BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Want To Be a High Achiever? Start in the Middle

Following
This article is more than 10 years old.

Sometimes I'll read an article online, and find that the most important take-away for me is not what the author intended.  That happened just this morning; I was reading an article on Linkedin by a guy named Adam Grant about "Helicopter Managers" - managers who stay too closely involved with their employees and don't, therefore give them a chance to learn and grow.

Grant used as an example a classic study, done over 50 years ago by John Atkinson, in which low achieving and high achieving people were invited to take shots on a shuffleboard court; they could all choose to take easy, intermediate, or very difficult shots.  Grant chose to focus on the fact that very few people in either group chose the "very easy" shot, supporting his contention that everyone likes challenge.

But something else caught my attention: Grant noted that many more of the low achievers chose the very difficult shot - for which there was only a 2% chance of success. I was so intrigued by this that I actually bought (online) and read the study.  And it was so: the high achievers, in both practice shots and "game" shots, were most likely to choose the intermediate level of difficulty.  The low achievers were much more likely to choose the very difficult shot, both in practice and in the game.

Why should this be so, and why does it matter to us?  It demonstrates something important that I've seen over the years:

                 The most successful people target and achieve reasonable aspirations

I love this phrase "reasonable aspiration."  We use it most often when talking about creating a vision for your own future or the future of your company. I've noticed that good leaders set reasonable aspiration almost automatically: they approach the future in a balanced way, with neither a pollyanna-like, unfounded optimism nor a grim surrender to hopelessness.  They look to answer the question: What do I actually hope and believe we can build, if we make best use of all that’s available to us?

For example, let's say  your current reality includes a truly passionate and skilled workforce, adequate resources, and a market niche just waiting to be filled by your newest product -- and there aren’t any significant or un-addressable obstacles. Then you can set the bar pretty high; your reasonable aspiration could include fast growth, big gains in market share, etc..  On the other hand, if your current reality includes a number of significant weaknesses or deficiencies and/or there are major external obstacles blocking your path to the future, you probably need to rein in your ambitions, at least in the short term, and focus first on creating a better starting point.

That’s why we call it reasonable aspiration: reasonable relative to where you’re starting from and what might be in the way, and aspiration implying that you’re going for something more than you have right now – something that’s meaningful and inspiring to you.

On the other hand, I often see ineffective leaders doing exactly what the low achievers did in the study. They either set enormously ambitious goals with very little chance of success - or they stay well within their comfort zone, reinforcing the status quo and resisting change. Both ends of the "aspiration spectrum" are frustrating and demoralizing to those around them - and neither tends to lead to success.

Now, it may sound like this doesn't line up with a lot of what we hear: "The best leaders swing for the fences," or "The only path to greatness is to be bold." But true boldness isn't foolhardiness: it's reasonable aspiration sustained over time. Look at the history of Google , for instance. We tend to talk as though Google sprang full-blown from the minds of Brin and Page - voila; world domination.  But actually, it evolved as a series of reasonable aspirations. First Brin and Page created "Backrub," a search engine that ran for over a year on the Stanfard servers. They used that successful trial as the basis for what they decided to call Google - and then spent another year finding their first major investment ($100,000).  Once they had that money in hand they set up their first office in a friend's garage...

And so on, for the past 15 years; success building on success.

Setting goals that are both feasible and a stretch, given who you are and what you have going for you, is the surest path to greatness.

__________________

Check out Erika Andersen’s latest book, Leading So People Will Followand discover how to be a followable leader. Booklist called it “a book to read more than once and to consult many times.”

Want to know what Erika and her colleagues at Proteus do? Find out here.

Get fresh ideas and exclusive content – join Erika’s Insider List