International CEO and author of Fair Value: reflections on good business, Jozef Opdeweegh, considers how we best serve those who are gifted by balancing some flexibility with the firmness of commitment to our values.

MIAMI, FL / ACCESSWIRE / April 28, 2022 / A few weeks ago, my home city of Miami hosted one of the top ATP Tour tennis tournaments of the season: The Miami Open. It's a magnificent event with a pantheon of former winners that reads like a hall of fame for the sport I love. And yet if you were to Google this year's competition you'd be as likely to find as many articles on the behavior of one of the losers rather than the victories of Iga Świątek and Carlos Alcaráz in the singles finals.

Last week, the Australian tennis player, Nick Kyrgios, was fined $35,000 for his boorish on-court behavior which was followed hot on the heels of a $33,000 fine for an outburst at Indian Wells, only weeks earlier. In total Kyrgios has now been sanctioned at the US Open, Wimbledon, Australian Open, Queens, Cincinnati Masters. The rap sheet runs to multiple suspensions and hundreds of thousands of dollars-and between its lines reads the sad waste of a prodigious talent.

Working with those who are truly gifted is seldom straightforward. In my own career, I've known perhaps a handful of colleagues who I'd describe as bordering on genius. Behind them, often by a hair's breadth, are dozens of exceptionally talented people, whose contributions surpassed anything that might have been codified in the company's training or performance manual. In virtually every case, the ablest colleagues I've had the privilege to learn from were fun and inspiring, obsessive and difficult in almost equal measure.

The reality is that most gifted individuals are mavericks of a sort: they think differently; they challenge the status quo; they are pushing boundaries and tread on toes. No doubt, there are exceptions that prove the rule, but I suspect most leaders would agree that the realities of nurturing talent require some leeway in the behaviors we might typically expect of others. Exactly how far that flexibility should extend is a more difficult question.

Almost all large companies today have processes to identify those employees with the greatest ability, commitment, and ambition. Indeed, conventional wisdom says it's the co-existence of those three qualities which is crucial to a successful career. No matter how strong someone may be in any two of the three qualifiers, unless they work on the relevant third they're unlikely to come through: ability and ambition but no commitment; ambition and commitment but not enough ability…You can see how this goes.

And so far as it does, I guess it's about right.

But the case of Kyrgios is slightly different. I'd argue that in terms of natural ability as a tennis player, he falls into the ‘truly gifted' category. And particularly in sport, as well as in, say, art or even politics, we recognize that those who carry these abilities almost invariably upset the establishment, at least for a period of their careers. In a sense, it's their friction with the status quo that's part of the expression of their genius.

Which brings us back to the question of how far our tolerance should stretch, and how any answer might relate to the values our organizations espouse and expect? In certain cultures, those with special gifts are considered shamans, afforded status and respect but forever on the fringe; by definition, not integrating to the mainstream. This is hardly a model for businesses to follow. The answer needs surely to be less divisive or quasi elitist.

For few geniuses thrive without the foundations built by their colleagues, not least in the millennia of knowledge and effort that has gone into getting us all where we are now. In the examples I gave earlier, no athlete should be bigger than their sport; no politician more important than the people; no artist or actor so lauded they lose the plot -Will Smith, take note!

The leeway we extend to those with special abilities (in whatever sphere) needs to be balanced by an equal commitment to the overall good; to the underlying values that must apply to us all, under the rules of fair play, honesty, and respect for others even in our moments of disagreement. This is why Kyrgios, in my view, deserves more than a nominal fine. His actions not only undermine his own talent, but also show disrespect for the goodwill of others who built the platform he parades on. Talent is not and should never be a pathway to entitlement!

And the truth is, the need for order and expectation works in their favor too. It's simply not true that we must allow our heroes free rein in order to encourage their best. Read any sonnet, and you'd find a 14-line rhyming scheme that structures the creativity of the poet; ask any author if they work better to deadlines - or any sales executive if they're motivated by targets. Exceptional performance thrives best in an atmosphere that balances freedom with responsibility, passion with protocol, and challenge with respect. If only Kyrgios could embrace that self-discipline, what might he achieve, I wonder?

And finally, how different would his reputation be if in tandem with his talent he displayed a corresponding modesty? The day before this year's Miami Open, a report into last year's Formula 1 series all but acknowledged that Lewis Hamilton had been robbed of a record-breaking eighth world title. Its publication reminded me of the grace he'd shown in congratulating Max Verstappen at the end of the final race. They say that humility is not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less. Something of the same applies to talent too.

Contact Info:

Andrew Mitchell
Email: media@cambridgeglobalmedia.com
Phone: 404-955-7133

SOURCE: Jozef Opdeweegh