Developing Expertise through Deliberate Practice
Intrigued by an article about the work of Anders Ericsson, I decided to read up on the research of this well-respected psychologist at Florida State University. Specifically, I wanted to know more about Ericsson's answer to the question, Just how important is innate talent for becoming an expert at something?On the basis of research he began almost 30 years ago, Ericsson has concluded that talent is much less important than many people believe.
As an example, Ericsson points to amateur golfers. Many of us have observed — firsthand or secondhand — how the typical amateur seems to reach a plateau and stay there indefinitely. The golfer may take the philosophical view that "I've reached the limit of my golfing ability," or she may nurture a lingering hope that if she just keeps playing, she'll eventually get her handicap down.
Ericsson begs to differ. He reports that any golfer can keep bringing her handicap down, but to do so it's not enough to just get out on the links regularly. The golfer must engage in deliberate practice.
Deliberate practice is focused training. The process involves setting specific goals, getting immediate feedback on what you've done well and not so well, and paying conscious attention to technique.
So, for instance, an amateur golfer can practice frequently with a pro at her side to advise on what skills to focus on, and to provide feedback. She doesn't need to bring marked pre-existing talent to the effort. What she does need is enough interest in golf that she is happy to spend time working on her game instead of spending that time on any of the myriad other things she might be doing. I.e, it's critical that she care a lot about her golf game so that she's motivated to work hard on improving it.
Note that Ericsson is not saying that Joe Blow, if he just works hard enough, can take on Tiger Woods. Talent does have a role; some people have greater potential as golfers than others. What Ericsson is saying is that Tiger cares enough about golf that he has worked hard at his game, and continues to work hard at it, and that's why he has realized his potential to be among the world's best players. And Joe Blow, if he is able to engage in regular deliberate practice, will be able to keep improving, even if he's never attains the PGA level of performance.
Ericsson's finding concerning expert performance applies to the workplace. An employee who gets suitable training and spends significant time practicing tasks (often, in the form of doing a job day in and day out) while receiving effective coaching, will steadily become more expert.
Ericsson's bottom line: "[T]he development of expert performance will be primarily limited by the quality of the training environment and individuals' engagement in deliberate practice," not by a shortage of talent. (emphasis added)
As suggested in an earlier post, matching people to tasks they welcome (or that they can be persuaded to commit to with sincere enthusiasm) is a powerful way of improving the odds of success.
Similarly, when hiring, it pays to seek evidence that the candidate finds the roles and responsibilities of the job in question positively appealing. (In the case of entry-level jobs, much of the appeal can be the prospect of advancing to greater responsibility as the employee builds expertise.) Of course, evidence of caring about the job needs to be accompanied by evidence of stick-to-itiveness, openness to the perspectives of others, and consistent follow-through on commitments.
Labels: Expertise
posted by Karen Nelson @ 10:14 AM
<< Home