> 3. Discover the relationship between effort and reward.
I think that's by far the biggest stumbling block. Once there is a direct relationship between effort and reward most people behave appropriately and put forth a lot of effort. It also smooths over a lot of the lesser issues. Doing very boring things can be very exciting when doing it well results in big increases in reward. It becomes a high stakes game.
I agree. This can be a difficult thing to learn, though, because most organizations obscure this relationship. And because effort is hard by definition, there's a massive mythology of low-effort success; fantasizing that reward is random allows even the slothful to identify with the successful.
Since quitting my job a few months ago, I've been learning this lesson as a consultant. It turns out that to squeeze a mere 30 billable hours out of a week, I have to work about twice as hard as I ever had in a full-time job. And I was the most productive hacker in the company. Now I'm working much harder on projects that aren't always as cool, but it's worth it because it directly affects my livelihood and the customer's desire to continue working with me and recommend me to others.
I completely agree. The effort I exert on my projects is far and above what I exert on client work. The reward is much larger, as PG says, I'm creating my own wealth rather than wealth for others in exchange for money.
IMO this is the only point that matters. Rich or not, we only value rewards that take effort. If your fairy grandmother showed up, waived her wand, and you suddenly had a couple billion, you wouldn't value it. If you work your a off to make a couple hundred K though, or to learn a new language, or learn to surf, etc. you will feel a great sense of accomplishment far more valuable than the coin.
Gladwell is successful because he relays a great anecdote. Anecdotes lend themselves well to re-telling, thus his books are popularised by word of mouth. "Man, I read this great piece by this guy called Gladwell about a policeman who could ready body language so well he held fire when facing off a kid with a gun."
And isn't that precisely the scenario outlined in Tipping point? That's pretty cool - a book that proves its own point. It also reminds me of people who get rich selling self help books.
4 is the one I have trouble with. Where is there disproof of what he's saying? The Tipping Point made a very good case for Gladwell's theory. Blink wasn't as cohesive, but - again - I didn't see anything wrong with the theory itself.
If you want an example, read an article of his that's freely available called Big and Bad, and then look at NTSB safety stats. His article poses that SUVs are less safe because they are less maneuverable, and therefore more prone to accidents. His "proof" is that a Chevy TrailBlazer didn't handle nearly as well as a Porsche that costs 2x as much on a test track.
Fortunately for SUV owners, actual data does show that they're safer. They don't really handle much worse than sedans in their price class, and they do have lower instances of fatalities in accidents.
They make up nearly a half of the top 20 safest cars, while they are nowhere near half of the total models sold. Gladwell actually even shows the safety stats of a few hand picked sedans and SUVs, but doesn't bother showing the entirety of the data available, which proves the exact opposite of his thesis.
It's worth pointing out where Gladwell is wrong about overnight successes and why.
While it's true that in a field where continued effort is required for continued success (like acting, to continue the theme of his 'American Idol' remarks), software (web software in particular) can be a different kind of beast. For sites that derive value from the network effect, your work can taper off once the network size reaches a certain point. (Witness Markus Frind of PlentyOfFish.com.)
Furthermore, while times are tight now, the 'get bought' method of internet riches, where/when available, has to qualify as an 'overnight' success.*
*Not to say that this is the most likely or desirable case, just that it qualifies as a counterexample.
If you define success as making a lot of money quickly you should go into sales and cut out the middleman.
You can buy one lottery ticket and make a lot of money. You can buy many lottery tickets every day of your life and never cover the cost of your lottery tickets.
Most of the time the opportunity for "overnight success" is sold by folks who are interested in making a profit on your dreams without actually fulfilling them.
Whether overnight success exists depends on the definition of "success". Becoming skilled can't happen overnight, but recognition does and, since most people are not independently wealthy and have to work, recognition sadly matters a lot more than skill, practically speaking.
Growth in one's skill level is gradual and relatively steady, but the selection process for the "stars" is full of dumb luck, black swan events, ridiculous inefficiencies and, often, catastrophic failures (e.g. Mark Zuckerberg, the guy who stole the right idea from the right people in the right place at the right time).
The relationship between skill and recognition is complex. Most writers and artists who become "established" devolve into mediocre hacks, because the cocktail parties take over the time they'd otherwise be using to improve their skill. On the other hand, what happens to the vast majority is that the utter lack of recognition, despite their talent, discourages them and they move on to other things. In truth, the "star" system that has infected most aspects of American life-- business, art, academia-- is one of the worst influences on quality imaginable, and much of why the product of humanities academia is utter jenkem. The 2007-08 financial clusterfuck is a result of many individuals' efforts to become "star" traders. Bankers are not stupid people who just happened to be broadsided by a black swan; they deliberately took extreme risks (often hidden behind models known since the '80s to be flawed or incomplete) with others' money, knowing that they'd become stars on the upside.
Right, b/c to become a star you need recognition from the masses. Thus, you must conform to the criteria the masses have for success in your field. Who's most likely to have the worst idea of what entails success in your field? The masses.
I think that's by far the biggest stumbling block. Once there is a direct relationship between effort and reward most people behave appropriately and put forth a lot of effort. It also smooths over a lot of the lesser issues. Doing very boring things can be very exciting when doing it well results in big increases in reward. It becomes a high stakes game.