Do you also feel that Laxman should be dropped?

I read the news that Laxman will be the first senior to be dropped from the Indian team in the next match with Australia in the current cricket series. Do you also agree with his judgement?

If you understand your two minds, the automatic mind Type 1 and the deliberate mind Type 2, you will realise that such intuitive judgments are undertaken by your fast automatic mind, not by by your slow deliberate mind. And as is the practice of automatic mind, it always take such fast decisions based on 'reference points', 'coherency' and 'available evidence', not by formal and comprehensive analysis. .

For instance, Laxman and others like Dhoni and Gambhir have fared equally badly in Australia. But why do we judge Laxman poorly than others? Because, we do not judge based on 'absolute performance', but on the basis of reference point that we have set for the person. For Laxman we have a 'reference point' of  say, 80 runs, while the same reference score for Gambhir is lower, say 30. That is why, we evaluate Laxman's performance as 'poorer' than Laxman, although both have fared equally poorly.

Why have we set higher reference point for Laxman? It is because he has been a savviour in many matches in the past. If your Type 2 mind is analysing, it will understand that when other batsman have fared badly, Laxman has fared better than them. In other words, Laxman has performed better than base-rate performance in the same match, which is even a better indicator of his comparative ability. But Type 1 mind does not take the effort of understanding this, it just increases 'reference point' further. And paradoxically, we use that higher reference point to judge Laxman's performance as poorer than Gambhir !

Observe how 'coherency' of Type 1 mind works. When i told my friend that even Gambhir can be removed because of his poor performance, my friend defended Gambhir, by saying that ' All batsman have fared poorly. How can we remove Gambhir alone?' His Type 1 mind does not realise that he is not using the same yardstick for Laxman! Why cannot Dhoni be removed, despite his poor performance, I asked him. Because Dhoni is 'not a specialist batsman', my friend said.  Why cannot Sehwag be dropped from the next match? He had an interesting reason 'Sehwag is a dashing batsman. We cannot penalise him for his dashing batting'. Did you observe the functioning of Type 1 mind? It creates a 'coherent story' with all loopholes plugged in and conveniently ignoring the inconvenient ones. Type 1 mind uses all the ideas and tricks to make the story coherent.

More importantly, Type 1 mind uses only the 'available evidence' without seeing the quality of the evidence. Instead of finding 'evidence' to judge Laxman's performance ( such as his 'above base-rate performance' in the past) it finds only the available evidence. We have seen countless number of times that Gambhir, Dhoni and the new stars lack the 'competency' to tackle the balls in outside conditions, but Type 1 mind will ignore this ready evidence. We do not have 'real evidence' that Laxman is batting poorly in nets, or that his feet are not moving well, or that his reaction times have decreased because of age. But Type 1 mind does not even 'bother' to wait for this evidence !

If you read some of the articles floating on the web on this hot subject of 'Should Laxman be dropped', you will be surprised that it is not only layman like us, but even experts are prone to Type 1 over-reliance. Infact their stories are more coherent than us!

How does our intuitive judgement of event/situation impacts our talent building?

Can you imagine how the same three characteristics of Type 1 mind - resetting reference points, creating a coherent story, and using available evidence only - can also impact your life directly?

• For instance, when you take take up the first job you are happy that you have got a 'good job'. After six months, you 'reference point' changes. Then you feel that you are 'dissatisfied' with the job, because you are evaluating with higher reference point. Our reference points constantly change in life. That is how our goals also change constantly. And that is why goals are useful only for a short time ! 
• When you change jobs, and take on new job, you are relying only on 'available evidence' about the new job. But you are evaluating your current job with more 'comprehensive evidence'. That is why, your Type 1 mind always feels that 'New job is better than current job'. If you rely on Type 1 mind alone for such decisions, you are likely to commit gross errors. 
• When you listen to a story of a successful programmer, or a career, or a researcher, please remember that the story is made 'coherent' by closing the visible loopholes and ignoring other not-so-obvious one's. Your Type 1 mind loves 'coherence' and forgets to check the 'entire story'. If you are not careful about it, these stories create in you unrealistic aspirations, mistaken beliefs and incorrect thumb rules that drive your life's decisions !  

As Daniel Kahneman and Keith Stanovich ( the two psychologists who have done extraordinary work on this concept in last 10 years) say, our Type 2 mind is a cognitive miser. It refuses to increase cognitive workload and instead prefers to rely on Type 1 mind all the time. Unless we consciously learn to 'override' Type 1 at times, we are at the mercy of chance. Type 1 is also useful though. It is therefore important to get the right balance between Type 1 and 2 mind, if you want to achieve anything in your life !

If you want to learn more about the functioning of Type 1 and 2 mind, go ahead and read Daniel Kahneman's book, Thinking fast and slow, or revert to this blog for more.

First step of talent unfolding has to negotiated quickly

If you see my earlier blog on three steps on unfolding the talent , you will understand that the first step of 'choosing the talent zone' has to be negotiated quickly. Talent zone is your zone of 'skill set' which matches with your interest plus abilities that you have acquired during graduation plus domain ( be it telecom, automobiles, or software).

Ideally, this preparation of choosing a talent zone should be over by the time you graduate, so that you waste little time. But like Anshuman in the earlier case, who took 4 years to choose 'corporate training' after he graduated ( and then later dropped after investing 5 years of effort in acquiring the skill), most of the graduates do not prepare themselves for choosing of their talent zone. And consequently they choose whatever comes their 'way', and then drop it later because it was not compatible for them.

As we have seen in the blog of choosing the talent zone, the risks in choosing the talent zone are limited and lower than arts and sports professionals. Unlike arts and sports professionals who chose their talent zone by the age of 10, you can chose your talent zone at the age of 23. So what makes it so difficult to chose the talent zone even after 5 years after graduation?

Having coached several graduates in the experience range of 1-5 years, here are the four bottlenecks that i have observed the most:

1. Lack of information of what skills are required for a position: Many professionals cannot see the Job description of a position, convert that into 'task list' and then deduce the 'skill+domain+interest' required to perform the tasks. And remember some of the skills required are 'hard' skills like logical skills, while some are soft skills like 'People management'.

2. Understanding of skill market: Like a product has its market, every skill has its own 'skill market' which determines the 'money' you can get for that skill in the market. Some market conditions are fluctuating, some are almost static. For instance, 'remuneration' for 'software' jobs have increased because of the good market conditions. On the other hand, remuneration of 'front end jobs' like sales will always remain higher than 'back end jobs' because these positions are perceived to be contributing more to the organisation's revenue and profits.

3. Inadequate understanding of one's own interest/abilities: Even if money in 'software' domain is high, it is of no use to you, if your own abilities do not match. Many graduates do not have the elementary tool set to 'understand' their selves or understand that 'virtues like honesty and confidence' are not the targets to pursue. More importantly, they lack the basic understanding of how our mind works. For instance, they are not aware that ability-gap can be bridged by forceful application of Will, but interest-gap cannot be bridged forcibly. They are also unaware that if they have to find their interest in 'software' without working in software, they have to 'engage' with 'software' in different innovative ways !

4. Incomplete understanding of unfolding process of talent: Because of incomplete understanding of process of how the talent unfolds, graduates are clueless and lack any coherent direction. They are therefore not aware that even if they cannot choose a 'core skill' like training or programming after graduation, they can still chose to develop complementary skills as fall-back options. Complementary skills are those skills that are required irrespective of which core skill you choose. For example, interpersonal skill is required to work in a company. One can choose to focus on this skill, if one is unable to chose the core skill. And remember, interpersonal skill is not about learning to 'talk beautifully' or 'crack jokes' or 'give short speeches at birthday parties'.

Which of the above four bottlenecks you are encountering in your life?  

Three steps of unfolding the talent - Inside out process

Anshuman, IIT, MBA, age 33 years, had been a successful corporate trainer for five years. When i met him a year back, he however told me that he has 'left' the field of training. I was surprised, because his 'skill' level was of  'high quality' and very refined. I believed that with some more years of practice, 'training skill' may become his talent. I also knew that Anshuman had worked for 5 years to acquire the necessary skills of training. When i asked him why he left corporate training, he said that ' I cannot work in an area which does not contribute anything meaningful to the human being or the company'. 
When i said that corporate training must be making a meaningful contribution, he said that it is not true. According to him , corporate training, because of its nature, is done to achieve 'number targets'. Participants, who come for training, treat training as a nice holiday. The minuscule participants who take training 'seriously' still do not benefit because they get no help in 'adapting' the lessons of the training in the real-work environment. In short, corporate training, benefits no one, according to Anshuman.  

What could have Anshuman done to avoid wasting his 5 years of life?

First step in talent building : Knowing what is required to produce the work-output 

The first step of 'talent' building is understanding what is required for the task ( in this case, corporate training). This step can be achieved through linear process of acquiring information and building a prototype task model. ( Of course, I also know of many youngsters who have taken more than 5 years in just deciding 'which task to focus on'.)

In this step, even books are useful, because they give you a preliminary list of 'inputs' and 'variables' that are required to achieve the task successfully. One has to however ensure that one must take up a book that 'suits' one's background.  If you are, for instance, a stock broker like Harshad Mehta, you cannot read a book of Nicholas Taleb or Warren Buffet, to build your ' prototype task model' of stock-broking !

This step is uni-directional and can be achieved by the sheer force of Will. It is completely in the realm of left brain. It is time-bound whose results can be predicted with sufficient degree of accuracy.

Second step of talent building: Using deliberate practice to excel in the task 

The second step of talent building, as we have seen earlier, is the process of reality-testing the task model. Once, Anshuman decided that he has to become a master corporate trainer, he had to carefully 'test' his 'task model of training' using different variables and inputs. Whenever he conducted a training, he carefully set the 'experiment' to decide 'which elements' is he testing. Through this reality-testing, he slowly discovered that the variable of 'understanding the background of participants and their context' significantly determines the impact of 'training quality'. He also discovered that 'small actions' taken at the 'end of training session' gives a big feeling of satisfaction to the participants.

This second step effectively determines the 'quality and robustness' of your task model and therefore decides  if your intention of developing your talent will become a 'reality' or not. We discussed some of the ideas of Dr. Anders Ericsson ( who is perhaps the only authority who has researched a lot on this step) in the blog of 'how to make experience count. If the task is highly complex, like management of a technological company or a function ( visavis the management of a small shop or even a retail mall), this step can be quite difficult and time consuming.

We however know some of the characteristics of this step. Because the 'output' of the task model is visible only to the person who is performing the 'task', it demands 'self awareness' to undertake this step. One needs to identify and isolate 'emotion' so that one is not misled in making a wrong conclusion. The success of this reality-testing is partly in the hands of left brain ( self awareness) as well as the right-brain (understanding oneself). One needs to keep the left brain in check ( because left brain believes it can manipulate and control anything) and listen to the new inputs of right brain, instead of rationalising them. The result from this step is partly in control of one's direct actions ( left brain**) and partly determined by what is happening in other aspects of your life ( right brain **). 

Third step of talent building: Making the task part of yourself 

In this step, if the skill has to grow further, the 'skill' has to become 'part' of the individual. Corporate training has to become part of Anshuman. The skill has to become part of your whole. It therefore has to become 'meaningful' to the individual. Without becoming 'meaningful', Ashuman cannot enjoy the process of doing the same task of corporate training again and again and do it 'in a refreshingly different way'. Imagine the amount of effort that Sachin Tendulkar had to take to keep on playing cricket every day ( and build his talent) to remain at the top for 20 years!

This is the step where Anshuman faltered. When Anshuman rightfully applied this test to his 'skill' of corporate training after 5 years, he found that 'corporate training' is 'meaningless' to him. Please remember that someone else can find corporate training 'meaningful'. When someone finds 'meaning' in some task, then it does not  remain a 9 to 5 task for him. It becomes part of his whole life. It changes him. The task goes in the blood. Like Sachin Tendulkar says 'Cricket is in my blood'. Without finding cricket 'meaningful' in his life, Sachin Tendulkar could not have played the same game for 20 year and remained at the top.  When you find your talent zone, because it is meaningful to your life, life is full of boundless energy and passion. So what determines 'what is meaningful'?

'Finding meaning in something' is not a left brain sequential process. It is in the realm of your right brain **. And therefore, it is not in your control. Right brain outcomes like satisfaction, meaningfulness, happiness cannot be achieved directly by Will. They are typically the by-products of some other actions, of the way you live life.

These right-brain ** outcomes depend on the loosely-knit process that is occurring outside the effort of 'skill building'. It is a process of clarifying aspirations, understanding and 'resolving' the conflicts in the values one holds and method of closing the gaps that the 'reality' confronts. It is a process of viewing the world in a way that cannot be manipulated or engineered. This process therefore consumes time. We know that this process can be helped by a mentor/coach, or it can be hastened if one encounters 'difficult situations' like death and failure. In short this process, even if it can be guided, cannot be controlled. It is therefore called unfolding, not building. And this is why we say 'talent unfolds' not 'builds'!

If you had known the process of unfolding, how could you have helped Anshuman? You could have probably helped Anshuman 'explicitly' articulate the 'meaning of contribution' that was implicit in his mind and made him see that 'corporate training' cannot be his 'talent zone'. This could have taken some time, because it cannot be done easily, but it could have still saved him at least 4 years of life, if not 5 years? Or you could have clarified his values and helped Anshuman 'contribute meaningfully' through 'training' without doing corporate training? This could have helped Anshuman capitalise on his experience of training, without sacrificing his values. In the realm of values, beliefs and meanings, there are various options that get 'discovered' because every individual is different.

In short, the right-brain process cannot be put in back burner, because left-brain process is busy acquiring skill, money and reputation? Sooner or later, left brain has to catch up with the outcomes of right brain. Left brain surprisingly 'listens' to the dictats of right brain, even though it is damaging to the person's career ( like Anshuman's decision of leaving corporate training seems non-sensical!) But i have seen many individuals like Anshuman who get surprised by the outcomes of right-brain, because they have left it unattended. I always therefore suggest that one should start working on the right brain process' as soon as possible. Do not wait for it to catch up? Let us see what you can do in the next blog.

** Right brain and left brain distinctions have been done on the basis of research of Ian Mcgilchrist. His book The master and his emissary provides all the details.

Confidence is temporary and contextual

"Confidence is one thing, but that can be temporary and that can fade as quickly as it came really." 

Who do you think made this statement? It was made by Roger Federer, winner of 16 Grand Slams, a record in the professional tennis world. Roger Federer made this statement just after he had won the semi-finals in the year ending ATP Finals at London in November 2011.


Systems thinkers call such as variables as an 'emerging property' of a system.This means that confidence is not inherent in you; it emerges out of your engagement with that system. That is why, Roger Federer can be confident in playing tennis, but he could be very nervous and jittery while 'investing his money' or 'helping his children to find the best school'.


As Confidence is an 'emergent property' of the system, it is not a 'time-less' trait; it is a time-dependent trait that is true only for that 'time' or moment.It can fade as easily as it emerged. For instance, if Roger Federer stops improving his game, his capability will not match with the demands of the game and he will feel less confident. In other words, constant improvement in the activity is not just necessary, but is absolutely essential to remain 'confident' in the field. This is what Roger Federer had to say about his effort in tennis.

As Federer explained, "I used to have a weak backhand. But then everybody played to my backhand. So obviously I was always going to improve my backhand eventually." He further added , "I think the same thing kind of happened to many different players. I don't think Novak's forehand used to be a strength. Today it's a weapon. [With] Rafa, [it’s] the same thing. He used to struggle if you hit hard into his forehand. Today it's no problem for him anymore. 

In other words, remaining confident is not automatic; neither to Roger Federer, nor to you. It depends on your engagement with the  'system' and the actions you take to match your capabilities with the changing 'demands'of the situation.  


Therefore it is wrong to claim ' I am confident'. It is more appropriate to say " I am confident in doing xyz today'. Please remember this when you are giving your next interview, or when you are talking to your boss or your subordinates. 


At this time, I sadly remember an interview of Vidhu Vinod Chopra he gave on the TV when his movie "1942-The love story" was released in 1994. Vinod Chopra wanted R.D. Burman to compose music for his film. When Vinod Chopra approached R.D. Burman for composing music, R.D. Burman had not composed music for a long time. Vinod Chopra said, 'R.D. Burman's confidence was so shattered that he did not believe that someone would want him to compose the music'. And remember R.D. Burman was a music composer of more than 300 plus films over three decades ( 1960 to 1990), some of which have been memorable like 'Padosan'and 'Yaadon Ki Baraat'. 


Confidence is temporary and contextual. Because it is an emergent property of a system, one has to 'engage' with the system to remain confident. 

A puzzle for you: What are your other 'traits', which you think are yours, but which actually 'emerge' from your engagement with the system?  

Misdirected effort only generates heat, not light

Our efforts to produce result are often directed towards visible systems* which are under our control, so to say. For instance, if a student is studying for a subject to score higher marks, he typically focusses on efforts that are in his control - understanding the chapters of the subject, trying to understand the difficult sections by re-rereading and careful dissection,  mugging the portions that seem long winding and so on.


Smart students, on the other hand, concentrate on the invisible systems that are under their influence, not control. For instance, they will find all the connected systems around the subject and exploit the 'interrelations' between them. Using their friends who know the subject better they will understand the 'subject better and faster', by understanding what 'questions' appeared in the last year exam they will focus their effort selectively, by knowing when the subject exam is amidst rest of the subjects, they will plan the study time given to the subject carefully.  


If you are balancing your efforts between the invisible and visible systems unconsciously, you are the lucky one. Now, with the clear articulation of invisible systems, you can work on invisible system consciously.



As a student you may afford to ignore the invisible systems that help you produce result, but if you are working, you just cannot afford to ignore. In a work-system, invisible systems in the work-life are much larger in proportion ( about 60-70%) than in study-life. 


Ignoring the invisible systems in work-life is an invitation for trouble. For instance, what do you think is impact of invisible systems on the result of a player who is playing an individual game ( like tennis)   and not the team game ( like cricket). As you will observe in a tennis match, even when a player wins the same points as other player, he may still lose the match, because he failed to influence the invisible systems of the match. Can you guess the invisible systems of a tennis player? 


In an organisational work-life, the invisible systems matter a lot, because of the dual effect of specialisation and 'team-effect'. We have seen how much supervisors impact the evaluation of knowledge work in organisations.  We have also seen how managing perception is important for senior bosses for whom time is always scarce. Impact of invisible systems is very high on the work-output of a knowledge professional.


I have seen a smart sales officer unable to produce the desired 'output' because he was given a 'difficult' territory that was spoilt by the earlier incumbent. I have seen a smart programmer spend considerable time than required to 'maintain' a program, because the earlier programmer did not 'document and design' the program properly. I have seen a talented R&D manager struggling to produce 'result', because his product is competing with a heavy-weight multinational competitor who is spending 5 times the budget than his company. Every day, in my coaching, i see numerous examples in organisational work-life, where the result of an employee's effort is determined by invisible systems outside his control.


And despite the huge impact of invisible systems,  many smart professionals continue to bury their nose in the sand and do what is in their control. They suffer from the 'under the lamp' syndrome and tend to search for the key under the lamp post because that is 'where the light is'. They concentrate on systems under their control, and ignore the invisible systems which they can only influence.


In 2005-6, Mckinsey consultants had published a report saying that 60-75% of the engineering graduates in India are not fit for working in a corporate life. I would venture to say that this is due to their lack of ability to 'see' the invisible systems that impact their output. And when they are not trained to see the invisible systems, how can they influence it? With their youthful exuberance and energy, graduates in their initial work-life tend to produce lot of heat, without producing light. 


* Systems are conglomeration of interacting elements that serve the purpose of the system. 

If your bosses are forced to become dictators, what are you forced into

If you are working in the field of sports or music and if you perform poorly, say while playing tennis or violin, someone can easily tell you why your performance was poor, by giving you instances of where you missed or failed. Evaluating performance in A&P field is based on objective criteria. Even if your coach disagrees with you, it is visible to all others. This at least helps you, as the A&P performer, to find from others if your performance was 'really bad' or was disliked by the critique/coach because he does not like you.

On the other hand, when you are working in a cognitive field, be it in manufacturing, sales or design, your work-output is not visible like a music piece or play. Infact, in cognitive work, work-output is misguiding, because in cognitive work, it is very easy to cut corners and produce the required output. One can increase the customer calls by giving 'terse and incomplete' answers, one can lend more loans by tapping 'suspect' customers, or one can write software code quickly but which is 'inherently difficult to maintain', or one can achieve production targets by compromising on quality. In short, it is difficult to evaluate cognitive work performance objectively through its 'output' measures.

When companies try to measure knowledge work of their employees through 'thinking process' such as by counting the number of ideas produced by a cognitive performer, it generates even more questions. In a company, which implemented this scheme, interesting scenarios emerged.  Some ideas, which had big impact, required indeterminate effort to 'mature' them. Some were low hanging matured fruits but had low impact. Some looked good but looked technologically difficult to implement. Some looked outlandish, but seemed promising from customer angle. Only a person with similar 'specialised' skill, working closely with each employee, can evaluate the cognitive performance of each employee after considerable effort. Therefore evaluating cognitive performance through your 'thinking process' is a good idea, but impractical to implement.

If your cognitive performance can neither be evaluated by output, nor by the inputs ( i.e. the thinking  process), what does your company management do? Your company finds a practical alternative: they give this responsibility to your boss or supervisor. Your boss becomes your key evaluator.

Given the invisible characteristics of cognitive work, and being human, your boss finds some workable method to evaluate you. Sometime he measures your cognitive performance by 'output' even though it seems illogical. Sometimes he measures it by your acts of omission and commission. Sometimes, he measures it through your manner of speech and communication. Sometimes through your dress. Sometimes ....There are as many measures as there are bosses. In short, bosses look like dictators who do whatever they wish. ( By the way, some bosses start taking their role seriously and start behaving as dictators, thus closing the loop!)

What do graduates do when they encounter these kind of bosses in their jobs?

1. They become like Jabbar. They think that the problem is their 'boss', and only if the boss is right, everything will be fine. So they keep on changing jobs to find the right boss. Naturally, because it is the nature of cognitive work, and not the nature of boss, they never find their solution. Some luckier ones find the right job and boss, which helps them unfold their journey of talent. 
2. Second approach is taken by enterprising graduates. I know of Karthik, who rebelled, and started working as an entrepreneur three years back. He was happy to leave behind a tyrannical boss. But when he developed his first 'technological' innovation, he was shocked to see the response of his customers. He realised that his performance-evaluator had changed from 'boss' to 'customer', but the evaluation was still the same. Now, after three years, Karthik believes 'customers are totally irrational, want everything free, and demand immediate service without paying anything'. Karthik's talent path has got diverted unwittingly because of this conclusion !  
3. Third approach is to accept the belief that 'boss ( or system) is always right' and become 'part of the system'. These individuals learn to 'manage bosses and the system', but forget their talent. As a result, they become 'successful' in the corporate world, but remain unhappy because their talent has got submerged in the corporate world. They are like Anil, who have forgotten what are they good at. Their 'method of success' becomes their bottleneck ! 
4. Majority follow the fourth approach. They become practical and mature. They forget their talent and 'adjust' with the world. Some adjust by blaming the entire world for their misfortune. You will find them as constant trouble makers in corporate world. Some adjust by finding expression in some non-work activity like photography, writing, making friends, or even helping charity. As you would imagine, there are innumerable ways of adjusting with the world. 

You have a choice, provided you consciously take it

As you would have intuitively realised from the above four scenarios, your boss or customers are not the dictators. Infact, as you would have realised, they are the victims of the system which has pushed the difficult responsibility to them because they cannot say 'no'.  They do not seem to have any choice. But you have a choice.

Either you unconsciously get exploited by the system like Karthik ( and the majority ) and get derailed from your  'main journey'. Or you refuse to become part of the system and become like Jabbar, and hope that salvation is around the corner. Or you unconsciously exploit the system and become like Anil, who won the war but lost the battle.

Or you have another choice. Accept the fact that your path of skill-development is pulled by these market forces, even if you do not like it. Once you accept this reality, you will appreciate that your path of skill-development is hampered by these key actors - your boss,  if you are employee or researcher, or customers, if you are an entrepreneur - who are just playing their mediating role. These actors  behave, in their uniquely dictatorial way, because the market is biased, irrational, unpredictable and idiosyncratic in its demands.

Therefore, if you embrace them as a collaborator in your journey, it will help you understand the 'corporate world' and/or 'customer world'  better, learn to  'negotiate' the hurdles they have placed, and continue on your core journey of unfolding your skill into a talent. The choice is entirely yours.

And, if you chose to consciously negotiate the system, it is not difficult. Not as difficult as your course in Engineering, physics, medicine, accounts or law. It is much simpler. The art lies in 'being part of the system first before learning to be apart'.

You have to learn to map the 'metasystems' in which you are working, understand what they expect from you in terms of performance, and then maneuver it to fulfill those expectations.  Because it is different skill to acquire, initially it will be difficult, but once you cross the threshold, it will be as easy as driving your car. ( This skill is learnt through the discipline of Systems thinking!)

Do you want to become victim of the system or understand the system and negotiate it smartly? ( The word system is 'differently' defined in the discipline of systems thinking)

Talent management has become complex, it is no more complicated

What is common in these 3 cases:

Casy, age 24, passed out his CA this year in his second attempt. He has been giving interviews for last three weeks. Frustrated in not getting the desired job in corporate, he approached me with this question, ' After doing CA, how can i not get the job i want?'

Jabbar , age 31, sincere hard worker and a bright student, has been working in a big software organisation after passing out from a top Engineering institute.  He met me last year. His constant disappointment in his work has been 'job satisfaction', despite, as he says, working harder. He has changed two jobs in last 6 years for that. 

Anil, age 42, considers himself to be a successful professional. He is a GM in a manufacturing organisation, which is not common at this age. He owns a house in Pune, has two cars for his family, goes for a holiday every year to foreign destination.  He is wondering if he has succeeded too early in life and wonders what to do next, because as he says there is no 'mountain to scale'

All three were expecting to cruise on 'auto-pilot'. Casy thought that a good job is his birthright after going through the gruel of doing CA. Jabbar thought that job satisfaction is automatic if he works diligently and sincerely. Anil expected to see the next 'mountain' once he scaled the earlier mountain. If they had asked their fathers' advice, their fathers would have not been able to help them.

Our fathers got jobs quite comfortably in earlier days. In those days, if one did a CA, one's life was made for good. The demon of job satisfaction was never seen, because in earlier days, one moved from one job to another only for higher salary or positions, not for job satisfaction. Fathers did not face the challenge of Anil, because they spend their entire life trying to find 'adequate' food and shelter for their family.

Today everything has changed. Job markets have changed. Even employers can chose the best, the choice they earlier lacked. That is why like Casy, even Engineers, lawyers and first class graduates, find it difficult to get jobs they want.  However, like his employers, Casy also has many options: he can work with a company, a NGO or as a free-lance. However, to exploit this advantage, he must first equip himself with a new rule-set.

 Expectations have changed due to comparison with colleagues and due to easy information on internet. But without the new rule-set of  'how to find job satisfaction in a job', many professionals like Jabbar still struggle to find 'job satisfaction't. Aspirations have changed because of overall financial security, however we still do not know how to 'fulfill' those aspirations because we do not know how to work with our mind to 'know what we want'. Unable to work with mind, Anil is flooded with market opportunities, unable to choose the next mountain. Unlike his father who never got opportunities, Anil is facing the problem of 'too many opportunities'  at too early an age.

What are these three cases pointing towards? Talent Management is no more complicated, it has become complex. A complicated problem can be solved by using the same methods and techniques more efficiently. When a problem is complicated, one needs to do more of the same. One has to just try harder.  One can follow simple older rules of talent management such as work hard, work sincerely, be motivated, have a goal or build network. One can simply learn 'on the job' and hope things work out.

A complex problem however requires a different 'mind-set', a different 'rule-set', both to 'identify' the problem and then to 'resolve' it. Because the rules of game have changed, only learning from the problem is not enough, one has to learn before the problem appears. You need a new mind-set as well as rule set to manage your talent over a life time. Your father's rule-sets won't help you any more.

Casy for instance has to 'anticipate' the problem of getting the job after CA and prepare in advance; if he waits, not only the opportunity slips but as he gets more frustrated in not getting the desired job he makes more mistakes. Jabbar has to understand that the problem in Stage II of competency building ( Please read this to understand the different stages of talent unfolding) is best negotiated 'by being with one employer', not by changing employers. Infact, changing employers worsens his problem of job satisfaction even more !

And Anil has to learn the new ways of migrating from Stage III - Competency convergence to Stage IV of talent embedding. And worse still, he has to understand this 20 years before Nandan Nilekani did. Or what Arun Maira did at the age of 66. Anil has to perhaps learn from Kaushik Basu who learnt to use his talent for higher purpose much earlier than others, at the age of 40+.