Want Results? Work for Them

You know why get-rich-quick schemes don’t work? Because they’re shortcuts, and there’s no shortcut to success. It takes guts and grit and determination to succeed.

In the Instant and Continuous Gratification Age that we live in, too often we want instant results. Change an HR program, just add water, and presto! Well, it doesn’t work like that. The way to make a program work is 1) don’t think about it as a program, think about it as a system, and 2) work hard.

Studies show that self-discipline matters more than IQ when it comes to academic success. And there’s simply no substitute for hard work when it comes to pay-for-performance and communicating about it. Stick-to-itiveness is what really matters.

On Rich Mennenoh Racing Experience, the bicycle racer talks about what it takes to be a successful competitor:

I was reading Joe Friel’s book Cycling Past 50. In the chapter about racing he has a table that assigns your racing level based on your training hours per year.

Typical Race Level vs. Training Hours per Year
A “Finisher” would train 200 - 300 hours
A “Mid Pack” performer would train 300 - 400 hours
If you’re “Competitive” you would train 400 - 500 hours
“National Class” would need to train 500 - 600 hours

I would submit that “national class,” top-of-the-line employees work at it harder than others. Want to be a top performer? Then work at it. At the end of the day, there’s no other way.

Posted on January 8, 2008 by Frank Roche 
Filed Under Performance

Comments

Viewing 2 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    As common sense would indicate there would be a direct connection between performance and ability.

    However, I think what you're citing as a reference (cycling)-is really about practice and competency in a specific task. If I have a task to do - I can get better at it if I practice more.

    My point isn't to disagree - since I believe that we need to gain proficiency in our work - and practice is one way to gain proficiency - but success and results are different than proficiency.

    I would suggest that success/results are also the direct effect of looking outside your "competency" area and connecting ideas/thoughts/insights together to change what you're doing to get a better result.

    If we're simply measuring results - I could win a cycling event by combining the information on bicycles with the information on engines that supplant human power and create motorized bicycle and win the race. Little to do with practice - a lot to do with looking outside my box for ideas.

    Thoughts?
    • ^
    • v
    Great points about IQ being a poor predictor of academic success. I find it is as true for academics as it is for predicting success in the workplace.

    Studies show the correlation between IQ and professional success to be dismally low when compared with other metrics such as emotional intelligence (the ability to read others emotions and react appropriately) and of course, as you mention, hard work and determination.

    Smart people are always attractive candidates, but the truth is that standardized tests such as IQ don't truly measure a person's likelihood of success in work and in life.

    Chis Young
    The Rainmaker Group
    http://www.therainmakergroupinc.com
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus