Moving from practice to performing is a bonus article from the Waiting Productively series.
Too much of anything ends up being bad for you. Constantly going through the same motions only develops you so far before things actually start to erode. It’s true. As an example, we all know we need to drink more water. While it’s difficult to do, drinking too much water is dangerous. I don’t know how that could ever happen, but it’s called water intoxication. You do not want to ever have it happen to you.
With this in mind, I felt the need to bring a word of caution to mind. Even though I just finished an article on the benefits of practicing, there are limits. Practicing without making the decision to get into the game and perform, only benefits you so much. At some point, you need to take the risk, take the leap, and go play the game. Today, I want to share examples to help you decide how to move from practice into performing.
When I prepare to deliver a speech, I spend a great deal of time working on the focal point and the supporting details. I shuffle the order, add content, and delete wording from other sections. For one speech, I spend hours revising and reorganizing the outline and content. Then, I practice. I go through it multiple times and make more adjustments. Finally, I know everything cold. At that point, I just need to get up on stage and let it go. It’s not going to be perfect, but it is the only way to find out what may require more practice and refinement.
Real-World Examples
When I think of preparing and performing, two people immediately jump to mind: George McClellan and Colin Powell. I realize that sounds odd but bear with me. These two people come to mind for very different reasons. Both of them were generals. McClellan led all Union forces in the Civil War during the 1860s. Powell held the same positional role during the Persian Gulf conflict of the early 1990s. Both of them had extensive experience in the military, both in the field and as a leader. Their defining moments in the public eye were determined on the main stage of a critical, armed conflict. They achieved very different results and much of it had to do with their decision making to move from the practice field onto the battlefield.
The Curious Case of George McClellan
Let’s start with George McClellan. McClellan grew up with privilege. He enrolled at West Point Military Academy at the age of 15 as something of a prodigy. Upon graduation, he was commissioned and went to serve in the Mexican-American War. After the war, he remained in the Army for a time and eventually found his way into a successful leadership role in the railroad business.
By the time the Civil War began, McClellan eagerly found his way back into the US Army. His knowledge of railroads, military strategy, and combat experience fast-tracked him to the leader of the Army of the Potomac, the preeminent fighting force of the Union. McClellan displayed great talent in organizing and training troops to ready them for combat. His troops regarded his leadership and demeanor with high esteem.
Waiting for More
The problem for McClellan came with getting off the practice field and into battle. His troops had the training, tools, and resources they needed for fighting, but McClellan was constantly asking for more. He petitioned Abraham Lincoln for more time, more money, more resources, etc. He consistently hesitated because the opposition was in a better position, possessed more troops or was soon to get reinforcements. Or, it might have been the weather not cooperating.
When he finally did get moving, he engaged slowly and hesitated in pursuing the retreating troops. He continually allowed the Confederate forces to escape and mount counter-attacks. These attacks thwarted the advantage the Union possessed in the way of manpower, logistics, and munitions. Finally, Abraham Lincoln removed him from leadership and looked for someone who could better balance practice with engagement. He went through several more generals until he found his man in Ulysses S. Grant.
McClellan never did regain a leadership role in the Army and he left his military career behind. In 1864, he ran for President against Abraham Lincoln and lost in an electoral landslide. He did find some success in the private sector but he never realized his military leadership ambitions.
The Reluctant Warrior
Colin Powell, on the other hand, had an entirely different experience from George McClellan. He was raised by immigrants in Harlem, NY. He graduated from public high school and later attend the City College of New York. It was here he became involved in Reserve Officers Training (ROTC). Powell did not receive the advanced placement and career track opportunities that await many West Point graduates.
Graduating from the ROTC program, however, did commission Powell as an officer. Soon, he was placed in the field gaining experience through several tours of duty in Vietnam. It was during these years that he learned many valuable lessons in leadership. He learned as much about the wrong way to lead as the correct way to lead. He took these lessons to heart and mind.
After Vietnam, he began his work in the executive branch of government until he became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1989. At this point, Powell was able to develop and implement the strategy for conflicts to be waged by the United States Armed Forces. His approach was aimed at quick and definitive actions to limit casualties and the length of the conflict. Instead of focusing on what he didn’t have, he focused on how, when, and where to engage the enemy and force the advantage. He did not hesitate to get off the practice field and on to the battlefield.
Now, I don’t want to give you the wrong idea. Powell earned the nickname of “reluctant warrior” for his conservative view toward using military force. But, if it was deemed necessary, he was ready and all in. His strategy earned praise for engaging the enemy and earning quick, decisive wins in the Persian Gulf Conflict in the early 1990s.
After he left service, Powell focused his knowledge and experience on educating others on effective leadership. He publicized Thirteen Rules of Leadership through his books chronicling his life, values, and principles.
40/70 Rule
In addition to these principles, Powell discussed his 40-70 rule to move from practice to active engagement. Powell used this rule to help him have a bias toward making a decision. As he collected information and created options toward meeting the determined strategy, he wanted to have a stopping point. At this point, a decision would need to be made. Too much information, or in our case too much practice, creates paralysis and a hesitancy to take action.
The percentages represent your possibility of being correct or making the right decision. The guidelines are simple: collect information, analyze it, and organize it. Once you feel you have enough information to make a decision (40%), start eliminating your weaker options and hone in on your best ones. Keep collecting and analyzing information until you are able to make a decision, but do not go past 70%, which is where analysis paralysis sets in. Once you get enough information, use your best judgment to make a decision and take action.
Remember, procrastination is not delaying a decision.
It’s making a decision to delay.
How Might this Help Me?
As important as practicing might be, it is equally important to apply those skills you are learning against real-world situations or opponents. Performing forces you to react to the environment and make adjustments to situations you were not expecting. Some of these adjustments will be good and some will not. In addition, the performance will create reactions and criticism. This feedback becomes the stimuli to take back to the practice situation and create new learning challenges to apply.
McClellan never reached his fullest potential because he was always well past his 70%. If you asked Abraham Lincoln, he would likely have pegged him at waiting until he hit 90-95% before he made a decision. He wasted the Union’s advantage and his military career. His successor, Ulysses S. Grant, on the other hand, was closer to 40%. He was a man of action. Grant made some poor decisions but he learned from them. He incorporated his failings in order to revise his strategy. His bias toward action kept his soldiers continually pushing southward to face the Confederacy. His leadership ultimately won the war and saved the nation.
Start to Make Your Move at 40
We do things every day to ready us for the game and making decisions. As you move past that 40% mark, decide what you are going to do and how you might achieve it and take action. Information should never take the place of action. It is meant to be a component of the decision-making process.
The decision you are facing might be big or small and your choice could end up right or wrong. Either way, if you learn from it and incorporate it back into strategy, you will profit in the long-term. Making decisions is like working your muscles. The harder you work them, the stronger they grow. The whole process works terrifically with practice. Taking stronger and stronger muscles back into practice allows the challenges to get more difficult and the results to be truly phenomenal.