Just about four weeks ago, I ran my second marathon. I've had a number of individuals at work ask me, "How did it go?" My answer is fairly quick, "I did exactly what I wanted - finish running and finish with a smile on my face." These were, in fact, the same goals that I had set for my first marathon almost two years ago - goals that I did not achieve. I had developed a bad case of "IT band syndrome" the last month or so of my training, and my coach suggested that I "shut things down" and still try to run the marathon. I did. It hurt. A lot. I walked. A lot. My daughter stuck it out with me and held back - we were both crying at the finish. Hers were happy tears. Mine were not.
Even though my time wasn't that good, I was happy to run and finish feeling pretty good. Do not misunderstand - I was very happy the race was over, but I did feel more of a sense of accomplishment. Enough that I am already talking about the next race. Next time, I am running for time. So what did I learn from these two marathons that I can apply to the next? For one thing, I definitely need to do more interval training (running at a faster pace for specific distances, interspersed with rest, walking, or slow jogging). I also need to push myself on the treadmill a little more, if I end up having to do some of my training runs on the treadmill (I don't like running in the rain, and I don't particularly like running in the cold - during the last month of training, I spent a lot of time on the treadmill). I don't particularly enjoy treadmill running, so I run a lot slower than when I do outside. I need to push myself a little more. Lastly, need to do a better job of sticking with my training plan, especially when it calls for "cross training" on Sundays (most of the time, my "cross training" ended up sitting on the couch and relaxing).
In other words, I need to be more premeditated, purposeful, and intentionally-focused in my training. One could certainly argue that what I am describing is a form of something I mentioned in my last post called "deliberate practice." Deliberate practice was initially described (or at least popularized) by a cognitive psychologist named K. Anders Ericsson. Ericsson defined "deliberate practice" as "engagement with full concentration in a training activity designed to improve a particular aspect of performance with immediate feedback, and opportunities for gradual refinement by repetition and problem solving." Ericsson found that expert performers in chess and music typically spent more time on this kind of practice or training than those who were not experts. Malcolm Gladwell further popularized the concept when he wrote about the "10,000 hour rule" in his book, Outliers. You see, Ericsson found that, on average, expert performers spent approximately 10,000 hours or so on deliberate practice. Gladwell took it one step further and suggested that if you spent 10,000 hours of deliberate practice on a particular skill or discipline, you would achieve expertise.
There is a lot of controversy around the "10,000 hour rule" - mostly because the lay press has taken it far too literally. Subsequent research, by both Ericsson and others, has shown that there is nothing magical about 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. Other personality traits (the degree of motivation, persistence, and dedication are a few examples that come immediately to mind) as well as innate ability or talent are important too. Brooke Macnamara, David Hambrick, and Frederick Oswald published a meta analysis of over 20 years of studies on deliberate practice and found that deliberate practice explained only about one-fourth of the variance in performance between individuals for games (e.g., chess), a little less than one-fourth (21%) of the variance in performance between individuals for music (e.g., playing the violin), and about one-fifth of the variance in performance between individuals for sports. Deliberate practice mattered very little for highly cognitive disciplines such as education (innate cognitive intelligence likely plays a much bigger role) and the professions. In other words, while deliberate practice may be a great way for me to train for my next marathon, it's probably not going to help me in my overall day-to-day job of practicing medicine (with, perhaps the notable exceptions of certain technical skills, such as performing different procedures or diagnostic tests).
So where does leadership fall in all of this? I guess that depends on which facet of leadership you consider. For example, I do believe that there are certain leadership skills that lend themselves very well to improvement through deliberate practice. Communication skills (especially speaking in front of a large group) and managing a team of individuals certainly require practice in order to be good at them. On the other hand, I suspect that there are other skills that require some degree of cognitive ability that will not improve a whole lot with practice.
I still believe that "leaders are made" more than "leaders are born." Simply put, there are a number of skills and techniques that leaders have to use in order to effectively lead and manage - many of these only get better through practice. Ericsson wrote about the use of deliberate practice for leaders in a Harvard Business Review article, entitled "The making of an expert." Developing leaders need continuous feedback from mentors in order to develop and refine the skills that they will need to be successful. Similarly, daily self-reflection on how a leader's day went is also vitally important. These things are, in essence, deliberate practice - premeditated, purposeful, intentionally-focused training!
No comments:
Post a Comment