Chapter 4: Finding the Diamond in the Rough - The Fact and Fiction of Recognizing Potential

Summary Notes 

*When we treat man as he is, we make him worse than he is; when we treat him as if he already were what he potentially could be, we make him what he should be (Attributed to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer, physicist, biologist, and artist)

What do these folks below have in common? They were all found and mentored by C.J. Skender

1. Reggie Love (a star Athlete at Duke who became Obama’s personal assistant). Love is “known for his exceptional and universal kindness.”
2. Beth Traynham (someone who hated math but earned the gold medal on the CPA exam in North Carolina; currently a partner at the accounting firm)

*Because of the time that he invests in his students, Skender has developed what may be his single most impressive skill: a remarkable eye for talent.

O Star Search

A psychologist Dov Eden could tell which soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) would become top performers before they ever started training. 

The candidates Eden spotted as high-potentials (i.e., potential for intellectual blooming as administered by the Harvard psychologist Robert Rosenthal) at the outset did significantly better than their peers over the next three months.

The intelligence test was successful in identifying high-potential students: the bloomers got smarter - and at a faster rate - than their classmates. 

*But actually this was not the case. The students labeled as bloomers didn’t actually score higher on the Harvard intelligence test. Rosenthal chose them at random (20% was randomly labeled as bloomers).

**The study was designed to find out what happened to students when teachers BELIEVED they had high potential. The bloomers weren’t any smarter than their peers - the difference “was in the mind of the teacher.”

Yet the bloomers became smarter than their peers, in both verbal and reasoning ability. Why?

**Teachers’ beliefs created self-fulfilling prophecies.

When teachers believed their students were bloomers, they set high expectations for their success. As a result, the teachers engaged in more supportive behaviors that boosted the students’ confidence and enhanced their learning and development. Teachers communicated more warmly to the bloomers, gave them more challenging assignments, called on them more often, and provided them with more feedback. 

Per Eden, just like the teachers, when the platoon leaders believed in the trainees’ potential (again based on being randomly labeled as high-potentials), they acted in ways that made this potential a reality.

The platoon leaders who held high expectations of their trainees provided more help, career advice, and feedback to their trainees. When their trainees made mistakes, instead of assuming that they lacked ability, the platoon leaders saw opportunities for teaching and learning. The supportive behaviors of the platoon leaders boosted the confidence and ability of the trainees, enabling and encouraging them to achieve higher performance. 

**Overall, when managers were randomly assigned to see employees as bloomers, employees bloomed. These interventions “can have a fairly large effect on performance.” He encourages managers to “recognize the possible power and influence in (a) having a genuine interest and belief in the potential of their employees…and (b) engaging in actions that support others and communicate that belief…increasing others’ motivation and effort and helping them achieve that potential.”

*This is rarely the case for takers, who tend to place little trust in other people. Because they assume that most people are takers, they hold relatively low expectations for the potential of their peers and subordinates. Research shows that takers harbor doubts about others’ intentions, so they monitor vigilantly for information that others might harm them, treating others with suspicion and distrust. 

**These low expectations trigger a vicious cycle, constraining the development and motivation of others.

Matchers tend to play it safe and they often wait to offer support until they’ve seen evidence of promise. Consequently, they miss out on opportunities to develop people who don’t show a spark of talent or high potential at first.

**Givers don’t wait for signs of potential. By default, givers start by viewing people as bloomers, like C.J. Skender. He simply starts by seeing everyone as talented and tries to bring out the best in them. In Skender’s mind, every student who walks into his classroom is a diamond in the rough - able and willing to be mined, cut, and polished. He sees potential where others don’t, which has set in motion a series of self-fulfilling prophecies. 

O Polishing the Diamond in the Rough

A letter Skender wrote to Marie Arcuri who didn’t pass the CPA exam the first time:

“Your husband, family, and friends love you because of the beautiful person you have made yourself - not because of a performance on an examination. Remember that…Focus on November. Concentrate on practice…I want’ what’s best for you. You WILL get through this thing, Marie. I write on my tests, “The primary purpose has already been served by your preparation for this exam”...Success doesn’t measure a human being, effort does.”

For the past quarter century, Marie has saved the letter. 

Along the way, Skender continued encouraging her, checking in on her progress.

Two years later, she passed the final section and earned her CPA in 1987.

Marie says “But more than C.J. taught me material for my job, he built my character, my passion, and my determination. His commitment to making sure that I got through led me to realize that I’d rather be defined by perseverance than by whether or not I passed an exam.”

Most companies do 1) Spend dollars to assess and evaluate talent, 2) Identify high-potential people, 3) provide them with the mentoring, support, and resources needed to grow to achieve their potential. 

**The identification of talent may be the wrong place to start.

*For many years, psychologists believed that success depends on talent first and motivation second. 

**But in recent years, psychologists have come to believe that this approach may be backward.

*Raymond Cattell’s investment theory of intelligence - proposes that interest is what drives people to invest their time and energy in developing particular skills and bases of knowledge.

**Interest precedes the development of talent. 

*For the accomplished pianists, their first piano teachers were caring, kind, and patient (i.e., givers).. The same patterns emerged for world-class tennis players.

“The children had very positive experiences with their first lessons. They made contact with another adult, outside their home, who was warm, supportive, and loving.”

**What the first coach provided was motivation for the child to become interested in tennis and to spend time practicing.

*Givers focus first on their attention on motivation - being motivated and willing to work hard, rather than because of any special physical abilities.

C.J. Skender saw that:

1. Reggie Love worked diligently, and was always prepared for class. He was interested in learning and bettering himself.
2. Beth Traynham worked hard all semester.
3. Marie Arcuri was the most involved and committed individual he has ever met. Her persistence set her apart.

*Angela Duckworth calls this grit: having passion and perseverance toward long-term goals.

**Above and beyond intelligence and aptitude, gritty people - by virtue of their interest, focus, and drive - achieve higher performance.

**Grit is a major factor that predicts how close they get to achieve their potential. That’s why givers focus on gritty people: it’s where givers have the greatest return on their investment, the most meaningful and lasting impact.

**”Setting high expectations is so important..

You have to push people, make them stretch, and do more than they think possible.

They need to make a significant investment, and it pays off.

Forcing them to work harder than they ever have in their lives benefits them in the long run.”

**One of the keys to cultivating grit is making the task at hand more interesting and motivating.

“If you want to engage your audience, if you really want to grab their attention, you have to know the world they live in, the music they listen to, the movies they watch.”

“To most of these kids, accounting is like a root canal. But when they hear me quote Usher or Cee Lo Green, they say to themselves, ‘Whoa, did that fat old white-haired guy just say what I thought he said?’ And then you’ve got’em.”

“He sacrifices hundreds of hours of his personal life to make an impact on the lives of students and teach as many of them as possible. He goes out of his way to make everyone that he engages with feel special.”

O Throwing Good Money After Bad Talent

Stu Inman, a NBA coach who is a giver, was committed to teaching and developing all of his players. As a result, he held on to lesser players for too long.

*It might seem that givers have a harder time letting go. But in reality, the exact opposite is true. It turns out that givers are the least vulnerable to the mistake of overinvesting in people - and that being a giver is what prevented Stu Inman from making far worse mistakes.

O Facing the Mirror: Looking Good or Doing Good?

Why do people make bad decisions in organizations?

Teams couldn’t let go of their big bets.

**Sunk cost fallacy” - decision makers are biased in favor of their previous investments.

 3 other factors (to be aware of unintended escalation of commitment for givers):

1) Anticipated regret: will I be sorry that I didn’t give this another chance? 

2) Project completion: If I keep investing, I can finish the project. 

3) Ego threat: If I don’t keep investing, I’ll look and feel like a fool.  

**Because escalating his or her commitment allows the decision maker to keep the prospect of failure hidden, such behavior is personally rational from the perspective of a taker.

**The givers, on the other hand, were primarily concerned about protecting other people and the organization, so they were more willing to admit their initial mistakes and de-escalate their commitment.

People actually make more accurate and creative decisions when they’re choosing on behalf of others than themselves. 

**A major reason why givers are less vulnerable than takers to escalation of commitment has to do with response to feedback. .

**Givers focus more on the interpersonal and organizational consequences of their decisions, accepting a blow to their pride and reputations in the short term in order to make better choices in the long term.

O Glimpsing Glimmers in Chunks of Coal

Inman made his reputation by finding undervalued players (Jerome Kersey, Terry Porter, Clyde Drexler, etc.)…His eye for talent was as sharp as his feel for people. He wanted players whose character and intelligence were as high as their vertical jumps. 

His philosophy was that “It’s not what a player is, but what he can become…that will allow him to grow.” When Inman saw a guy practice with grit and play like a giver, he classified him as a diamond in the rough.

**There’s a close connection between grit and giving. Because of their dedication to others, givers are willing to work harder and longer than takers and matchers. Even when practice is no longer enjoyable, givers continue exerting effort out of a sense of responsibility to their team. 

**The most important quality you can show me is a commitment to giving.”

Gritty givers would be willing to put the good of the team above their own personal interests, working hard to fulfill the roles for which they were needed.

**As a giver, Inman was open to outside advice. Givers are more receptive to expertise from others.

Michael Jordan, a taker, has had limited success as an executive as evidenced by making Kwame Brown his first pick in the 2001 draft and staying with him too long.

**Givers excel not only at recognizing and developing talent; they’re also surprisingly good at moving on when their bets don’t work out.

Group Reflections

Leadership JSU (Thu 11 AM EST)

Aaron - I know a lot of basketball players mentioned in the chapter. There is a lot more to success on the basketball court than simply being a giver or taker. 

Jet - It sounds like Adam is force-fitting his framework in being negative about a taker mentality. There are many takers like Bill Belichick who consistently win in sports.

Dorothea - A sunk cost mentality in sports was interesting. This can be applied to many different situations like an entrepreneurial start-up.

Kate - I’m a huge basketball fan, so this chapter was interesting. No more Seattle Supersonics (Kate lives in Seattle) so it's a bummer. 

Stephanie - I see a lot of connections between having pride and exhibiting a sunk-cost mentality. 

Sang - I am interested in finding a better way to identify talent. I would be open to hearing about resources on this topic

Rick - I agree with what everyone said. I appreciated the sunk-cost mentality. It relates well to the whole issue of separating alpha and beta in investing...Hard Knocks (a TV show) offers a lesson on negotiating and evaluating talents, which I think is primarily about character and IQs. Inman figured out the character aspect earlier than most. Many missed the forest for the trees. 

Jennifer - I agree with Adam's categorizing people as givers and takers. I think both are necessary to form the right team though. For example, Michael Jordan, the ultimate taker, has contributed much to his team. Perhaps give and take is a zero-sum game.

Chioma - If you have a team and it adds one giver, most people move towards being a taker.

Mike - I articulated my concern for the book in the past. Over-emphasis on giving comes with risk. I wonder how this risk eventually plays out.