Geoff Colvin goes to great lengths to demonstrate that neither hard work nor inspiration provides a satisfactory explanation to why a few people are so talented and excellent at what they do (pp. 4-5, 20-23).

Colvin convincingly shows his audience that there is no free lunch behind great performance. Great performance results from deliberate practice which is hard to sustain over time (pp. 7, 66, 72, 171, 181). Many years of intense preparation are needed before making any kind of (creative) breakthrough (pp. 61-64, 149-51). No one can endure the pain and sacrifice of deliberate practice for decades without the benefit of both an internalized passion and the appropriate response to extrinsic forces that reinforce this passion at critical moments (pp. 172-74, 186, 188, 190-91). Colvin points out that top performance in any field often exacts a heavy personal toll. He also acknowledges that even if the marriages or other relationships of top performers survive, their interests outside their field typically cannot. Furthermore, Colvin does not hide the fact that no one who has ever achieved great performance could do it without enduring terrible difficulties along the way (pp. 204-06).

Furthermore, Colvin reminds his audience that nobody was born with passion. Passion has to be nurtured, developed (pp. 22, 50-51, 75-78, 81-83, 198). That is why extrinsic motivators such as attention, recognition, and feedback that are given in a non-controlling way are critical for that purpose. These constructive, non-threatening, task-focused motivators play an important role in the emergence of the "multiplier effect" that helps to put a student of a discipline in the driver's seat of his/her own great performance (pp. 49, 120, 192-93, 198, 200). Despite wide variations in the parents' backgrounds, professions, and incomes, the home environments of these students tend to be child-oriented by being both stimulating and supportive (pp. 170, 172-74). Think for example about Wolfgang Mozart or Tiger Woods (pp. 25-31). Colvin candidly acknowledges that there is still uncertainty about how the "multiplier effect" is really triggered. The research seems to point out that slightly better performance at an early age or in an environment where competition is sparse, no matter how attained, can generate the extra praise that solidifies internal drive for more intense practice (pp. 204-05).

In addition, Colvin demonstrates that high creative achievement and intrinsic motivation are highly correlated. They both require intense focus and concentration that are exacting and difficult to sustain over time (pp. 165, 188-89). This observation makes it more understandable why the people who reach the level of top achievers are rarely child prodigies. The vast majority of prodigies cannot sustain the strenuous effort required to become great performers (p. 197). Colvin also shows that many top performers are able to sustain top performance despite ageing by findings ways around the limitations imposed on them until an advanced age (pp. 84-85, 179-82). On top of that, top performance requires more time to master than in the past in knowledge-rich disciplines due to accumulated knowledge over time (pp. 157, 167-69). Nonetheless, great innovators welcome knowledge because they are nourished by it (pp. 102, 109-25, 151, 156). Excellent performers in most fields possess superior memory of information in their fields because of the mental models that they continuously build and organize (pp. 38-48, 85-98, 122-25). Colvin seizes this opportunity to debunk the conventional wisdom that the corollaries of adulthood are necessarily the shutdown of brain plasticity and the impossibility of adding new neurons well into old age (pp. 183-84).

Most of Corporate America could be excused to wonder how all the research mentioned above is relevant to how to run a business. Colvin strikes hard here by pointing out repeatedly that most organizations seem to be run in a way that prevents people from performing at top levels (pp. 7-8, 72-74, 108, 194). These organizations should take note that despite inauspicious career beginnings, some of the most successful people in business such as Jeffrey Immelt and Steven Ballmer changed their personalities in significant ways given the right environment (pp. 1-2, 49). Colvin identifies corporate culture as the main obstacle in the way of innovation whose source is human capital, no longer financial capital (pp. 11-15, 47-48, 126). New ideas are not really welcome. Risk taking is not endorsed (pp. 127-44, 163).

For example, most organizations do not allow people to work on pet projects about which they are internally fired up. Innovative companies such as 3M and Google stand out in that regard. What is important is that people understand the organizations' priorities and thus know where innovation will have the highest impact (pp. 164-65). Internal networking is critical for that purpose (p. 162). Furthermore, evaluations are often ineffective because they point out what people did wrong, not how to perform better, and mention attitude, personality traits that should be changed, all under the implicit threat of getting fired (pp. 73, 132, 194). Managers redirect people's careers based on slender evidence of what they have got (p. 20). In addition, promotions usually go with more responsibilities and less self-direction, turning too often these promotions into a burden rather than into a reward (p. 194).

Finally, Colvin asks provocatively why American society is comfortable about directing kids towards fields other than business at early ages, but queasy about daily training of kids to become a top-notch business executive by age twenty-one. Colvin rightly states that other societies could come to a different conclusion and gain a comparative advantage in the process (pp. 175-79). Most developed countries with the striking exception of Germany do not use the apprenticeship anymore (p. 177).

To summarize, Colvin convincingly demonstrates that great performance is not the privilege of a pre-ordained, talented elite, even if top performance requires some nourishing "compost" to blossom to its fullest (pp. 104, 206).

This was an excellent book in looking at the background for success in life. Often people believe the successful are specially gifted in a particular area. This is a old myths from years ago. The book does research into the formulation of the background of some of the most successful people in life. People believe that those with high intelligence and sharp memories are those destined for greatness. This is really not the case, mostly those who become successful in whatever field destined are at the top because of deliberate practice. This type of practice is not going through the motions, but rather hard, stressful, unlikeable work in being coached and being disciplined to do the little things to separate one from the crowd. This book really made me think about my preaching development and my ministerial skills. It provided a new paradigm on how I practice my skill development in ministry. This idea of practice should extend to more than sermons, but people skills, and conflict management. Plus, there needs to be intentional practice on dealing with emotional issues like death, self-esteem, and disappointment. This was an excellent book to read to motivate and inspire one to the next level in carrying out superb ministry.

I listened to the Audio CD version of this book. That said, the author points out that you need four hours a day, six days a week, for ten years to be "world-class" at most skills. You also need a great family support system and a great coach/teacher.

I have no argument with that.

However, the book does NOT address the issue of TALENT. IF you have 100 students that ALL have:
* A great coach/teacher,
* A supportive family,
* And practice for 4hrs/6 Days/ for 10 Years ...
The author presents NO evidence that, WITHIN the 100, talent will be overrated.

In addition, there seems to be no research to explore the quality of talent. That is, do talented people find the four hours a day of practice to be easier?

And that is the rub - does talent make it easier for some to practice OR do the talented get more feedback from their practice.

If we take 100 students and force them all to the 4/6/10 grind, will some emerge better - of course.

This book does NOT address how to distinguish top performers WITHIN a group of people that have EQUAL practice. Within that group (all participants have equal practice, supportive families and coaching) will some people be MORE TALENTED ...

... YES! (as this book presents NO evidence to the contrary)

Did I need a book to tell me that practice enhances talent - no.

Talent may be outweighed when people with dissimilar amounts of practice are compared. But, I normally am comparing job candidates with EQUAL amounts of practice. Now what author?

If the author wants to prove that talent is overrated, he needs to compare people within the same level of practice.

Talent is not a sacred cow for me. I am fine if it is overrated. But this book only compares people with DISSIMILAR levels of practice. And that is a huge flaw.