It’s nice to know that success isn’t necessarily connected to your innate abilities or high school SAT score.

According to K. Anders Ericsson, professor of psychology at Florida State University, successful people “spontaneously do things differently from those individuals who stagnate” (Fast Company, November 2006, p. 116).

Smart people stagnate, not-as-smart people stagnate.

Ericsson uses the phrase “dilberate practice” to describe how successful individuals improve and innovate on their performance. A deliberate practice may be as simple as the ability to observe yourself doing an activity and intentionally improving on it the next time you do it. It’s that extra step or activity that gives folks the edge to go deeper into their craft or get better feedback from their clients. It’s not a grandiose activity. Call it the “small discipline.”

The same practice appears to create successful organizations.

Adam Bosworth, vice president of Google, recently conducted a presentation for SalesForce.com convention and used the phrase “intelligent reaction” to discuss how successful software should be built. In short, here’s the formula (or deliberate practice) of successful software development:

• Try things out;
• Watch;
• Learn from the customer in real time; and then
• Iterate.

This practice, which has produced successful companies like SalesForce.com and Google, also seems basic to successful marketing. You try this campaign, and then adjust to what works. The alternative, I guess, is to attempt to get it all right the first time, what Bosworth calls the “grand plan,” which is a myth. You never get it 100 percent right the first time. And by the time you are able to implement the full plan, the market has changed.

The point isn’t that you shouldn’t plan, of course. The point is the deliberate practice to get in front of customers quickly, listen to what they are saying about your product or service or marketing, and then adjust.

Last thing: There are two culprits when organizations can’t do this well. One is simple inertia. The other is ego.

I suspect that one of the most overused movie illustrations comes from City Slickers, the 1991 movie starring Billy Crystal and, among others, Jack Palance.

Remember that movie?

It’s the one in which Curly Washburn (played by Palance), the flea-bitten cowboy, raises his index finger and croaks about the “one thing” that the three “city slicker” characters must discover to find life’s meaning.

Marketing strategy folks often preach the gospel of the “one thing” or “your point of difference” (a phrase I borrowed from marketing genius Harry Beckwith) for organizations, as they attempt to grow in today’s highly competitive climate: You need to be known for one thing, especially if you’re not the leader in your space.

Knowing your “one thing” gives you focus for your marketing communications and serves to position you in the minds of your prospects. It gives them a mental hook.

The problem is that the “one thing” is not one dimensional. Often it’s not merely one thing; it’s a matrix of things that creates the focus.

For example, universities often try to distill their point of difference to one strength: Value; or Academic Rigor; or, Class Size.

But you never own only one strength; it’s often a combination of strengths that make up the One. To make it even more complex, that combination of strengths has meaning only as it relates to your competitors. Your context or environment shapes your point of difference.

We recently assisted a university with their messaging strategy. The university has a combination of strengths: affordability, academics (in relation to its competitors), and size of enrollment. All three formed the foundation of the school’s unique position in their competitive space. There were other layers to the school’s messaging strategy, such as location, but the three dimensions gave the school’s marketing program focus and power.

So, what are the different dimensions to your point of difference?
And how do your competitors’ positions shape yours?