I’m a Food Network fan.
I enjoy cooking (eating especially) so naturally I enjoy watching television
programs that revolve around food. I've
learned a great deal and been entertained by many programs. Most notably, I have become a fan of Food
Network Star. I enjoyed the contestants,
but more so was struck by an underlying psychology of business I saw in the
mentors of each contestant. If you’re
not familiar with the show, the basic premise is 3 Food Network celebrities pick
teams of chefs and through a season of challenges and such end up choosing the
final person they think can be the next Food Network Star. These groups of people are selected and split
into teams, who are then mentored. 2
mentors/coaches interested me the most in how different their approaches were
in tracking down the next star. The
difference in how they went about things ultimately interested me and kept me
watching until there was a new Food Network Star crowned at the end of the
season.
In the beginning of the show they were interviewing the
mentors and asking what they were looking for as they picked their teams. One coach said that he was looking for good
cooks, as long as they could cook, he could teach them how to do
television. In stark contrast another
coach said he was looking for big personalities first and that he could teach
them how to cook. This can be reduced to
a simple paradox, experience versus potential.
One coach wanted experience and skill in
cooking and thought he could teach them how to have a personality on television
while the other looked more for the intangible (call it personality or
potential) knowing he could teach a skill.
The ultimate difference in approach here is that there is some
intangible, call it personality, potential, or an x-factor. The question is, can this intangible be
materialized or learned? Is it better to
go with a resume that is impressive and has all the experience and skills you
desire while being possessed by a person that lacks an intangible or look for
intangibles knowing that one can learn and most are teachable? I suppose to answer that question one would
need to decide on the philosophy of work they have. One philosophy is the old hard-nosed work
ethic that says work isn't supposed to be fun or fulfilling, but should just be
done. This philosophy produces
mediocrity and discourages strengths and intuitive thought process. The other philosophy is that we are each born
with something we have natural abilities and skills to do, we possess a certain
potential, and it is our role to find an avenue to express this in, when we
find that work is fun and meaningful.
One philosophy promotes molding the subject to the process while the
other promotes finding the process that best fits the subject. Again, these are very different approaches
and dictate how you behave.
I’m a potential philosophy guy. I believe it is better to seek out to find
intangibles you’d like in an employee over seeking the experience and hope to
teach the intangibles. I think
personality and potential cannot be taught, I think they are natural rhythms
which we operate within. When we find
the beat of our drum we thrive. The
truth of consumerism is that it is emotional more so than it is logical. If a business can somehow appeal to a
consumer’s emotions then they have a sell.
Truly, it’s all about how you make the consumer feel. Logic is a great thing, but ultimately even
super educational type marketing attempts in any business make the customer
feel something, maybe that something is assured. Emotions play a very high role in consumerism
so it would make sense that you would want to make hires based on what they can
offer or how they can complement the emotional connection to whatever product or
service a company is selling. You won’t
hire an accountant to sell cars because although they may be the best on
advising about value and financing they don’t have the personality to make an
emotional connection to sell a product. Naturally
I have an emotional tie to this subject because I am experiencing the tension
between experience and potential and the on-going struggle between their
values.
So what’s your philosophy?
Do you value experience or potential/personality/intangibles more? It doesn't always have to be either or, but
we do have a bent left or right of the center. I had a professor once say we are pendulum
people, meaning we constantly swing from side to side in how we view the world
and thus behave. It is rare to see and
experience total moderation; we are always swinging or leaning to one side or
another. What do you think the world
would look like if we made decisions based more on the intangibles than
experience? I’m a fan of what our old
friend Albert had to say though (check out the picture/quote above).
No comments:
Post a Comment