I think that the whole "nature versus nurture" debate has been going on since the Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel conducted his pea in the 1850's and discovered some of the early laws of heredity. There is no question that an individual's genetic make-up is important. For example, studies have shown that diseases like cancer, heart disease, and diabetes have a strong genetic component (i.e. if one of your parents has cancer, you will have a higher risk of developing cancer at some point in your life). Even susceptibility to certain kinds of infections run in families.
Does an individual's genetic make-up determine whether he or she is good at certain skills (e.g., playing a musical instrument) or sports (e.g., golf)? Sir Francis Galton, one of the early founders of the field of behavioral genetics, argued on the "nature" side of this debate based upon his finding that expertise in music, art, sports, or science tended to run in families. He may have been right - just look at the National Football League's Manning family (Archie Manning was a quarterback for the New Orleans Saints and his two sons, Peyton and Eli, are Super Bowl winners and future Hall of Fame quarterbacks) for proof. The American psychologist John B. Watson, founder of behaviorism, argued on the "nurture" side and stated, "practicing more intensively than others...is probably the most reasonable explanation we have today not only for success in any line, but even for genius."
As it turns out, the answer to the "nature versus nurture" debate is not so simple (as is usually the case, things involving the brain and human behavior are rarely, if ever, simple). Malcolm Gladwell talked about something that he called "the 10,000 hour rule" in his book, Outliers. Gladwell based his "10,000 hour rule" on studies by another psychologist, K. Anders Ericsson. Ericsson looked at a number of different so-called experts (e.g., Chess Grand Masters and violinists, as a few examples) and found that, on average, experts spent more time (around 10,000 hours) on something he called deliberate practice compared to less successful individuals. We will discuss "deliberate practice" next time, but suffice it to say that it is a highly systematic, purposeful form of practice or training based upon specific and continual feedback. I should emphasize that following Gladwell's book, a number of experts have argued against the so-called "10,000 hour rule", even Ericsson himself. Ericsson emphasizes that there is nothing magical to the 10,000 hours - the type of practice (i.e., deliberate practice) is important and experts usually spend much longer on practicing and refining their craft compared to those who are not.
So what about leadership skills? Are leaders "born" or "are they made"? There are a number of studies that strongly suggest that leadership is an acquired skill. I can't agree more. Leadership is an acquired skill - you have to work at it! It takes practice - lots and lots of practice. Talented managers have to be mentored and provided with leadership training. These same managers have to be provided with growing and incremental responsibility in order to practice and perfect their leadership skills. It takes time to develop communication skills, just like it does to learn a foreign language or play the violin. It takes time to learn to "think about the big picture" and work with individuals on a team. It takes time to be able to provide feedback. It takes time to learn how to have crucial conversations with individuals who are not performing up to expectations. Look at any leader - even the ones you might think are "naturals" and have always been good leaders. I guarantee you that they refined their skills over time, often with specific feedback on their performance.
The great football coach, Vince Lombardi, once said, "Leaders are made, they are not born. They are made by hard effort, which is the price which all of us must pay to achieve any goal that is worthwhile." So to answer the question in the title of this post, practice certainly makes someone better, and while it may not necessarily make someone perfect at what they do, practice - lots of it - is perhaps the most important pre-requisite for perfection.
No comments:
Post a Comment