My last post talked about differentiating talent at the upper end of the performance spectrum. One thing I've learned over time and in my work is that as you approach the upper end of the performance/competitiveness continuum, differentiation becomes a game of inches.
A couple of everyday examples of what I mean…
- In the world of cycling, my newfound love, winning is about most efficiently transforming human force into speed and movement on the bike. Every turn of the pedal is an opportunity to either leverage or waste the force that your legs are generating. If you pedal 80-90 times/minute in a race that lasts several hours, every microscopic bit of leverage counts. So don't roll your eyes (like I did) when you hear the bike salesman talk about "system integration" and "aggressive geometries."
- I had the privilege of seeing an amazing Minnesota Orchestra concert on Friday night (mentioned in my last post), where I learned that the average string player owns an instrument worth somewhere between $100,000-$200,000. I'd be the last person to believe that the delta in sound quality between a $10,000 and $100,000 violin somehow mirrors the delta in price, but it seems that here again, where competition is fierce and people are enormously talented, we're talking about little differences making all the difference.
If you have other good examples I'd love to hear them.
There are two lessons to be gleaned from this, I think:
- As it relates to people performance, winning is as much about equipping people with the right tools as it is about strict "talent."
- As it relates to differentiating people's performance or potential performance in really critical roles, if you don't have a selection/assessment process that's sophisticated enough to tease out these small details, you're likely not making reliable decisions.
Leave a comment