Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Here are my responses.

_________________
Interesting and thought provoking. First wonder if you might permit
me to reprint this on my blog, with proper attribution so we might be
able to discuss the issues there.

Just one or two points.

On 10 Jul 2009 at 15:34, Gregorio Billikopf wrote:

> I have come to the conclusion that each one of us is born with
> specific inherent potential gifts. In order for these gifts to
> flourish we must be exposed to the appropriate activity. I hate to
> think of what would have happened if Johann Sebastian Bach had not
> been born to the home and epoch that he was born to.

There’s a need for great care here. For every Bach, there are
thousands of workaday musicians and composers, and when we are
talking about work, let’s say in music, there isn’t actually a great
need for every worker to be Bach.

The point here is that most jobs are simply not so demanding as to
require great inherent ability/talent to fulfill at a satisfactory
level. In fact, generally, even in knowledge work, you probably don’t
want 10 brilliant people.

*** Robert: I agree that there are many jobs that do not require brilliance. Just basic competitiveness to get the job done at a reasonable speed and handle the necessary exceptions. For instance, working in a toll bridge requires someone who can give change quickly, but there is a limit after which additional speed will not make a difference. – GB

I agree that genetics and early home life place an upper ceiling on an
individual BUT that the huge majority of jobs can be done without
bumping up against one’s limitations.

Simply, few jobs require genius. That in fact is why it appears that
training, etc, can bring people along. It can, because the job
doesn’t require more than people have to offer. (this are all
horrible generalizations, sorry)

You do not have to be born with incredible dexterity to function
excel at a keyboard, or to drive a tractor on a farm. Most people,
with proper training, can learn to be “good enough”. However most
people cannot learn to drive Indy 500 cars safely and competitively.
Then again, we don’t need many.

*** Robert: I have done tests in terms of handling a keyboard (or did you mean a musical keyboard, here?), that show that on the top end of a group of 120 applicants, the best was typing at 90 words per minute without mistakes and the worst at 15 words per minute. All of the applicants knew that the minimum speed for the job was 60 words per minute. Driving a tractor at a farm can be quite tricky when it comes to tractors with a trailer, in that it takes quite a bit of skill to back up a tractor and trailer into a row (a vital skill when working in a vineyard or orchard). I have also tested secretaries and found huge variances in terms of their ability to write or proofread. So, perhaps we are taking a bit about the extremes. The genius category could, I agree, be detrimental. In the case of vineyard pruners, hiring the master pruners can make a huge difference if I pay piece rate, but it probably does not matter if I pay by the hour. If I pay by the hour, the best pruner in the crew will work no faster than the slowest one. If my piece rate is properly designed, on the other hand, I can end up hiring pruners who are brilliant at what they do and pay them four times (or more) than what they would earn by the hour and save money on my pruning costs per acre because I can prune with fewer employees who can perform at a higher quality level. The challenge here is what Frederick Taylor spoke about, the fear of having the piece rate cut when employees show the employer how fast they really can go and still do the job well. But Taylor made other mistakes I will write about at another time. Employees are often punished when they do their best in piece-rate pay situations. The rate is almost always cut–either today or in the future. So trust plays a huge role here. Also, as minimum hourly wages go up, piece rate pay has to go up even if the employees are already making huge amounts over the minimum wage already. I have a number of employers who are working with me on these concepts and we have had great success. I hope to publish these results over the coming years. But yes, I agree that for most jobs that are paid on an hourly basis, we do not need that level of master performance. -GB

I wonder how many
> people have hidden talents that are just as powerful but go
> undiscovered or, worse, do not surface from lack of deliberate
> practice. Some may give up too soon, supposing that if they were
> really good at something success would be quickly manifested. Other
> factors also come into play, of course, such as availability of an
> appropriate coach or limited time to spend on developing talents. I
> suspect that lack of deliberate practice is a much more serious
> setback than a lack of inherent gifts. Relatively few people seem
> committed enough to wish to tackle learning that requires extensive
> dedication. Once we choose an area or field to improve in, however, I
> would suggest that each one of us has a different inherent potential
> in terms of how far we can succeed.

WOW. Lots of good stuff there. Again the one thing is this: The level
or proficiency required. I learned a number of things as an adult,
self-taught that involve a LOT of deliberate practice – guitar, piano
keyboards, bicycling and driving a car.

The truth is that it became clear that musically, I could go only so
far without additional formal arduous instruction because of some
lack of certain abilities. I could play pretty well, mind you. But
not very well. But even so, no amount of instruction and practice
would make me into Eric Clapton.

Just to add, I’ll never have the proficiency and skill in driving a
bicycle or a car compared to if I had learned when I was 8yrs or
16yrs. When one learns matters.

>
> Many skills, abilities and gifts can be measured over time and have
> been shown to be quite a constant. This is true of IQ tests and it is
> also true of pruning tests. I have given brief pruning tests (46
> minutes) to farm workers at the beginning of the season. Then, I have
> compared the test results to their on-the-job performance and obtained
> very high correlation coefficients (thus showing that the test was
> predictive of on-the-job performance). I would expect that for tasks
> that require a relatively short learning curve, each person has an
> upper potential limit. Once a person reaches close to their top
> performance, additional improvement requires much more effort.

Yes. Exactly. But the issue is what level the job requires. Does it
really matter if Joe prunes 5% faster because he’s a pruning genius?
If we could raise pruning by 5% via training, would it really be
worthwhile? What about 50%? What would be the fail rate at that
level?

*** Robert. As I mentioned in the pruning work, my studies show that the best pruner can outperform the worst, in a typical crew, in the order of a 4:1 to an 8:1 ratio. It makes all the difference in the world if I pay these men and women 4 to 8 times more, and hire fewer people. I am working toward the idea of a professional farm worker, a master of his or her trade. To use actual numbers, one worker pruned 3 vines while another pruned 24! This was a 46 minute test. Just do the math for an eight hour day. But none of this matters if the pay design is wrong. I have written specific guidelines for piece rate paid work. When there is a labor shortage, I can be quite assured I will have an adequate labor supply if I am hiring the master pruners. This would not work if everyone wanted to hire the master pruners. Not to worry, this will not happen anytime soon. Once again, it has to be a combination of hiring the masters and paying them correctly. –GB

Olympic
> 100 meter runners spend years training to shave of a few seconds from
> their best times. A fraction of a second normally makes the difference
> between a gold and silver medalist or not even medaling at all.
> Theoretical upper limits exist for almost any activity we are
> interested in perfecting. I say theoretical, as some activities or
> jobs-such as a human resource manager-would require more than a
> lifetime to perfect. These upper limits are more artificial and self
> imposed.

I’d have to take more care reading, but aren’t there some
contradictions in your statements about upper limits? They can’t be
both controlled by self, AND subject to fixed talent parameters.

*** Robert. Hmm. Here is what I meant. The upper limit is not automaticaly achieved. We have to work to reach it. We can never achieve that upper limit. As we get closer and closer to it, the effort and time required increases. This is an important point, so please question me again if I am still not being clear. I may have to use a graph to illustrate it. You could, as described by your words above, dedicate a lot more time to your musical talents and improve greatly (although I suspect you are quite good). But all the same you realize that even then (expectancy theory) your upper limit is not high enough to play as well as a gifted artist. Or, you have other tallents where you know that the improvement will be more valued, perhaps (once again, expectancy theory).
–GB

As a result we are nowhere close to hitting our potential
> upper limit. We can easily continue to make huge improvements
> throughout our lives, regardless of our inherent management abilities.
> Of ?ourse, someone with more inheren? management skills, who is also
> willing to dedicate the necessary effort, will simply improve faster.
> We cannot downplay the role of inherent ability.

Or what many would call personality, but which I prefer to call
“other personal characteristics”.

*** Robert. I also would prefer personal characteristics. –GB

The level that any person can achieve is a function of both ability
(which sets a ceiling) PLUS personality factors.

I’m a smart guy, blessed with some verbal talents and abilities, and
average in others. I have also been blessed with a phenomenal
educaton. I knew when I was in my early twenties that the limits to
my performance would never be from my talents, innate lack, but from
the personality that enables one to make best use of the talents.

There are certainly people who are better writers, better trainers,
better anythings than I am, particularly if they have a combination
of talent and personality that fits.

Which I think is what you said below. See, I should have read all of
it first.

*** Robert. Yeap. That is what I was trying to say. –GB

Here’s the critical HR question:

Given that most jobs do NOT require talent beyond an average level,
how much should we invest in a) hiring the best (when average will
do), and b) training people beyond the level of “average”?

If you need brilliance and genius you hire for it, aim them and let
them work.

*** Robert: Yes, for every job a person needs a certain level of competence in the subject matter. Some jobs are such that these levels may be reached relatively quickly. Let us not discount human differences, though. I hired two people for a particular position. One employee was so fabulous, she walked on water and went on to bigger and better things after four years. When she left we used the same test to hire the next individual. This person scored about 87% as well. Not bad. Her performance turned out to be 87% as good, in terms of her ability to make decisions and think analytically. For jobs that take creativity and analytical skills, it pays to hire people with higher level skills. Even for simple tasks, it pays to test people. I trained two soccer referees to be a linesman. This requires a decent amount of brains, but there are mechanical aspects, too, which are relatively easy to learn.

One was able to master the mechanics of raising the flag after being shown twice, the other was not able to do so after being shown ten times and given opportunities to practice. Once again, thanks for letting me comment. –GB

Just one or two points.

On 10 Jul 2009 at 15:34, Gregorio Billikopf wrote:

> I have come to the conclusion that each one of us is born with
> specific inherent potential gifts. In order for these gifts to
> flourish we must be exposed to the appropriate activity. I hate to
> think of what would have happened if Johann Sebastian Bach had not
> been born to the home and epoch that he was born to.

There’s a need for great care here. For every Bach, there are
thousands of workaday musicians and composers, and when we are
talking about work, let’s say in music, there isn’t actually a great need
for every worker to be Bach.

The point here is that most jobs are simply not so demanding as to
require great inherent ability/talent to fulfil at a satisfactory
level. In fact, generally, even in knowledge work, you probably don’t want
10 brilliant peole.

I agre that genetics and early home life place an upper ceiling on an
individual BUT that the huge majority of jobs can be done without bumping
up against one’s limitations.

Simply, few jobs require genius. That in fact is why it appears that
training, etc, can bring people along. It can, because the job doesn’t
require more than people have to offer. (this are all horrible
generalizations, sorry)

You do not have to be born with incredible dexterity to function
excel at a keyboard, or to drive a tractor on a farm. Most people,
with proper training, can learn to be “good enough”. However most
people cannot learn to drive Indy 500 cars safely and competitively. Then
again, we don’t need many.

I wonder how many
> people have hidden talents that are just as powerful but go
> undiscovered or, worse, do not surface from lack of deliberate
> practice. Some may give up too soon, supposing that if they were
> really good at something success would be quickly manifested. Other
> factors also come into play, of course, such as availability of an
> appropriate coach or limited time to spend on developing talents. I
> suspect that lack of deliberate practice is a much more serious setback
> than a lack of inherent gifts. Relatively few people seem committed
> enough to wish to tackle learning that requires extensive dedication.
> Once we choose an area or field to improve in, however, I would suggest
> that each one of us has a different inherent potential in terms of how
> far we can succeed.

WOW. Lots of good stuff there. Again the one thing is this: The level or
proficiency required. I learned a number of things as an adult,
self-taught that involve a LOT of deliberate practice – guitar, piano
keyboards, bicycling and driving a car.

The truth is that it became clear that musically, I could go only so far
without additional formal arduous instruction because of some lack of
certain abilities. I could play pretty well, mind you. But not very well.
But even so, no amount of instruction and practice would make me into Eric
Clapton.

Just to add, I’ll never have the proficiency and skill in driving a
bicycle or a car compared to if I had learned when I was 8yrs or
16yrs. When one learns matters.

>
> Many skills, abilities and gifts can be measured over time and have been
> shown to be quite a constant. This is true of IQ tests and it is also
> true of pruning tests. I have given brief pruning tests (46 minutes) to
> farm workers at the beginning of the season. Then, I have compared the
> test results to their on-the-job performance and obtained very high
> correlation coefficients (thus showing that the test was predictive of
> on-the-job performance). I would expect that for tasks that require a
> relatively short learning curve, each person has an upper potential
> limit. Once a person reaches close to their top performance, additional
> improvement requires much more effort.

Yes. Exactly. But the issue is what level the job requires. Does it
really matter if Joe prunes 5% faster because he’s a pruning genius? If we
could raise pruning by 5% via training, would it really be worthwhile?
What about 50%? What would be the fail rate at that level?

Olympic
> 100 meter runners spend years training to shave of a few seconds from
> their best times. A fraction of a second normally makes the difference
> between a gold and silver medalist or not even medaling at all.
> Theoretical upper limits exist for almost any activity we are interested
> in perfecting. I say theoretical, as some activities or jobs-such as a
> human resource manager-would require more than a lifetime to perfect.
> These upper limits are more artificial and self imposed.

I’d have to take more care reading, but aren’t there some
contradictions in your statements about upper limits? They can’t be
both controlled by self, AND subject to fixed talent parameters.

As a result we are nowhere close to hitting our potential
> upper limit. We can easily continue to make huge improvements
> throughout our lives, regardless of our inherent management abilities.
> Of ?ourse, someone with more inheren? management skills, who is also
> willing to dedicate the necessary effort, will simply improve faster. We
> cannot downplay the role of inherent ability.

Or what many would call personality, but which I prefer to call
“other personal characteristics”.

The level that any person can achieve is a function of both ability
(which sets a ceiling) PLUS personality factors.

I’m a smart guy, blessed with some verbal talents and abilities, and
average in others. I have also been blessed with a phenomenal educaton. I
knew when I was in my early twenties that the limits to my performance
would never be from my talents, innate lack, but from the personality that
enables one to make best use of the talents.

There are certainly people who are better writers, better trainers,
better anythings than I am, particularly if they have a combination
of talent and personality that fits.

Which I think is what you said below. See, I should have read all of it
first.

Here’s the critical HR question:

Given that most jobs do NOT require talent beyond an average level,
how much should we invest in a) hiring the best (when average will
do), and b) training people beyond the level of “average”?

If you need brilliance and genius you hire for it, aim them and let
them work.