The conference chairman, who was aware of my views, indicated to those present that I was expected to produce a formula which would enable each of them to rate their capacities as though they were so many different-sized motors to be rated on horsepower. My opening remark was, "I will not talk on the topic of any man's capacity. This word 'capacity' indicates there is just so much a man can do.
"Capacity is a word that can't be applied to any man of ambition. We can say a truck is loaded to capacity, that a motor is running at capacity, or that a theater is filled to capacity because we know their limits. Our scientists and engineers rate everything from the atom to the world's largest power plant in terms of capacity, but who is to say when our scientists and engineers have reached capacity and can 'hold' no more? Yet because this is a scientific age, with 'scientific' psychological tests- intelligence, personality and aptitude tests-we think we can measure men as we can measure a machine or a chemical reaction. We can't."
I paused to let that sink in, and then continued: "No inanimate object can be suddenly inspired to double capacity. Man does it all the time. Call it inspiration or determination, the fact remains that when a man concentrates on doing his best, he is constantly improving himself, his performance, and his over-all effectiveness. And as long as he is improving, how can he reach capacity? The whole idea is absurd."
"What I believe you really want to know is, how to determine the pattern of improvement of a man's best capacities." That evening, those successful executives learned how men are motivated-self-motivated; how men can be helped to know themselves-their best selves; how men can gain the self-appreciation which stimulates them to be and do their best more often. They learned what this book will help you to learn.
You need to know yourself, to be your constantly-improving best. And you also need to decide if you want to be your "best," or if you want to improve only your "average performance." There's a lot of difference between the two. If you want to improve "average performance," all you need do is cut down on mistakes- the safe and traditional way; but it must be obvious that the reduction of mistakes has nothing to do with the improvement of your best work. The reduction-of-mistakes approach merely raises slightly the level of mediocrity.
You need to understand what your "best" is; so you need to explore and appreciate those experiences which applied your "best" capabilities. You need to appreciate them. My understanding of what I think is your "best," will surely be different from how you feel about your own experiences. Only you know how you feel about your experiences. You may have done something that brought you praise and an increase in salary, but if in your own considered opinion it was a stroke of luck, that's all it was. Or maybe you worked to all hours completing a project that was greeted with apathy or even antipathy; it still is a big achievement if that is the way you feel about it.
One afternoon I was sitting next to the president of a professional organization at its monthly luncheon. As is my habit I prompted him into telling me of his achievements, achievements being my abiding interest. He listed a touchdown he had made at college, his election as senior class president, the first big contract he had landed by himself and his election to his present post. At that point his friend and close business associate seated at my other side leaned over to suggest, "Tell Mr. Haldane about the boat you built in your basement. That certainly was an achievement."
"No," replied the president immediately, "that was just a little boat, a hobby."
Obviously the president considered as achievements only the successes that contained public recognition as an important factor. Another man building the same kind of boat might regard it as a masterpiece, a magnificent achievement in craftsmanship, project planning, and perseverance.
More Aids to Success and Where to Look for Them
"I am what I am," says Popeye, the famous comic strip character, "because that's what I am."
A statement like that has been accepted for so many centuries that it has gained the stature of a truism. You are what you are, it would have you believe, and nothing can change you. But if that is the case, why do we worry about our young geniuses doomed to a life of mediocrity through lack of educational opportunities that would transform them into scientists and engineers? And why do we worry about the young Russians being developed into scientists when in back of them is nothing but centuries of serfdom? Change is inherent. Change is un-avoidable. Merely because changes came slowly for a few million years doesn't mean they are still inching along today. A dreadfully slow, heart-stopping struggle to overcome inertia, a gradual pick up in speed, followed by acceleration such as only could be imagined fifteen years ago.
Here are some others that have received general acceptance: "Like father, like son," "A chip off the old block," or, by way of contradiction, "From shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations." Mark Twain was not like his father. Professor Millikan was not a chip off the old block. The Rockefeller brothers are not sweating it out as laborers in their shirt sleeves. When it comes to personal success, as a matter of fact, we don't have another old saw, "Exceptions prove the rule." Exceptions are the rule.
Willy-nilly, ready or not, our scientists have tossed us into a changed world. What is more, while the scientists have been perfectly willing to do the tossing, they have been notably remiss in' providing the nets in which- to catch us. Having proved otherwise, they no longer believe that what goes up must come down. And since they have proved the point, we no longer have to believe it either. Neither do we have to believe that pride goeth before a fall, if pride is based on achievement.
I'm not going to get philosophical. I am a career development specialist, and as such I can recognize opportunities as they are created without having to create them myself. And they are being created at a fantastic rate. R. G. Letourneau, who welds together the world's largest earth-moving equipment, says that had he been born ten years earlier, the best he could have achieved would have been a job as a blacksmith.
Or I could take my own field. A hundred years ago careers were not so much developed as thrust upon apprentices whether they liked them or not. The opportunities available were much the same as they had been for centuries. But as of the moment I am writing on an electric typewriter that is in itself the embodiment of thousands of new opportunities. As a business machine it is a part of the clan that range from vest pocket dictation machines to giant electronic computers. The plastic in its keys comes from a new world of petro-chemicals. Its nylon ribbon represents another world of synthetic fibers. The paper that receives the impression is the product of a lumbering industry revolutionized in the last generation. The ink, the metals, the glass-fiber insulation, and scores of other parts represent new products, or new versions of old ones, and hence new opportunities. And to think that a hundred years ago, I would have been sitting here writing on rough paper with a quill pen dipped in squid ink, and the only career suggestions I would have to offer would be the standard, "Work hard and save your money."