"Cool Runnings"

Imagine, if you will, what would happen if a group of athletes from a tropical island in the Caribbean Sea attempted to qualify for the Olympics in a sport that is usually only played during the winter season.  Well, this is actually what happened with the 1988 Jamaican bobsleigh team, which was the subject of the 1983 comedy film, "Cool Runnings" starring the late John Candy.  The film, like most movies, is largely fictionalized account of what actually happened at the 1988 Winter Olympics.  The team was recruited from the Jamaican Army and had no previous experience in the sport.  They did actually qualify for the 1988 Winter Olympics in the four-man bobsled event in Calgary, Alberta.  The team did not officially finish, as they lost control and crashed during their final run.  However, it was a great story and a great movie!


The story of the Jamaican bobsleigh team definitely violates all the major arguments in K. Anders Ericsson's theory of "deliberate practice" and the so-called "10,000 hour rule" popularized by the author Malcolm Gladwell in his book, Outliers.  Basically, Ericsson's "theory of deliberate practice" and Gladwell's "10,000 hour rule" suggest that the only way to develop deep expertise in something - say Olympic bobsledding - is through years and years of practice.  According to this line of thinking, the best way to develop Olympic caliber talent in a sport is to identify athletes early in their lives (i.e., when they are children) and have them focus on just that particular sport.  Based on this argument, there is no way that a bobsledding team from Jamaica could have ever qualified for the Winter Olympics.  They didn't have nearly enough experience.


Of course, there is a different theory as well.  As I have previously discussed, David Epstein wrote a fantastic book called Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World that provides evidence completely counter to Ericsson's and Gladwell's argument.  As this line of evidence would recommend, the best way to develop deep expertise is to develop general skills and abilities and then specialize later in life in one particular area (see my previous post, "Be like the Renaissance").


There are other examples in the sports science literature that suggest that "late specialization" as discussed in Epstein's book is the absolute best approach.  For example, an unpublished retrospective review of Australian senior national athletes (the "best of the best") showed that 28% attained elite status within just 4 years of participating in their sport for the first time!  On average, these elite athletes had participated in three sports before ultimately deciding to focus on just one sport.  Based partly on these results, the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) subsequently identified a small group of female athletes from sports  such as track (sprinters), surf life saving, and short track speed skating.  Just 14 months later, one of these athletes qualified for the Winter Olympics in the sport of skeleton.


These examples of so-called "late specialization" don't necessarily disprove the theory of deliberate practice.  Rather, the AIS example suggests that "deliberate practice" is simply a subset of something called "deliberate programming."  Here, athletes with innate talent (these athletes excelled in their previous sports) are identified from a greater pool of athletes and then undergo focused training ("late specialization") with access to high-quality coaches, trainers, and equipment.  In other words, identify athletes with generalized skills and talent and then expose them to intensive training and elite-level competitions, which is very similar to deliberate practice!


These are fascinating studies which certainly raise a lot of fascinating questions.  I can think of a few that are relevant to leadership.  Is it better that leaders have general knowledge in a wide range of areas ("mile wide, inch deep") and disciplines with significant managerial and leadership training and experience?  Or should leaders have deep technical knowledge and expertise ("mile deep, inch wide") in a particular focus area before entering management?  So far, I don't these questions have been definitively answered.  It's a great discussion - which side are you on?