21 of 24 people found the following review helpful
This review is from: Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else (Paperback)
I would agree with another reviewer that this book is an expanded magazine article.
It is also tediously shoe-horned into the lucrative self-improvement for ambitious business executives genre.
The evidence quoted for the author's hypothesis is anecdotal, selective and with consistent logical flaws.
So, for example: (1) GE is a successful company; and (2) GE sends its executives on challenging assignments; so THEREFORE (3) GE is a successful company because it sends its executives on challenging assignments; and (4) You (the reader) can become a better executive by being sent on challenging assignments.
I believe a student of logic would call this a flawed "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" (after this, therefore as a result of this) argument. But it is repeated over and over again throughout this book - in fact in pretty well every single one of the many examples quoted.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-1 of 1 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 10 Dec 2011 17:13:25 GMT
Last edited by the author on 10 Dec 2011 17:14:47 GMT
Chris Downing says:
I do agree that commentators on the underlying research into this, like Covin, can stretch the findings into non-scientific extrapolations, but the basics are correct. Work hard, struggle and learn, be mentored, exist in a supportive environment, remeber what success feel like and how you achieved it, will work. But I'd have to say that most of my professional career wasn't in that sort of organisation. In fact if you read around all the books like this one ( Bounce: The Myth of Talent and the Power of Practice - The Talent Code: Greatness isn't born. It's grown ) you'll find that most commercial organisations are pretty disfunctional and don't bring out the best in their staff. Read some more on the subject before you give up on it.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›