Brilliant? Or CRAB?

We've all heard of and seen people who are famous for being famous. These souls may not have any particular talent or expertise but they have somehow managed to achieve fame. Achieving fame, in fact, may be their talent although once that is under their wing their opinions on other subjects may be given much greater weight.

A variation of this group is even more interesting: People who are regarded as brilliant because they are regarded as brilliant. I've seen many of these fast-trackers in organizations; people who have a reputation for being terribly bright but who never seem to exhibit any great insight in my presence or, according to my informal research, the presence of others. I've gotten to the point where whenever one of these individuals is described as brilliant, I ask for an example of some deep insight. On every occasion the person who's just issued the opinion begins to fumble about and eventually admits that he or she is simply passing along conventional wisdom.

I'm not being critical of these famous and reputedly bright individuals. Achieving fame and achieving a reputation for brilliance are not minor accomplishments. Many of us would love to be so fortunate. My interest is in the tactical: How is that achieved?

With regard to the CRABs (commonly regarded as brilliant), my guess is their reputations are produced by what Malcolm Gladwell would call a tipping point. If you are able to persuade a certain number of key opinion makers in an organization or environment that you are brilliant, then that will quickly become your label. If you are unable to do so, then you may well be regarded as competent but not Olympian.

Organizations scrutinize selection standards and success planning. Networks and information sharing also get attention. Reputation, however, is regarded as a logical by-product of achievement. That is a myth and organizations that want to tap into real talent may wish to explore how that can be transformed into reality.