Long blog post ahead. Short version – a ramble on what I think about when it comes to being smart. It’s not coherent and there’s no central message. I’m just writing out loud.
It’s a question I get bothered with a lot.
Like, I know, I’m a smart guy, but how smart? And how objective am I about how smart I am?
But also, why is it important to be smart? What happens if I’m not smart? Do I lose out on something? And how do I grow being more smart? Cos I’m definitely more smart today than I was in my 20s, but have I hit peak smart for my age and life experience?
No, but really, why is it important to be smart? And who’s asking anyway?
Part of the challenge of social media is it can be really easy to create content that makes it look like you’re smart. A well-produced video. A good looking infographic. A reaction video about something someone said. A compelling piece of writing. Any, all of, and more besides, can make it look like you’re smart.
Some people who are smart, are doing what they can to continue to show up with credibility. They honour where they get their insights from. They attribute where they can because they recognise other people are doing good work / doing good thinking / offering a valuable piece of insight.
And so I’m constantly being fed good content that helps my own thinking. I think better because of others, so I’m definitely smarter because others help me understand what smart looks like.
But, I also get bothered by people who think they’re uber-smart, but are no smarter than the rest of us. I don’t mean big public figures, but people in our networks who say things like “I know what I think, but I want to know what you think”. As if to say, my thinking is so smart that when I say it, it will influence you.
Conversely, I’m also bothered by people in our industry who are smart in some things, but really go beyond by over-extending their contribution. E.g. there’s a diversity and inclusion professional I used to follow on LinkedIn. They are a clear expert in being a DEIB professional. I don’t doubt that. I’ve learned a lot from their postings and increased my own understanding of DEIB topics. But when they start over-extending by trying to talk knowledgeably about topics out of their reach, that’s where I lose the thread of what makes that person so smart. They’ve just traversed into being ego-driven and arrogant. This isn’t to say people can’t or shouldn’t talk about topics important to them, but it’s different to talk with knowledge about something as if it’s your lived experience than it is to show empathy and understanding of other people’s situations.
I’m rambling. I want people to be smart. I want to be smart.
In the workplace being smart is an unwritten rule in order to progress. Although we can question how or why someone might be a manager or a leader, if they’re reaching senior roles, in some way it’s cos they have a level of being smart. Two things are likely to influence how you progress at work. One is who you know – your internal network can do wonders for aiding your progression. I know people in senior roles who really shouldn’t be there, but because they rub shoulders with the right people they are there. And I know people who are in senior roles because they’re absolutely the right people for those roles, not least because of how smart they are and deserve to be there. I continue to aspire to be the latter.
And then I’m also bothered by some people really believing they could be polymaths. This one really bothers me. To be a genuine polymath is to have such genuine knowledge and understanding of multiple topics, that you’re recognised as a leader in separate and distinct fields. It is really difficult and rare to be a polymath. You would be studied in not only your core craft, that you’re already doing great work, smart writing and being recognised for your work, but also in another field – with the same level of work, output, productivity and recognition. It is hard enough for most people to do well enough in one field of their professional lives, let alone in a second or third field.
I have a suspicion there are people in L&D / HR / Coaching, who conflate and confuse being very smart and in being polymaths. I know people in our industry who I trust a lot cos of how smart they are and the work they do. But would I seek them out for a different field of interest? Like, it’s one thing understanding and being a leader in organisational culture, but it’s quite another in being an entrepreneur and growing a business, or in being an expert on writing code for app development to deliver on a core product. It’s very possible to be smart about many things, but a polymath that does not make.
I don’t know if I have an ending or a summary point here. I come back to the question of why it matters. Being smart definitely does matter. I look at the state of British politics and what a low bar we had when Boris Johnson was Prime Minister and the cabinet he assembled. Most were out of their depth in developing genuine policy to advance the country. Now with Keir Starmer in role and a new cabinet with people who are seemingly more qualified, I’d like to think we will have better UK policy.
And I come back to how we develop being smart. It’s not enough to just read books, blogs or newsletters. Reflection is an important part of developing being smart. What does it mean to have read something insightful that it makes you want to do something differently? In what situations is it compelling and where is it not?
As well as reflection, discussion and debate are needed. I have developed a really good network of people around me who I can really test my thinking with. Can I articulate a coherent message? What am I missing in my thinking? How can I share my thinking? Who will challenge my thinking? When I am challenged, what does that mean for what I originally thought?
And I enjoy going deep into topics of interest. Resilience is clearly a topic of interest for me, so I spend time learning more in this space as well as finding opportunities to be more giving about what I learn (beyond writing a book on the topic that is). I think depth of knowledge matters in being smart.
I’m really careful not to confuse things either. That’s been an ongoing piece of self-learning. I can spout out many things I’ve learned, but they’re not always related to the things I’m discussing or the topic at hand. So I’ve had to learn how to differentiate knowing something has relevance, with wanting to contribute something because I want to be heard in some way. I know when I’ve contributed something helpful because others will take it and develop it further, or in some way bring my input to the conversation.
And lastly, I guess, is that I fully recognise I have a bias towards being smart, but that’s not always helpful. It’s more important for me to be empathetic than it is to be smart. There are so many people we will know for whom empathy and kindness will do more than whether or not I’ve said a smart thing. This is also something I continue to pay attention to. When is it right for me to be smart? Cos I can over-index the need to be smart, when I just need to show empathy and kindness instead.
Wowsers, I’ve not written a long blog post for an age. No final words here. It’s a blog, it’s my blog, and I use it to think out loud. The above is just my thinking and sense-making process.
For clarity, I’m not trying to dig anyone out or take a sly shot at someone. If you’re reading it and thinking “does Sukh mean me?” The answer is no.
