PRH Consulting Inc. Blog

The answer is simple — 10,000 hours, or about 10 years. In his book, “This is Your Brain on Music,” Daniel Levitin summarized the  results of a study by Anders Ericsson (Florida State). Ericsson researched a number of types of experts, from chess players to musicians. His team defined “expert” as someone who has achieved a high degree of accomplishment relative to other people. That means the designation is somewhat subjective and has a social element. (Maybe it also means that you have to outlast some of your competitors!)

We did the math and figure that it is roughly equivalent to 3 hours a day for 10 years. What does that mean? For one thing, companies that move people from one position to another every two years may be developing experts in the organization and the industry but not at performing a specific role or task. It is interesting to note that jobs requiring a high level of individual performance (such as doctors, attorneys, airline pilots) have practitioners that remain in their roles longer than the average corporate manager. And, in these roles, more complex tasks are carefully limited to people with more time on the job.

Another question that immediately came to mind was “what if you work on it six hours a day for five years…can you get to expert more quickly?”

Of course, as a performance improvement expert (I can say that, by the way…I have been doing this work since 1984) my real first thought was “I bet we could beat that.” And we probably could. Much of what we do is observe and capture mastery performance and then distill that expertise into process, tools, and information. We sometimes even find shortcuts.

Still, if we needed heart surgery, we would pick the ten year veteran over the one-year novice with even if they have a really good job aid. Why?

Maybe because the longer timeframe allows more reflection. Why did something work better? What could we have done differently? We build our training programs to include exercises and even simulations so that learners apply what they learn in as realistic a situation as possible in a training setting. Sometimes, we even prescribe on-the-job practice and assessment. All of this compresses some of the experience learners would otherwise pick up slowly over the years. But it isn’t entirely equivalent.

There is neurological research that shows expertise depends on well-developed neural paths. Meaning that if you do something frequently and reflect on it, you will develop more expertise…you will sort of wear paths into your brain. But it takes time.

Organizationally, the ten year cycle can create a problem if you need to retain these experts. They get expensive after ten years of raises and accumulated vacation. Their market value increases. The smart thing to do is identify where you really need them and then make sure you leverage that know-how. Capture as much of their expertise as possible in reference materials and tools. Engage them in developing the next generation of experts. Respect their contributions. Plan for succession.

Often people who have been in a role a long time aren’t really valued for their expertise…they can be taken for granted as an old-timer whose advancement peaked. But maybe they decided to focus. Maybe they enjoy what they are doing. In this period of cost-cutting and outsourcing, it can be too easy to lose track of why people work…it may not be only about the money.

Recently I was reading about what it takes to become an expert….also, about what differentiates a good performer and an exceptional performer. In a previous post, I mentioned the estimate that it takes about 10,000 hours, or about 3.5 hrs a day over 10 yes, to become an expert.

There was another difference mentioned in Resnak’s book, that exceptional performers will practice things they are already good at. He describes a few cases from different areas (sports, music) and notes that these top-performers resist anything in their performance becoming “automatic.” One example is Michael Jordan practicing ball-handling! Resnak argues that this focus on very small parts of the performance, continual practice and improvement, and never taking anything as good enough, is what makes the difference between good and great.

As a performance consultant, I had to think about that. Much of what we do is to simplify the performance. Strangely, that usually requires looking closely at the performance to find the specific skills or criteria needed as opposed to just trying to think about everything. The focus for a new learner would naturally be different from the experienced professional. But often, if we are working with experienced performers, we hear the master performers and managers advocate “getting back to the fundamentals” while the bulk of the audience wants to move on past that point.

Questions:

1. Is it realistic, is it worthwhile, to force performers to drill on the fundamentals? If so, how do you get them to do it?
2. The “greats” are few and far between. What can we do to spread or reinforce that drive to achieve excellence to a larger number of employees? Or, is the drive to become great only internal to the individual performer? (Or, is it so much a part of the individual’s personality that it is either too late or inappropriate to select it as a target for improvement by management or training events?)

My initial thoughts about both questions are that if you want to focus on the fundamentals, they need to be part of the culture and reinforced by both the formal and informal leadership. If Michael Jordan is practicing ball-handling, chances are, the other players will feel OK about it too.

Another aspect is rewards. In professional sports, there are huge rewards for being the best. Performance is tracked, measured, and analyzed constantly. Most employees really aren’t trying to be great…they just want to to their jobs. And employees can be brilliant or average and still end up with only a limited percent increase in pay (if any). So, if management wants people to put in the effort, they have to do some thinking about how they can identify and reward their top performers besides pay raises and bonuses. The good news is that, in many cases, financial rewards for performance are not really very effective…they are good for short-term improvement but less so for long-term.

So the other piece of good news is that energy, attitude, and ideas are pretty much free. They are out there. Those that try harder can become the best…if they really want to do the work.