While reading Malcom Gladwells latest on underdogs and battling giants a few
highlights jumped out implying Winfield Middle School was on the way to its
rightful location #onthemap.
Big Fish in Small Pond or Small Fish
in Big Pond
Not to steal any thunder from the book but the author poses the idea that a
better bet may be a person familiar with success, regardless of the venue.
For instance, the scores at one school may
all be better than all the scores of a different school, yet a top student at
the mediocre school is often more effective and better suited for success.
To apply this to Winfield Middle School we
know our district is not the biggest, yet that is exactly what makes it likely
we might produce champions!
We study
success, building champions and reaching goals.
Other schools may have more students try out for a sports team than we
have in the entire class, yet was are competing on a level playing field?
Yes, the Big Fish from our small pond have
likely success relative to the Small Fish in more successful pond.
Again, even though China has more honors
students then we have students, where would we go to find ready and willing
potential.
For example, the standard question floating many gatherings in St Louis
starts with
, “Where did you go to high
school?” In St Louis, this question opens many introductions and social,
professional and business meeting.
Of
course, it supplies social clues leading to common connections, yet the hidden undertone
often carries other connotations about the potential for success, growth or
opportunity.
Almost like, “
Are you from a Big Pond or Small Pond?”
What advantage is a disadvantage?
Gladwell continues his examination of underdogs considering the inordinate amount
of CEOs and other business leaders with deficiencies like dyslexia.
His hypothesis addresses their overcoming the
original obstacle by tuning other characteristics.
Similar to a blind person that tunes their
hearing.
For instance, a successful
trial lawyer overcame poor reading by hyper-sensitive hearing listening to the
nuance with testimony supplied from the witness stand.
As underdogs, we often are overlooked following
the formal and traditional channels.
It seemed
the thing that these characters had to overcome, actually made them stronger
and better suited to lead, connect with others and build from strength around a
weakness.
Johnny Cash anecdotally
described it in
A Boy Named Sue. Would you ever wish dyslexia on your
children?
Don’t be afraid of being afraid.
Fight or Flight, Fear of Fear and the paralyzing results of some fears keep
many of us back but build confidence in others.
The familiar quote:
What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger
is actually articulated for better understanding and application.
Considering London during the bombing raids
of Germany in WWII, we noticed three groups of people:
first, those that did not make it; second, those
that suffered a
near miss and finally
those that made it through a
remote miss! Regretfully, the first group deserves
complete respect. Then the
near miss
is just that, somebody fairly close to the impact.
This may be traumatic and even personally
injurious but definitely different than a
remote
miss.
A victim of a near miss may so
suffer a temporary negative setback.
Ironically the
remote miss had
the opposite effect on the citizens.
It brought
them together.
Surviving a horrific
bombing actually galvanized their unity.
The more bombings they survived, the more they believed they were invincible.
This made them stronger.
Anecdotally, some claimed they would rather
stay in the city then flee to the countryside!
How does this apply to us?
Are we a big pond struggling to succeed or small pond building fish ready
for any pond?
Do we let our perceived disadvantages give us a disadvantage, or do we just
work around them?
Does our fear motivate us to fight, improve and get better or quit, submit
and suffer setback?
http://gladwell.com/david-and-goliath/
@gladwell
