up is effectiveness at common-sense sorts of things, especially working with people,...and the obsession with getting ahead which results in many people going to Harvard while others just as smart go...elsewhere.....