A 2014 meta-analysis concluded “deliberate practice is important, but not as important as had been argued” (p. 1608). Macnamara, Hambrick, and Oswald, publishing in Psychological Science, examined the empirical evidence for what has popularly been called  the 10,000 hour rule. I expect this to become a very well cited study.

Does innate ability limit level of performance or is level of performance more a function of deliberate practice? Deliberate practice is defined as “engagement in structured activities created specifically to improve performance in a domain” (p. 1608).

Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Römer (1993) found the average amount of deliberate practice for the best violinists at age 20 was around 10,000 hours. The least accomplished violinists had less than 5,000 hours. Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers popularized this “10,000 hour rule” using the Beatles and Bill Gates as examples, among others.

Macnamara et al. found over 9,000 potential articles for their study but only 88 met all criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Their study looked at 111 independent samples totaling over 11, 000 participants.

The results? Deliberate practice overall was positively correlated with performance, but not as strongly as might be expected from claims in the literature – “deliberate practice explained 12% of the variance in performance” (p. 1612). Deliberate practice accounted for different amounts of the variance in performance in different activities:

• Games (e.g., chess) – 26%
• Music – 21%
• Sports – 18%
• Education – 4%
• Professions – less than 1%

They suggested “the effect of deliberate practice on performance tended to be larger for activities that are highly predictable” (p. 1615).

My take-away:

I discussed the 10,000 hour rule and Ericsson et al.’s research in a blog in September 2013.  My thoughts remain the same. Practice may not make perfect but it helps – and the more practice, the better the performance – but with some activities there will be innate limitations on the heights performance can reach. For leaders and managers, Mary Follett talked about improving performance almost 100 years ago. If you want to be a better leader, or follower, you must reflect on how others respond to your behaviors, form hypotheses, and continually test these hypotheses, learning from your experiences. It is not deliberate practice but it is a deliberate learning strategy by which we can improve.

Ericsson, K. A.,  Krampe, R. T. & Tesch-Römer, C.  (1993).  The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100 (3) 363-406.

Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. New York: Little, Brown and Company.

Macnamara, B. N., Hambrick, D. Z., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). Deliberate practice and performance in music, games, sports, education, and professions: A meta-analysis. Psychological Science, 25(8), 1608-1618. 

Image: "The Wedding Gift" ©John Ballard, 2013. 

Previously I highlighted several insights from the morning session of the third conference of the Organizational Design Community meeting August 3 at The Wharton School. As mentioned, the shadow of Jay Galbraith loomed over the meeting. 

The afternoon session was devoted to innovation and change through organization design. Here are a few highlights from the afternoon session. (Any errors in attributions or interpretations are mine.)

Magnus Broundal, Velux

• One experiment is better than a 1000 expert beliefs.
  
• A problem for innovation: Too many internal organizational boundaries

Aseem Kaul, University of Minnesota

• Philosophy sometimes seems to be: “I love you. You’re perfect. Now change.”
  
•  “If you wait ‘til it is broken, it’s going to be a lot harder to fix.”
  
• Companies less likely to attempt radical innovation from strengths but companies innovate better from their strengths.
  

Phanish Puranam, INSEAD

• Centralized vs. decentralized resource allocation.
  
• Information often at subordinate level, decentralized increases engagement.
  

Todd Zenger, Washington University

• Organization design should not be static even if strategy and environment are static. 
  
• Argued there are advantages to organizational design changes even in absence of compelling reasons for change.
  

Mark LaScotia, OnTheMark

• Complex problems require puzzle solving, open feedback loops essential.
  
• A small concept change may be a major operational change.
  
• Organizations should spend one day a year reviewing if they are “fit for purpose.”
  
• “Design is implementation of strategy.”
  

Metin Sengul of Boston College also participated but I missed his talk.

My opinion: Organization design research is difficult. Many variables and usually longer timelines to get results. However, there is much we do know but as Nadler and Tushman (1997) have written, we could do a better job sharing what we do know with practitioners.

The Organization Design Community publishes the Journal of Organization Design, now in its third issue. The journal is intended for both academics and practitioners.

Nadler, D., & Tushman, D. A. Competing by design: The power of organizational architecture. New York: Oxford University Press.    

"Philly" ©John Ballard, 2014. 

On Sunday, August 3, I attended the third conference of the Organizational  Design Community, “an international community of scholars, executives, and organizations dedicated to advancing the theory and practice of organization design.”  It was held in the Jon M. Huntsman Hall at The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. I was impressed that on a Sunday afternoon in August, all the student study rooms I saw were occupied. 

I think most leaders simply do not understand the importance of organization design or the fundamentals that can improve organizational performance. The shadow of Jay Galbraith loomed over the meeting. Jay passed away earlier this year. Many references were made to his Star Model. Many academic and practitioner leaders in organization design were there. Here are some highlights from the morning session. (Any errors in attributions or interpretations are mine.)

Andrew Campbell, Ashridge Business School:

• Question: How can you build informal organization into the design of the organization?  I thought of Weisbord’s six-box model and the need to analyze the gap between the formal structure and the informal. Smaller the gap, higher the probability for effectiveness. 
  
• Strategy and design are closely related. Formal strategy vs. enacted strategy. 
  
• “You can tell more about strategy from an organization chart than a strategic plan.” My thought: How do our strategy textbooks treat org design. 
  

Stephanie Eller, Senior Director, Organizational Development, Nike:

• Culture shapes design. Must work to build common language. Sometimes it includes terms unique to company. 
  
• Nike highly matrixed design. Nearly everyone has two managers. My thought: I was surprised that Nike could be so responsive being heavily matrixed. Usually matrix organizations require far more meetings and have unproductive conflict. Key for Nike may be relational networks, knowing who can do what, how, when. Very insightful presentation. 
  

Adam Kleinbaum, Dartmouth College:

• Social networks critical to change outcomes.
  
• Network responsiveness is important. How fast does network structure align to formal structure. If slow network responsiveness, coordination is key. If fast network responsiveness, adaptability is key. 
  
• Problem: if network fails to adapt to new structure.
  
• Organizational change is never top down. Key is responsiveness at bottom.
  
• Slow is not always bad. Silos are not necessarily bad. 
  
• In reorganization, some relational ties are dropped and some are not. Result can be an effective broad, diverse network. Very interesting. In reorganizations some people drop many of their work relationships and form new ties. Others keep more of their old work relationships and build stronger personal networks.

My favorite comment from the morning session was from George Huber, University  of Texas at Austin:  “Good enough is not good enough.”

Image ©John Ballard, 2014. 

What is your purpose in life? Do you have a purpose? Research suggests that having a purpose in life may be related to longevity. It seems that people who feel they have a purpose tend to live longer than those who do not.

Patrick Hill (Carleton University) and Nicholas Turiano (University of Rochester Medical Center) in 2014 reported the results of a 14-year study in Psychological Science. Their study began in 1994-1995 when over 7000 people were recruited to participate (90% White; about equal numbers for men and women; young, middle, and older ages). They measured purpose in life using three questions from the Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being:

1. “Some people wander aimlessly in life, but I am not one of them.”
2. “I live life one day at a time and don’t really think about the future.”
3. “I sometimes feel as if I’ve done all there is to do in life.”

According to Seifert (2005), people with purpose in life have a sense of direction, goals and objectives, see meaning. People without purpose are more aimless, few goals, see little that gives life meaning.

Hill and Turiano found about 9% of the participants died during the 14 years of the study. Overall those who died tended to be older, male, less educated, and fewer were employed. Their analyses indicated that having a greater purpose in life decreased the risk of dying over the next 14 years by 15%. As a single predictor of mortality, the third question above was the most accurate. Some of their conclusions (from page 1485):

• “Greater purpose predicts greater longevity in adulthood.”
• “Maintaining a strong purpose in life can be as important at younger ages as it is at much older ages.”
• The benefits of having purpose do not depend on whether or not you are retired. 
• People should find direction in life “as early as possible.”
• “Finding a purpose may add years to one’s life.”

My take-aways:

1. My guess is the key is not purpose per se but rather meaning. We come at life and give it meaning. Consider work. What does work mean to you? A paycheck? Friends? A feeling of satisfaction? A retreat from the other pressures of life? A place from which to retreat? 
2. We come at life differently, some with great goals, others with few. We live our days and give meaning to the events around us. Some experience and celebrate the moments. Others conceptualize their activities and summarize in a few words. But for those who see only negative meanings, who see no purpose, my guess (consistent with this research) is that their path may be shorter. 
3. Leaders help their people, their organizations find purpose. 

Hill, P. L., & Turiano, N. A. (2014). Purpose in life as a predictor of mortality across adulthood. Psychological Science, 25(7), 1482-1486.

Seifert, T. A. (2005). The Ryff scales of psychological well-being. From https://www.wabash.edu/alumni/news.cfm?news_ID=3570

Image “Lavender Mist Selfie”  ©John Ballard, 2014. 

At the Academy of Management meeting in Philadelphia last week, I attended a session presented by David Kolb, experiential learning scholar and professor emeritus, Case Western Reserve University. Hundreds attended Kolb’s talk and lines went out the door. Much too small a room for such an influential scholar and consultant.

Here are some highlights. Any errors are mine.

• Influences on his thinking:  William James, Kurt Lewin, Carl Rogers, Carl Jung, John Dewey, Mary Follett, Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, and Paolo Freiere. 
• Learning style is often misunderstood. It is not a matter of matching teacher’s style and learner’s style.
• Roles of the educator: facilitator, subject expert, standard setter, evaluator, coach.
• The spaces in which educators work are often not conducive to learning. 
• Some people see the world as having smart people and dumb people, and if you see yourself as one of the dumb people, you cannot learn. Others see the world as “I can do this.” Educators should help all to know that they can learn.
  

My take-aways:

These ideas apply also to leadership, management, and the workplace. 

• The list of influences on his thinking is a great list. Mary Follett and Kurt Lewin were giants in leadership ideas and organizational change with much to say to us today.
  
• Training is usually best matched to the material, with learning by doing often best. 
• The roles of the educator are also the roles of the leader and the manager. We facilitate activities and accomplishment of objectives. We provide guidance and expert opinions to others. We set the performance standards and give feedback as needed. And the best leaders and managers coach, helping develop their direct reports and growing their capabilities. 
• Our workspaces are far more important than realized. We move to open spaces where individual offices might still be best.  Do we position people who need to coordinate near those with whom they need to coordinate? I am reminded of Lockheed’s Skunk Works where engineers were located only feet from the people constructing airplanes. 
• Do we provide opportunity and encouragement for all to learn, to develop knowledge and skills?  Do we give back to our communities in such a way as to nourish those who need encouragement? 
  

Kolb spoke to a room of educators but his ideas extend far into the world of work. 

Image “Full Room”  ©John Ballard, 2014.