Saturday, June 20, 2009

Enabling who? The 10,000 hour rule

As a child, when I went to concerts by Bhimsen Joshi, I wasn’t too intrigued to hear his introduction read that he practiced music for six to eight hours every day. After all he didn’t have to go to school! I could do that too I thought, if only I didn’t have to go to school! More recently, while listening to a few recordings of Bismillah Khan, (incidentally it was at the end of a day of articulating differentiating competencies) the fact that a few musicians seem to be a class apart aroused my curiosity. (This was further reinforced when I beat a rather quick retreat from a close friend’s concert). What differentiates those who seem to convince by being themselves from those who sincerely try, yet fail? Is it luck? Is it something else? My next sojourn to the local bookshop seemed to hold an answer.
I should confess, I am in love with Outliers. I am referring to the book. What particularly has caught my attention is the 10,000 hour rule of Gladwell, that the key to success in any field is simply a matter of practicing a specific task for 10,000 hours caught my attention. Gladwell cites the examples of the Beatles who performed over 1200 times in four years, amassing more than 10,000 hours of playing time and Bill Gates becoming Bill Gates thanks to a certain obsessive love affair with a computer to which he had access when few others in the world had or could afford such access. Strengths, or talent according to Gladwell (rather, what I understand) is what causes incessant love affairs that spur people to immerse themselves in particular activities or opportunities with a certain maniacal fervor, one that others who possess other talents would never prefer or even dare explore in their mind! (Btw, I am not referring to broken love affairs leading to workaholism)
To me, this also seemed to fit in the strengths model of Gallup, where it is purported that we as individuals take our strengths for granted, simply because it is very natural to us. To each of us, our strengths come very easy and hence, we assume that it is the same way that everyone around us is wired too! Gallup also talks about effort and practice that are needed to covert strength themes into areas of competence.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (I hope the printer’s devil doesn’t strike) in “The secret of happiness”, explores the fundamentals of happiness and to help the readers, also looks at what is not happiness. To give you undiluted pleasure, I quote. “Over the years, I came up with the expression "flow": a term to describe the common denominator among those people who deemed themselves happy. The most obvious component of happiness, I found out, is intense concentration, which is the main reason that activities such as music, art, literature, sports and other forms of leisure have survived. The essential ingredient for concentration - whether it happens when reading a poem or building a sand castle – is that it involves a challenge that matches one's ability. The only solution to achieve enduring happiness, therefore, is to keep finding new opportunities to refine one's skills: do one's job better or faster, or expand the tasks that comprise it; find a new set of challenges more appropriate to your stage of life.”
Is it role efficacy? Maybe. Could be. Is it only role efficacy? May not be. Does a block in ‘flow’ cause attrition? Would it be worthwhile looking at an instrument for it? Does career anchor of Ed Schein talk about this ‘flow’ that seems to happen when an individual is able to actualize his occupational self image at work? To think of it, it seems to be too. Multiple constructs, but finally the same human being right? The thing that seems evident to me is that an attempt at fixing a construct tends to restrict the meaning. Hail Schrodinger?
What personally appeals to me is the possibility of the strengths approach (personal preferences seem to correlate with strength themes as well) coupled with a career choice that allows individuals hit the 10,000 hours (or close to that!) of Gladwell at the workplace. That might finally allow the individual live the flow. This might also be the purpose of enabling professionals in a developmental dialogue. Unblock to flow. Enabling who? How about self for a start?

No comments: