Where Do Top Performers Come From?

In Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World- Class Performers From Everybody Else, the author, Geoff Colvin, tackles the question of where great performance comes from head-on.

His conclusion is that it comes from neither hard work nor people’s innate qualities (what we typically call talent). Instead, he suggests that it comes from “deliberate practice” i.e. intense, focused and systematic effort to master a skill or subject.

The concept of deliberate practice was pioneered by psychologist K. Anders Ericsson, a professor of Psychology at Florida State University. In a seminal 1993 paper titled “The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance,” Ericsson argued that:

“People believe that because expert performance is qualitatively different from normal performance, the expert performers must be endowed with characteristics qualitatively different from those of normal adults. This view has discouraged scientists from systematically examining expert performers and accounting for their performance in terms of the laws and principles of general psychology.”

Ericsson further stated that he and his colleagues agreed that:

“Expert performance is qualitatively different from normal performance and even that expert performers have characteristics and abilities that are qualitatively different from or at least outside the range of those of normal adults. However, we deny that these differences are immutable, that is due to innate talent. Only a few exceptions, most notably height are genetically prescribed. Instead, we argue that the differences between expert performers and normal adults reflect a life-long period of deliberate effort to improve performance in a specific domain.”

Ericsson’s research identified four essential components of deliberate practice that when met, help to improve accuracy and speed of performance on cognitive, perceptual and other tasks:

  1. You must be motivated to attend to the task and exert effort to improve your performance.
  2. Each task should be designed to take into account your pre-existing knowledge. This will ensure the task is correctly understood after a relatively brief period of instruction.
  3. You should receive immediate informative feedback and knowledge of results of your performance.
  4. The same or similar tasks should be performed repeatedly.

Much of the argument by the proponents of deliberate practice reinforces with my own observations over the years. I’ve certainly come across many hardworking people whose applications and efforts simply did not translate into superior performance, I also agree with Colvin’s assertion that ascribing great performance to innate ability or talent alone simply allows too many people to find an easy excuse for their lack of achievement.

On the other hand, I wonder if deliberate practice by itself can explain all cases of superior performance. I’ve met more than my fair share of top performers whose achievements could hardly be ascribed to anything remotely resembling deliberate practice.

Clearly, the debate over where superior performance in the workplace comes from is one that isn’t going to be decided anytime soon. Nature versus nurture: which side are you on?