The 10,000-hours view of talent challenges its centuries-old charm
More than 500 years ago, artist Michelangelo Buonarroti provided an insight that is now making its way to books and articles on talent. He rather plainly stated: “if people knew how hard I worked to get my mastery, it wouldn't seem so wonderful after all”.
As if exposing an illusionist’s trick, much is being written on how what we take to be innate talent is really a direct outcome of volume and quality of practice hours.
Malcolm Gladwell (who coined the 10,000 hour rule) takes us through the endless hours of practice The Beatles clocked while playing in Hamburg in their early years. Matthew Syed describes in his book Bounce how child prodigies manage to get thousands of hours of practice by a very early age. Mozart, trained by his father Leopold - a composer and notorious pedagogue - had endured 3,500 hours of practice before the age of six (according to Michael Howe of the University of Exeter). His first work to be now considered a masterpiece was composed at age 21, after 18 years of intensive training. The number of examples available is endless.
Perhaps the most telling story provided by Syed is that of the Polgar sisters Susan, Sofia and Judit. Their father Laszlo - an educational psychologist - set himself to prove “children with world-class abilities” can be created. He publicised his project and enticed a young Ukrainian named Klara to join him in the experiment. Having chosen chess as a competitive sport in which success can be objectively measured, they had three daughters and conscientiously trained their from a very early age. All three developed into world champions and have been described by many as child prodigies and as having a natural talent for the sport.
There is devil in the detail. As Syed writes, much depends on the purpose that is put into the practice (think of taxi drivers that spend endless hours behind the wheel and yet plateau at an average level of driving skill). However it still makes a compelling case for the perhaps stimulating idea that everyone can be talented.
It is a simple, yet difficult concept to take in. For some reason the notion that people can be special is difficult to give up. Romantics beware: sport, as previously discussed, is becoming a home to statisticians set on the idea that success can be broken down into measurable items that can be modelled and predicted.
But beyond sport (and other specialists activities), the arguably more diverse and complex worlds that surround us (including that of organisations) still give some refuge to the unfashionable notion of natural gift. That is, at least for a few more years.
Fading admiration
More than 500 years ago, artist Michelangelo Buonarroti provided an insight that is now making its way to books and articles on talent. He rather plainly stated: “if people knew how hard I worked to get my mastery, it wouldn't seem so wonderful after all”.
As if exposing an illusionist’s trick, much is being written on how what we take to be innate talent is really a direct outcome of volume and quality of practice hours.
Malcolm Gladwell (who coined the 10,000 hour rule) takes us through the endless hours of practice The Beatles clocked while playing in Hamburg in their early years. Matthew Syed describes in his book Bounce how child prodigies manage to get thousands of hours of practice by a very early age. Mozart, trained by his father Leopold - a composer and notorious pedagogue - had endured 3,500 hours of practice before the age of six (according to Michael Howe of the University of Exeter). His first work to be now considered a masterpiece was composed at age 21, after 18 years of intensive training. The number of examples available is endless.
Perhaps the most telling story provided by Syed is that of the Polgar sisters Susan, Sofia and Judit. Their father Laszlo - an educational psychologist - set himself to prove “children with world-class abilities” can be created. He publicised his project and enticed a young Ukrainian named Klara to join him in the experiment. Having chosen chess as a competitive sport in which success can be objectively measured, they had three daughters and conscientiously trained their from a very early age. All three developed into world champions and have been described by many as child prodigies and as having a natural talent for the sport.
Road to success (the Polgar sisters)
There is devil in the detail. As Syed writes, much depends on the purpose that is put into the practice (think of taxi drivers that spend endless hours behind the wheel and yet plateau at an average level of driving skill). However it still makes a compelling case for the perhaps stimulating idea that everyone can be talented.
It is a simple, yet difficult concept to take in. For some reason the notion that people can be special is difficult to give up. Romantics beware: sport, as previously discussed, is becoming a home to statisticians set on the idea that success can be broken down into measurable items that can be modelled and predicted.
But beyond sport (and other specialists activities), the arguably more diverse and complex worlds that surround us (including that of organisations) still give some refuge to the unfashionable notion of natural gift. That is, at least for a few more years.
3 comments:
The question for me lies in the definition of talent. Is talent world class performance? Or is it something else? The concept of potential seems to be a common element in most defintions, and that goes beyond performance. Are arts or sports the right comparison fields for talent in companies? In my view not necessarily. Practice I agree builds expertise and high performance, but not potential. A good discussion to have over a cup of coffee
Already the Greeks identified that great kings were typically not followed by great heirs, no matter how much training was devoted.
A case of bad education or genuine innate talent?
Maybe the difference lays between "framed" professions (as sports) were repetition is key, and "unframed" professions (as political leadership) were the soul takes precedence.
Thank you for your comment.
I agree the definition of talent varies and one has to be cautious when extrapolating insights from the arts or the sports into organisational life.
On potential that is a difficult one to tackle - what was the determining factor in measuring the Polgar sisters' potential: their innate capacities (e.g. IQ) or their father's determination?
I've made a note to look into it...
Elei
Post a Comment