|
Formula for Success Home Page Essays Memoirs Fiction Plays Poetry References
|
|
FORMULA FOR SUCCESS "Success is rising head and shoulders above your peers" At other times and in other places I would argue vehemently against this definition. Surely "success" should be a personal thing, and not related to comparisons with others. It should deal with personal satisfaction; with intrinsic worth to your fellow man; with family relationships; with happiness. Argue though we may, though, success, when viewed through the eyes of others, invariably involves comparisons. When you weigh the success factor in another person you consider his responsibility, his salary, his title, his perquisites, etc., etc., as compared with other people of the same age, background, upbringing, and education. And so also are you judged. Fair or unfair; proper or improper; success is often measured through a comparison with others. What then, is the formula for achieving this success? Are there any tests that can be applied to determine whether we have a chance of achieving this success? Can we apply such tests to improve ourselves? There would seem to be three tests that may be applied to determine this potential for success. And certainly these three tests can be applied in a personal development program, as you move to achieve your personal goals. These tests are: 1. Are you very knowledgeable about the skills of your profession? 2. Are you very knowledgeable about the field in which you practice your profession? 3. Are you very skillful in practicing these skills in this field? Certainly these are simplistic; certainly we can find exceptions; certainly to base an entire "personal goals" program on three such items would be an affront to human intelligence. But for the most part they are accurate, and can be used by the average man for a self-evaluation study. Let's look at them, one at a time, using specific examples: First: Be very knowledgeable about the skills of your profession. Notice, first, I said "very knowledgeable" This doesn't mean "know a little bit," or even "a pretty decent amount." It means "very knowledgeable." Success - in the comparison sense - is dependent upon rising above those peers. And this rising is, and must, be done in an existing hierarchy. A hierarchy is, in our context at least, a pyramid. And a common characteristic of all pyramids is that they get narrower as you move upward. Hence we emphasize the "very knowledgeable" statement, because the higher you rise, the less room there is. The "skills of your profession" are, to a salesman, the ability to sell. To a teacher they are to teach. To a manager they are to manage. To a designer they are to design. Each of these involves an action statement. An actual skill. A technical capability. So what we are saying, when we combine this "knowledge" with this " skills of your profession" is a directed cognitive capability. Second: Be very knowledgeable about the field in which you practice your profession. The world is full of teachers who "wing it;" who don't do their homework or learn their subject. The same holds true for salesmen. Oh, how many of them could sell a refrigerator to an Eskimo., but rely solely on this sales ability when it comes to questions about the product. Or managers who are very knowledgeable about the profession of management, but make no effort to learn the technical side of the business. More obvious is the designer who knows all the proper methods of design, but does not understand or appreciate the environment in which his design is to be used. For years we have argued as to what is more important in a manager; the skill of managing people, or the technical knowledge associated with the product line. We have dutifully answered that both are satisfactory; that if a manager is very competent technically he will personally be able to guide his subordinates, and his lack of managerial ability will be less important. If, on the other hand, a manager is an excellent manager, but is quite naive regarding the product line, he will be able to rely upon technical subordinates for this technical expertise. Perhaps it is correct to say that both are satisfactory. Perhaps, on the other hand, we should say that neither is sufficient; that both skills are important, and in order to achieve this aforementioned "success," excellence is required in both areas. The question as to which should come first has to do with the people (for instance, their ability to learn), the company (where has its forte' been, and what is accepted), and certainly the product (a product or service may be extremely complex, thus requiring much training. Or it might be very simple, and learnable in a matter of days). The third requisite - Be very skillful in practicing these skills - recognizes that knowing something is far different from doing something. There are people who are most knowledgeable about both their profession and the field in which they practice their profession, but are simply unable (or unwilling) to put it into practice. We are inclined to think that academia is full of people of this sort (hence the old saw, "Them what can, does; them what can't, teaches"). Certainly there is an element of truth to this, but if we examine the situation carefully we find that it becomes its own contradiction. Take, for instance, an electronics designer who, upon getting his PhD, chooses to stay at the university, We are (sometimes contemptuously) inclined to say that he couldn't cut it as a designer, so he has chosen to continue with his teaching. But in fact, the two fields - designing and teaching - are different. In the case of the--designer, the "skill of his profession" is designing. In the case of the teacher it is teaching. In the designer's position, the "field of his profession is the communications industry, or the computer industry, etc. In the teacher's position it is designing. And finally, that which is practiced is, in the case of the designer, designing. In the case of the teacher it is teaching. Hence, it is quite appropriate (and not at all demeaning) that a University Professor be very knowledgeable about teaching, very knowledgeable about electronic design, and very able to put into practice this skill of teaching. We can take another case: A factory manager will be "successful" when he is very knowledgeable about the profession of management; very knowledgeable about his factory and the product line; and quite capable and practiced in performing this skill of managing. Still another example: An attorney will be successful when (1) he is very knowledgeable about the profession of "law", (2) very knowledgeable about contracts (or real estate, or criminal law, etc.) and (3) eminently good at practicing his skill of being a lawyer. And finally: A politician will be a success when he (1) knows a great deal about politics, and when he (2) knows a great deal about the environment in which he is operating (i.e. his constituents, the political atmosphere, etc.) and (3) when he demonstrates his ability to put all this in practice. The world is full of people who achieve a modicum of success by concentrating on one, or two of these three items. They are good, but not good enough. Most likely they have concentrated their efforts in the area in which they are already good (and certainly with good reason; who can deny that there is always room for improvement). They should, of course, rather concentrate their efforts in those areas where they are deficient. We started this article by saying there are three things necessary to the achievement of success. There is, in fact, a fourth. And that, quite simply, is Be In The Right Place. I once read of a man who suggested that the ideal position for an electrical engineer would be that of Chief Electrical Engineer in a Cement Factory. He would be the acknowledged expert; he would be important - even essential - but would not be in the main stream of the company's activity; his life would be pretty much his own. I see this conclusion as either being naive, or just plain cynical. For no matter how much this person knows about electrical engineering, or the electrical needs of the cement business, he is definitely in the wrong place. He should either change jobs (i.e. get out of the cement industry) or change professions (i.e. electrical engineering). Until then he will not and cannot be a true "success" in the sense in which we are using it. Hence we have expanded our short list of "tests" to four simple questions: 1. Are you very knowledgeable about your chosen profession; about the skills of your trade? 2. Are you very knowledgeable about the field in which you work? 3. Have you exercised and continued to improve your actual practice of this profession? 4. Are you in the right place to practice this profession A quick, and surprisingly accurate, Formula For Success Send questions and comments to Bob Stoffels at stoffels@juno.com |