Co-opting stories from Malcolm Gladwell to make my points seemed to work well in the earlier article; so let me do that one more time.
In this article, I’m going to use a couple of stories from ‘Outliers’, along with another story to explore the need for mentorship.
Langan and Oppenheimer
Chris Langan, once described as the smartest person in America, came from a poor background. He was self-taught. He dropped out of college twice, on both occasions due to a combination of financial difficulties, and inability to plead his case. On the first occasion, his scholarship lapsed, as his mother forgot to fill the scholarship renewal form. He could not afford to continue his college education without a scholarship. The school let him leave, despite his stellar academic record.
He enrolled in an academic program again. One day, his car broke down, making it impossible for him to get to his 8 AM classes. He applied for a transfer to the afternoon classes, with the reasoning that he might be able to get a ride into town later in the day. His request was denied. After these experiences, Langan gave up his aspirations for a formal academic career, and switched to self learning.
Robert Oppenheimer (1904-67) was another person who was known for exceptional intelligence. Unlike Langan, he was born in an affluent family. He was a brilliant student, and sailed through high school and earned a bachelor's degree. He went to Cambridge for further education. He had a difficult relationship with Patrick Blackett, his professor. He tried to poison Blackett with chemicals. Fortunately the professor sensed it, saved himself, and reported the matter to the University. Thanks to some eloquent pleading by Oppenheimer, and some lobbying by his parents, he escaped punishment. He was placed on probation, and allowed to resume his studies. Later in his career, he used similar persuasion skills when he applied for the job of head of the Amerian wartime laboratory that created the nuclear bomb, again with success. The rest, as they say, is history. The lab he headed build the bomb that changed the course of the 20th century.
Gladwell contrasts the careers of the two men. Langan, due to his background, viewed himself as an outsider, and did not have the savvy or patience to plead his case with the University authorities. Hence, he was denied what would have been a glorious academic career. Oppenheimer, on the other hand, was able to get away with (attempted) murder! Gladwell’s point is that some are better able to represent themselves when opportunities arise, entirely due to a social advantage. Both men were exceptional in analytical intelligence, and deserved to be labeled geniuses. Gladwell’s theory is that Oppenheimer’s social background and upbringing prepared him to deal with situational challenges much better.
Gladwell uses these stories - Oppenheimer’s success and Langan’s difficulties - to illustrate the thesis that people we consider geniuses have always had a situational advantage. His book makes the point with a series of stories that only a small percentage of the people with exceptional IQ go on to have exceptional careers; the ones who do achieve their potential have always had help, or have been at the right place at the right time. In Oppenheimer’s case, his upbringing enabled him to talk to his superiors in equal terms and with a ‘sense of entitlement’ that many smart people don’t acquire on their own. Especially if they belong to the poorer sections of the society. Gladwell cites other studies in sociology to reinforce this point.
Langan, by contrast, interpreted some situations as non-negotiable. Gladwell also describes Langan as being dismissive of an academic career, as he didn’t like the compromises academics need to make to ensure a paycheck. He did not consider the possibility that he could negotiate a position that would let him do what he enjoyed doing, in return for the university having access to his exceptional brain.
Langan’s case reminded me of an insightful piece that Morgan Housel wrote about the need to tolerate some amount of fakery and organizational/academic hassle to survive in the world.
If you recognize that BS is ubiquitous, then the question is not “How can I avoid all of it?” but, “What is the optimal amount to put up with so I can still function in a messy and imperfect world?” If your tolerance is zero – if you are allergic to differences in opinion, personal incentives, emotions, inefficiencies, miscommunication and such – your odds of succeeding in anything that requires other people rounds to zero. You can’t function in the world.
Langan’s inability to secure a position of greater influence is not just his loss, but the society’s as well. If he had received good counseling or mentorship during the pivotal parts of the career, he may have gone on to achieve far greater things. This may be easier said than done - mentoring someone of Langan’s intelligence would have required a person of formidable intelligence and maturity.
Ramanujan and Hardy
When I read Gladwell’s account of Langan’s story, I was reminded of another great mind of the 20th century, Srinivasa Ramanujan, and his mentor, G.H. Hardy. Ramanujan was a self-taught mathematician from India. Like Langan, He grew up in a poor household. He had been working without much guidance or peer help because no one in his circles could understand his work. He was independently deriving theorems, without being aware of prior or contemporary work. He had been writing to the well-known British mathematicians of his time without much luck. That was until Hardy received one of his letters and was amazed by some of the unproven theorems therein. He thought the theorems “must be true, because, if they were not true, no one would have the imagination to invent them".
Hardy arranged for Ramanujan to study in Cambridge with financial assistance. Teaching and mentoring Ramanujan was a challenge due to his lack of formal training in mathematics. (“The limitations of his knowledge were as startling as its profundity”). It seemed absurd to ask a man of such brilliance to undertake training in basic mathematics. But Hardy convinced Ramanujan to undergo formal education and get a B.A in mathematics. Further, Hardy’s support helped Ramanujan overcome racial prejudices. Finally, he persuaded Ramanujan to publish his work with the requisite academic rigor.
Ramanujan went on to become one of the youngest Fellows in the history of the Royal Society and was also elected a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Unfortunately, he died young at 32 years of age. Some of his work is still being decoded. What he was able to achieve in his short life was incredible. But it would not have happened without the persistence and patience that Hardy showed in grooming him. Hardy enabled Ramanujan realize his potential by guiding him through (what Housel would have called) the BS of the Cambridge academic circles.
Hardy was to say later that his greatest achievement was that he was able to parlay in somewhat equal terms with Ramanujan and Littlewood (a colleague and another brilliant mathematician). He had the humility to recognize that his protege was better than himself, but also identified what the protege needed to realize his potential.
What does this mean for Organizations?
People like Langan, Oppenheimer or Ramanujan don’t come along very often, but many organizations do have talented people (albeit at a smaller scale) who need help in navigating the corporate or academic realities, just as Langan and Ramanujan did.
Such people are good at what they do, but are prone to disengagement, as they don’t have the patience or situational savvy to navigate the organization. An employee may have a brilliant idea that needs time to prove out. Or may have created a technology waiting to be connected to a real world application. Or may have a grand idea that needs to be pared down to make it demonstrable in a reasonable amount of time. Or just need guidance translating what is in his or her mind in a way that the rest of the organization will understand. Without guidance, such people will underperform, leave the organization or the industry altogether.
Analytical intelligence or academic brilliance seem altogether uncorrelated with situational intelligence; i.e. someone scoring high on IQ tests says nothing about whether they can successfully present their work, or navigate the organization to acquire support for their ideas. In such cases, coaching and mentoring are the missing ingredients. We need designated Hardys in every organizations to help the Ramanujans shine.
It is a key human resources challenge to identify both the talent and the mentors. But when the match is successful, the rewards are rich. Organizations who prioritize and act on this need will outperform the rest of the field by a wide margin.
What does this mean for the Society?
If we acknowledge that affluence and social position gives the Oppenheimers a natural advantage, it’s perhaps incumbent on the society to level the playing field; and to ensure that talents such as Langan’s are put to good use.
Many societies react by providing hard quotas and financial assistance to the disadvantaged sections of the society. (For example, affirmative action in America and Caste-based reservations in India). This approach helps somewhat, but does not really address the problem that the socially disadvantaged classes need help in navigating situations. Further, they create an us-vs-them sense between sections of the society.
The answer might be a specifically designed program to identify and mentor talent. My view is somewhat idealistic, but a well designed program to match mentors with talent that spans the sections of the society is a win-win situation for everyone. A program to foster identified special talent, modeled on the Big Brother/Big Sister program, for example. Such programs, at the right scale, will provide help to the talented people who need help, and also bind sections of society together. The privileged class use their situational savvy to help those in less privileged sections of the society, just as in the case of Hardy and Ramanujam. And this is likely to be viewed as a win for the mentors too, unlike quotas in jobs and educational opportunities, which are often seen as zero-sum games.
References
The documentary, 'Letters from an Indian Clerk' describes the discovery of Ramanujan.
This article describes how Hardy was instrumental in channeling Ramanujan’s genius: The man who taught Infinity.
My description of Langan’s career is based on Malcolm Gladwell’s ‘book Outliers: the story of success’.
