In 2008, journalist Malcolm Gladwell announced to the world that in 10,000 hours, anyone could become an expert at practically anything. In his book, Outliers: The Story of Success, he claimed that there is a giant misconception that success is based solely on ambition, hustle, smarts, and hard work. Instead, he tried to show that other variables impacted an individual's ability to achieve world-class expertise, one of which was practicing a skill for 10,000 hours.
This concept quickly spread in popularity quickly with almost everyone hearing about the 10,000- hour rule. The idea was intriguing- anyone can become the best in the world, at anything, and all they needed to do is practice for 10,000 hours.
However, when something seems too good to be true, it most likely is, as the authors behind the original study Gladwell used to come up with his figures recently pointed out. These authors claimed that Gladwell's interpretation of their research was not only inaccurate but that his "10,000 rule" was extremely flawed. Depending on your viewpoint, this was either good or bad news.
Then, Ericsson examined Gladwell's conclusions and found fundamental flaws in his "rule.” Gladwell had misinterpreted and overgeneralized their results.
10,000 Hours was the Average
Ericsson explained that 10,000 hours by the age of 20 for the most accomplished violinists was only an average. In fact, half of the violinists in the group had not accumulated 10,000 hours by that age. In his reading of the results, Gladwell misunderstood this specific fact and incorrectly claimed that ALL the violinists had reached 10,000 hours.
Replication of the Experiment
In 2019, the Royal Society Open Science researchers decided to replicate this 1993 study and found that while the least-accomplished violinists practiced fewer hours, both the best and the good violinist had an average of 11,000 practice hours. Even though the good and the best violinists practiced the same number of hours, the good violinists could not make it to the top.
So what do all of these results mean?
Looking at these new results, not only was it clear that Gladwell was wrong about the amount of time it takes to develop a specific skill, but he was also wrong about "any" practice being enough to make you great. A specific type of practice is needed.
What is Deliberate Practice?
To see "deliberate practice" in action, consider the idea of learning how to weight lift:
Is Deliberate Practice Enough?
Yes, deliberate practice can help anyone become better at an activity. However, unfortunately, it will not help everyone become an expert in everything. A meta-analysis study that researched the relationship between deliberate practice and performance in sports found that deliberate practice is not enough to explain how amateurs actually become experts.
Deliberate practice can be supplemented with continuing education to stay up to date, specific certifications, and licenses for standards and accountability.
With all the research done into the concept of becoming the best, the ultimate findings show that it takes a lot more to become an expert in a given field than devoting 10,000 hours to it. So what is the real secret to becoming elite? You need some help from "positioning."
When you are able to position yourself correctly and get others to realize your true value, you can become the expert you have always wanted to be (even if you are still learning the process.)