I have often contemplated on how connected –or not -are these three attributes of intelligence, talent and character.
A recent detailed story on Ritesh Agarwal had me mulling over this again. Ritesh, for those who may not have heard of him, is that perfect, prodigal son that every Indian parent yearns for. Born and raised in a small town in Orissa, he started coding software at eight. He was one of the young stars selected for the pre-collegiate Asian Science Camp. By 17 he had authored a best-selling book and had become the youngest CEO in India. By 19 he had gotten angel investment and today the company is valued at Rs 360 crore. In the meanwhile, he also got a prestigious scholarship.
But there’s another side to this story. Ritesh doesn’t seem unduly perturbed by what is ‘right’. So he ditched a partner when he got a bigger break. He promoted the company to angel investors, plumping up the actual figures. He had tie-ups with just 30 small hotels, he claimed 3000 because ‘it is done this way’. He lied about several things along the way. When the valuation grew, he dodged his partner to get him to sign away his shares.
As the story unfolded because of a nosey journalist, other lies have surfaced: He never got selected for the ASC. Neither did his book become a best seller.
The angel investors continue to believe in his ‘youth and passion’ maybe because of the money they have put in. But the question here is: Why do we often think intelligence or talent are synonymous with character?
This is typically what parents do when looking for a groom or companies do when looking for salespeople. Let a brilliant academic record come to them and parents often get totally mesmerised. Any character anomaly is condoned or wished away with ideas like, “He will change”. Not surprising that there are as many domestic violence cases amongst the educated as among the unlettered.
This is a familiar note even in the corporate space. Just the other day, a senior professional whom I met, agreed that if a fellow was bringing in good sales, many other fundamental things were ignored.
Now the other way round…
Why should I expect a talented cricketer to have the altruistic character of a Baba Amte? Just because someone is talented, why should he be expected to be the biggest, most powerful voice in every area? But that is typical of human expectation. We expect our stars to be passionate social crusaders and philanthropists besides performing as actors and sportsmen. This is an unfair –and unrealistic- expectation.
So how should one select an associate for any role and what is the weightage that should be given to these three attributes? Also, can any of these three attributes be developed later with training?
A recent detailed story on Ritesh Agarwal had me mulling over this again. Ritesh, for those who may not have heard of him, is that perfect, prodigal son that every Indian parent yearns for. Born and raised in a small town in Orissa, he started coding software at eight. He was one of the young stars selected for the pre-collegiate Asian Science Camp. By 17 he had authored a best-selling book and had become the youngest CEO in India. By 19 he had gotten angel investment and today the company is valued at Rs 360 crore. In the meanwhile, he also got a prestigious scholarship.
But there’s another side to this story. Ritesh doesn’t seem unduly perturbed by what is ‘right’. So he ditched a partner when he got a bigger break. He promoted the company to angel investors, plumping up the actual figures. He had tie-ups with just 30 small hotels, he claimed 3000 because ‘it is done this way’. He lied about several things along the way. When the valuation grew, he dodged his partner to get him to sign away his shares.
As the story unfolded because of a nosey journalist, other lies have surfaced: He never got selected for the ASC. Neither did his book become a best seller.
The angel investors continue to believe in his ‘youth and passion’ maybe because of the money they have put in. But the question here is: Why do we often think intelligence or talent are synonymous with character?
This is typically what parents do when looking for a groom or companies do when looking for salespeople. Let a brilliant academic record come to them and parents often get totally mesmerised. Any character anomaly is condoned or wished away with ideas like, “He will change”. Not surprising that there are as many domestic violence cases amongst the educated as among the unlettered.
This is a familiar note even in the corporate space. Just the other day, a senior professional whom I met, agreed that if a fellow was bringing in good sales, many other fundamental things were ignored.
Now the other way round…
Why should I expect a talented cricketer to have the altruistic character of a Baba Amte? Just because someone is talented, why should he be expected to be the biggest, most powerful voice in every area? But that is typical of human expectation. We expect our stars to be passionate social crusaders and philanthropists besides performing as actors and sportsmen. This is an unfair –and unrealistic- expectation.
So how should one select an associate for any role and what is the weightage that should be given to these three attributes? Also, can any of these three attributes be developed later with training?
