I just read a great book called Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. I'm a bit of a Gladwell fan. I love all three of his books and get a kick out of his speeches. Outliers is interesting because it focuses on successful people and why they are. He makes some pretty interesting arguments on the subject. The chapter that particularly interested me and the one I want to share about was on "experts".
Typically, an expert is defined as a person with a large amount of talent, knowledge or experience in a particular field, occupation or area of study. They are the people we look towards to lead the way in industry, they are the one’s we seek advice or direction from when we do not know about a topic, and they are usually viewed as having more knowledge or insight into their fields than the average person. Gladwell expands that definition to say that experts are people that not only have the insight or talent in a particular area, but they also have the time and resources to hone that talent. In essence, it is more about practice time than the innate talent of a person. He and other researchers even argue that one needs at least 10,000 hours of practice to truly be an expert on a topic.
My interpretation of Gladwell’s position is that expertise and success are the outcome of a combination of factors. Those factors include talent, practice, timing and influence. All of the examples of experts he spoke about were shaped by those four factors. Bill Gates is a good example. He was extremely talented and naturally gifted with math and programming. He was able to access computers well before most people in the world and had the opportunity at an early age to begin the practice that made him his fortune. He was growing up and learning at the right time to take advantage of the growth in the computer industry and apply his talent. Finally, he was often surrounded by the right people with the necessary resources to help that practice and talent grow.
I would add another factor to the equation for an expert At least I should say it is a factor that influences my perception of an expert, and that factor is humility. The people I consider to be experts have all of the above, but they also have the humility to avoid the “I am the expert” trap. People that fall into that trap are usually the first to lose their footing when new innovations or changes in their expertise occur. Perhaps it is just semantics, but there is a big difference in “the” and “an”. It’s always good to become an expert in your field, until you view yourself as the expert. Then you are no longer an expert, but instead just another arrogant ass. You might have the talent and skills, but in my opinion, you lose your credibility.
I have a passion for team and leadership development. That type of interest and field require an extensive amount of experience and interaction with diverse groups and teams. My goal is to be a leader in that field and perhaps one day an expert on the subject, but I also feel it is a subject that requires you to constantly evolve and be open to new ideas. I may never know if I achieved that goal, but I would be content in knowing that my work is headed in that direction. When you can see the changes in behavior and efficiency of a team, you know that your work has been effective. That to me is more important than being perceived as an expert.
What are your thoughts? How do you balance this in a mentoring capacity where someone views you as the person with the answers? Do you agree that it takes those factors to be an expert on a topic or activity?
No comments:
Post a Comment