February 28th, 2011 | Strategic | 0 Comments
The more you are able to do, the better you seem to be. And this is generally the case. Except when it isn’t, and that is generally the case for novice performers. The distinction is whether what you are doing is necessary; for novice performers, unnecessary and inefficient actions are unavoidable and defining characteristics.
However, the less you seem to be doing, the more able you actually are. This might appear a bit odd for we usually associate busyness with business, excitement with effort. Isn’t it strange then when things happen with a minimum of fuss, a minimum of mess and a minimum of apparent effort?
How can it be that the less you seem to be doing, the more proficient you actually are? Shouldn’t manoeuvres be accompanied by the flailing of arms, the juggling of tasks and the grunting of effort? When what you are expecting to see, what you believe should be there …… just isn’t. But, in some circumstances, nothing can be really something …….. which is different to saying that nothing can really be something, although this also applies. Confusing? Well, no, not unless you’re expecting to be spoonfed. After all, a slight movement in the ‘be’ makes a big difference.
You have to work at this, not just get given what you need as though you somehow deserve it. Everybody deserves it but only those that make the effort receive it. Confused? Let’s move on. What’s the relevance of this? Well, how would you answer the fundamental question, “What constitutes a skilled performer?”
Most people would answer this by listing the things that should be present in their actions. The traditional things, the usual things, the common things – all of them discernible and conspicuous. I’m sure you could nominate quite a few of these, couldn’t you? But there’s a much bigger question than your ability to name them – does the presence of these things define skilled behaviour?
Is it possible for many of them to be absent and yet skilled behaviour to be present? The answer is ‘Yes’!
Hang on, if all these standard things can be either present or absent in skilled behaviour (and it doesn’t make much difference), perhaps skilled behaviour is better defined by the absence of other things? The answer is ‘Yes’!
What are these ‘other’ things, then? I could tell you but that would be …. um, what’s that horrible word ….? That’s right, it’s spoonfeeding.
Find your own way.