Barabasi is a big data guy. He heads Northeastern University's Center for Complex Network Research where they slice and dice prodigious amounts of data to understand the "why" behind all sorts of topics.
He has looked at all sorts of occupations, disciplines and issues to determine what is the difference between success and failure.
I thought I would share five specific findings from Barabasi's book that might be useful in the every day lives of my readers.
Let's first look at the issue of how much you can rely on online ratings with Amazon products. I usually look for those things that have the highest ratings and also have a significant number of ratings. The research indicates that this will lead you astray.
The fact is that the more ratings a product has, the more its final rating differs from its true fitness.
This is due to the fact that the people who review products are heavily influenced by others who have reviewed the product. The more reviews you get the closer they are to what other reviewers wrote rather than the true fitness of the product.
You are better off relying on products that have fewer reviews than a large number of reviews to get a better sense of the product's true fitness. The first reviews, unaffected by peers, often best captures the product's true fitness.
What about the question of what is the best college to attend?
Most students strive to attend the highest-ranked and most prestigious college they can get into on the assumption they are going to get a better education and have a greater likelihood of success by attending the better school.
However, the research shows that the school has almost no bearing on the future success of the student. High achievers excel no matter what education a school offers. Harvard or Stanford have great reputations not because they provide superior educations but because they attracted superior talents to begin with. Stanford and Harvard don't make your daughter a better student. It's your daughter that makes them elite institutions.
A student who was accepted to Stanford but chooses to attend State U instead sees absolutely no difference in future earnings based on that decision according to the data.
In other words, it is the performance and ambition the student brings to college that determines success. It is not where they go to school.
Finally, what best increases the chances that you will get the job you want?
Be the last person interviewed for the job.
In any competition in which someone is judging a group of people, and they are all qualified, the first person judged will inevitably get lower scores than those later in the competition.
Judges are naturally going to be tougher on the first competitor. They need to leave room in their judgment that someone later is going to be better.
The decision makers also get smarter as the competition proceeds. They have a better understanding of what they are looking for and the questions they ask in the interview get better. All of this is because the decision makers are better informed by those that went before.
Finally, you have the effect of immediacy bias. The last person in a competition or an interview process will likely stand out the most with the decision makers.
Immediacy bias works the other way when it comes to participation in meetings.
It is usually the first person who raises a question in a meeting that will have the greatest influence on the outcome of a meeting. They are the ones who frame the key questions and influence the tenor and tone of the entire meeting. Later speakers will find it difficult to change the mood and momentum of the meeting once it is established.
Conversations move to consensus fairly rapidly based on how those first questions develop. If you disagree with that consensus, you are quickly swimming against a riptide. You may get people to reverse course but the prospects are doubtful the longer the meeting goes on. At a minimum, you look like a nit-picker as the others look at their watches and want to move on to the next meeting. Unless someone is really passionate about their viewpoint, most will necessarily fold their tent and accept the consensus.
The bottom line...
Speak first in a meeting to have the best chance of having your views accepted by others.
The final thought involves what Barabasi refers to as his Second Law of Success.
Performance is bounded, but success is unbounded.
What does Barabasi mean by this?
There is usually a large grouping or people grouped around a standard of performance. That grouping makes it difficult for observers to differentiate performance. However, just a small differentiation that is noticeable can result in outsized success.
Take Tiger Woods when he was at the top of the game. Tiger was near the top in most statistical areas that the PGA Tour tracked (greens in regulation, driving, putting etc) but he usually wasn't the best in any single one. For example, in 2013, the last year he had multiple tour wins in a year, he was 49th in driving distance, 9th greens in regulation, 13th in putts per hole and 46th in scrambling.
He often led the Tour scoring average but it was usually not even a full stroke advantage on 18 holes compared to other top competitors. For example, 16 other players were within one stroke of Tiger's scoring average of 68.99 in 2013. Steve Sticker actually had a lower stroke average than Tiger that year.
Most tournaments he won were by one or two strokes over four rounds. Tiger had a very small performance advantage when you look at it from this perspective.
However, Tiger became the first sports figure to earn $1 billion in winnings and endorsements. His performance was a little bit better than the rest (It was bounded). However, his success was many multiples more than his competitors (It was unbounded) because of the small (but noticeable differentiation) he had in his overall performance.
Think about how you can differentiate yourself a little bit in a crowded performance field to achieve outsized success.
Five thoughts on The Formula for Success everyone can use.
Use them to differentiate yourself.
In any competition in which someone is judging a group of people, and they are all qualified, the first person judged will inevitably get lower scores than those later in the competition.
Judges are naturally going to be tougher on the first competitor. They need to leave room in their judgment that someone later is going to be better.
The decision makers also get smarter as the competition proceeds. They have a better understanding of what they are looking for and the questions they ask in the interview get better. All of this is because the decision makers are better informed by those that went before.
Finally, you have the effect of immediacy bias. The last person in a competition or an interview process will likely stand out the most with the decision makers.
Immediacy bias works the other way when it comes to participation in meetings.
It is usually the first person who raises a question in a meeting that will have the greatest influence on the outcome of a meeting. They are the ones who frame the key questions and influence the tenor and tone of the entire meeting. Later speakers will find it difficult to change the mood and momentum of the meeting once it is established.
Conversations move to consensus fairly rapidly based on how those first questions develop. If you disagree with that consensus, you are quickly swimming against a riptide. You may get people to reverse course but the prospects are doubtful the longer the meeting goes on. At a minimum, you look like a nit-picker as the others look at their watches and want to move on to the next meeting. Unless someone is really passionate about their viewpoint, most will necessarily fold their tent and accept the consensus.
The bottom line...
Speak first in a meeting to have the best chance of having your views accepted by others.
The final thought involves what Barabasi refers to as his Second Law of Success.
Performance is bounded, but success is unbounded.
What does Barabasi mean by this?
There is usually a large grouping or people grouped around a standard of performance. That grouping makes it difficult for observers to differentiate performance. However, just a small differentiation that is noticeable can result in outsized success.
Take Tiger Woods when he was at the top of the game. Tiger was near the top in most statistical areas that the PGA Tour tracked (greens in regulation, driving, putting etc) but he usually wasn't the best in any single one. For example, in 2013, the last year he had multiple tour wins in a year, he was 49th in driving distance, 9th greens in regulation, 13th in putts per hole and 46th in scrambling.
He often led the Tour scoring average but it was usually not even a full stroke advantage on 18 holes compared to other top competitors. For example, 16 other players were within one stroke of Tiger's scoring average of 68.99 in 2013. Steve Sticker actually had a lower stroke average than Tiger that year.
Most tournaments he won were by one or two strokes over four rounds. Tiger had a very small performance advantage when you look at it from this perspective.
However, Tiger became the first sports figure to earn $1 billion in winnings and endorsements. His performance was a little bit better than the rest (It was bounded). However, his success was many multiples more than his competitors (It was unbounded) because of the small (but noticeable differentiation) he had in his overall performance.
Think about how you can differentiate yourself a little bit in a crowded performance field to achieve outsized success.
Five thoughts on The Formula for Success everyone can use.
Use them to differentiate yourself.
Article will only get popular through our comments, I would like to give 5 out of 5 for this article.
ReplyDeleteGotouniversity