Productivity, Excellence and Giftedness
Gregorio Billikopf
University of California
Ed. This piece was originally posted on HRNET by Gregorio Billikopf of the University of California. It has some excellent thoughts, but even more important it’s a great stimulus for thinking and discussion around many HR, training, performance and learning issues. Gregorio has kind given permission to reprint here on our blog. Also added in the reply section is Robert Bacal’s reply, also from HRNET.
Over the last week I have had a very stimulating conversation with a renowned physician and pathologist, Oliver Stanton, and Anders Ericsson, author of the Harvard Business Review (HBR) paper, “The making of an Expert.”1 The HBR article centers on the old question, “Are gifted people—or those who succeed in a field—born or made?” This has been the question employers have asked over the years. Can I, they ask. Train my weaker employees by putting them alongside the best to bring them up to the level of these outstandi΅g employees? Anders Eriΰsson et al suggest that indeed there are differῥnces in giftednesῳ, but that for the most part exerts and giftῥd performers are made, not born. In their paper they introduce three concepts that I wish to share here: 1) the importance of deliberate practice, 2) the avoidance of creeping intuition and 3) tῨe value of providing excῥllent coaches.
Anders has found that behind excellence there is almost always a lot of practice. He uses the expression deliberate practice because it is one thing to rehearse what one has already conquered, but deliberate practice involves working on those areas that do not come so effortlessly. For those truly seeking to excel, the paper recommends two hours per day of such focused practice. Many incorrectly come to think that these gifts just fall on peoples laps. One sportsman explained that people perceive him as a natural golfer, but what they do not see are the endless hours of practice that often yielded bloody hands. Many interesting examples are given from the fields of sport, literature, music and chess. Practice is especially productive under the eyes of the right coach, they argue persuasively. I would add that deliberate practice through introspection and self-learning is an important complement to having an excellent coach.
The second concept, creeping intuition, is the refusal of those who excel to automatically classify new information as something they have already seen before. Individuals who avoid the creeping intuition trap do not allow themselves to think they have already learned what there is to learn. Such successful individuals are constantly trying to improve and think of new possibilities. They do not fall into a rut.
Let us return to the question, “Are gifted people born or made? Is it enough for managers to get the right training? Without a doubt, better and more focused training will be of great help. Three decades ago I worked with a number of Junior Colleges and helped them introduce welding and mechanics training for farm workers. We used an individualized training metῨod which permitted participants to learn and progress at their own pace and become so outstandingdespite their limited formal educationthat one of the long time college instructors declared that these workers as a whole had outperformed his previous students. I have been conducting quality control studies along with a number ofᾠcolleagues in Chile. The results will permit us to help individuals to focus, through deliberate practice, on the type of plant or fruit defects that are difficult to identifyat both the group and individual level. These same principles can be applied to
non-agricultural jobs.
My own perspective on the topic of giftedness, productivity and excellence goes along these lines: There are great differences in individual productivity and these follow a normal distribution curve. My studies show that the best crew worker is typically capable of working 4 to 8 times faster than the worst in the same crew. Oliver Stanton shared data with me from his own pathology lab that confirms these numbers outside of agriculture. Differences in capability and productivity include ability to discern issues of quality, not just faster work. I am a great believer in job sample tests for all applicants, regardless of the job.
The S Curve is often used to explain how people learn. The beginning of the S is flat, followed by a steep line and culminating once again with a flat line. At first the learning is slow, then it accelerates, and finally the learning tapers off again. It is helpful to think of a number of connected S Curves, one on top of another. A breakthrough is another word for saying that a person moved from one S Curve to the next. Some breakthroughs are so creative that once we have been shown the way, we may easily follow down that path. I suspect that the people who break through to some of these higher levels have avoided the creeping intuition that Anders Ericsson warns us about. Years ago I read about a young man who took temporary employment. His boss had him remove cement from pipes in order to reuse them. The youth knew he was falling way behind and would not do well in this arduous and time consuming task. Suddenly, instead of hitting the concrete on the
pipe, he felt inspired to hit the pipe itself. This job was transformed from a formidable challenge to an easy one. The pipes started flying and he was soon done. When his boss returned and saw him sitting, he assumed this was one more youth who had not stuck it out and had quit. Instead, he found the young man had completed the whole task in one morning. This is certainly a breakthrough that permitted the young man to greatly succeed, and one that others could also imitate and learn from.
Some tasks are simple enough that the basic S Curve may take a few minutes to conquer. Farm foremen tell me, that for the most part, three days are sufficient to see if inexperienced pickers and pruners will master these skill and work above a set standard. This is not to say they stop learning after three days. One gifted worker explained that while he is pruning a vine he already is making pruning decisions for the next! There are other jobs that require months, years or decades to truly master. Many jobs, such as learning to be a truly effective manager, are complex enough that a lifetime is not sufficient to master the necessary skills. The art of dressage (equestrian sport) is conquered by very few peopleeven with the help of Olympic level riders and coaches.
I like the formula:
Productivity = Ability x Motivation
By productivity (or excellence) I mean a combination of speed, quality, and discernment. Ability is what a person can do. Motivation is what a person will do. If either ability or motivation comes close to zero, then productivity will be close to a flat line. If motivation is very low, it matters little how much potential a person may have. You probably know people who have extraordinary aptitude but their lives have not amounted to much (in terms of developing these talents). If talent in an area is very low, it matters little how much motivation and desire they have to improve. I like to use myself as an example here. I would love to be able to sing well but I joke that I got rich because people paid me not to sing.
I have come to the conclusion that each one of us is born with specific inherent potential gifts. In order for these gifts to flourish we must be exposed to the appropriate activity. I hate to think of what would have happened if Johann Sebastian Bach had not been born to the home and epoch that he was born to. I wonder how many people have hidden talents that are just as powerful but go undiscovered or, worse, do not surface from lack of deliberate practice. Some may give up too soon, supposing that if they were really good at something success would be quickly manifested. Other factors also come into play, of course, such as availability of an appropriate coach or limited time to spend on developing talents. I suspect that lack of deliberate practice is a much more serious setback than a lack of inherent gifts. Relatively few people seem committed enough to wish to tackle learning that requires extensive dedication. Once we choose an area or field to
improve in, however, I would suggest that each one of us has a different inherent potential in terms of how far we can succeed.
Many skills, abilities and gifts can be measured over time and have been shown to be quite a constant. This is true of IQ tests and it is also true of pruning tests. I have given brief pruning tests (46 minutes) to farm workers at the beginning of the season. Then, I have compared the test results to their on-the-job performance and obtained very high correlation coefficients (thus showing that the test was predictive of on-the-job performance). I would expect that for tasks that require a relatively short learning curve, each person has an upper potential limit. Once a person reaches close to their top performance, additional improvement requires much more effort. Olympic 100 meter runners spend years training to shave of a few seconds from their best times. A fraction of a second normally makes the difference between a gold and silver medalist or not even medaling at all. Theoretical upper limits exist for almost any activity we are interested in
perfecting. I say theoretical, as some activities or jobs—such as a human resource manager—would require more than a lifetime to perfect. These upper limits are more artificial and self imposed. As a result we are nowhere close to hitting our potential upper limit. We can easily continue to make huge improvements throughout our lives, regardless of our inherent management abilities. Of ΰourse, someone with more inherenῴ management skills, who is also willing to dedicate the necessary effort, will simply improve faster. We cannot downplay the role of inherent ability.
Employers often tell me, “Give me someone with the right attitude over someone with a lot of skill.” I contend that this is not an either / or proposition. I say, “Give me a person with the right attitude—a passion for learning—who also has inherent talent.”
Yes, providing the gifted and outstanding employee to coach his or her co-workers has the potential to help the rest improve. Even with the best help, the worst in a group are seldom able to do half of what the best can. This is particularly true if pay is properly designed. A validated job sample test is an excellent investment because it helps us detect and hire people who are good for the job and reject those who would have failed at the same. True, even a valid test is not perfectalthough it beats the interview any dayin that 1) a few will excel on the test yet do poorly on the job, and 2) a few that failed the test would have excelled on the job. So for me, the answer to the question, Are gifted people born or made? has to be a resounding, it takes both.
Now it is your turn to give me your opinions.
____
1 Anders Ericsson, Michael J. Prietula, and Edward T. Cokely, July-August 2007. Ericsson is also the editor of the book Development of Professional Expertise: Toward Measurement of Expert Performance and Design of Optimal Learning Environments (Cambridge University Press, 576 pp, 2009).
Gregorio Billikopf
gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu
#1 by Robert Bacal on July 11, 2009 - 11:48 am
Interesting and thought provoking. First wonder if you might permit
me to reprint this on my blog, with proper attribution so we might be able
to discuss the issues there.
Just one or two points.
On 10 Jul 2009 at 15:34, Gregorio Billikopf wrote:
> I have come to the conclusion that each one of us is born with
> specific inherent potential gifts. In order for these gifts to
> flourish we must be exposed to the appropriate activity. I hate to
> think of what would have happened if Johann Sebastian Bach had not
> been born to the home and epoch that he was born to.
There’s a need for great care here. For every Bach, there are
thousands of workaday musicians and composers, and when we are
talking about work, let’s say in music, there isn’t actually a great need
for every worker to be Bach.
The point here is that most jobs are simply not so demanding as to
require great inherent ability/talent to fulfil at a satisfactory
level. In fact, generally, even in knowledge work, you probably don’t want
10 brilliant peole.
I agre that genetics and early home life place an upper ceiling on an
individual BUT that the huge majority of jobs can be done without bumping
up against one’s limitations.
Simply, few jobs require genius. That in fact is why it appears that
training, etc, can bring people along. It can, because the job doesn’t
require more than people have to offer. (this are all horrible
generalizations, sorry)
You do not have to be born with incredible dexterity to function
excel at a keyboard, or to drive a tractor on a farm. Most people,
with proper training, can learn to be “good enough”. However most
people cannot learn to drive Indy 500 cars safely and competitively. Then
again, we don’t need many.
I wonder how many
> people have hidden talents that are just as powerful but go
> undiscovered or, worse, do not surface from lack of deliberate
> practice. Some may give up too soon, supposing that if they were
> really good at something success would be quickly manifested. Other
> factors also come into play, of course, such as availability of an
> appropriate coach or limited time to spend on developing talents. I
> suspect that lack of deliberate practice is a much more serious setback
> than a lack of inherent gifts. Relatively few people seem committed
> enough to wish to tackle learning that requires extensive dedication.
> Once we choose an area or field to improve in, however, I would suggest
> that each one of us has a different inherent potential in terms of how
> far we can succeed.
WOW. Lots of good stuff there. Again the one thing is this: The level or
proficiency required. I learned a number of things as an adult,
self-taught that involve a LOT of deliberate practice – guitar, piano
keyboards, bicycling and driving a car.
The truth is that it became clear that musically, I could go only so far
without additional formal arduous instruction because of some lack of
certain abilities. I could play pretty well, mind you. But not very well.
But even so, no amount of instruction and practice would make me into Eric
Clapton.
Just to add, I’ll never have the proficiency and skill in driving a
bicycle or a car compared to if I had learned when I was 8yrs or
16yrs. When one learns matters.
>
> Many skills, abilities and gifts can be measured over time and have been
> shown to be quite a constant. This is true of IQ tests and it is also
> true of pruning tests. I have given brief pruning tests (46 minutes) to
> farm workers at the beginning of the season. Then, I have compared the
> test results to their on-the-job performance and obtained very high
> correlation coefficients (thus showing that the test was predictive of
> on-the-job performance). I would expect that for tasks that require a
> relatively short learning curve, each person has an upper potential
> limit. Once a person reaches close to their top performance, additional
> improvement requires much more effort.
Yes. Exactly. But the issue is what level the job requires. Does it
really matter if Joe prunes 5% faster because he’s a pruning genius? If we
could raise pruning by 5% via training, would it really be worthwhile?
What about 50%? What would be the fail rate at that level?
Olympic
> 100 meter runners spend years training to shave of a few seconds from
> their best times. A fraction of a second normally makes the difference
> between a gold and silver medalist or not even medaling at all.
> Theoretical upper limits exist for almost any activity we are interested
> in perfecting. I say theoretical, as some activities or jobs-such as a
> human resource manager-would require more than a lifetime to perfect.
> These upper limits are more artificial and self imposed.
I’d have to take more care reading, but aren’t there some
contradictions in your statements about upper limits? They can’t be
both controlled by self, AND subject to fixed talent parameters.
As a result we are nowhere close to hitting our potential
> upper limit. We can easily continue to make huge improvements
> throughout our lives, regardless of our inherent management abilities.
> Of ?ourse, someone with more inheren? management skills, who is also
> willing to dedicate the necessary effort, will simply improve faster. We
> cannot downplay the role of inherent ability.
Or what many would call personality, but which I prefer to call
“other personal characteristics”.
The level that any person can achieve is a function of both ability
(which sets a ceiling) PLUS personality factors.
I’m a smart guy, blessed with some verbal talents and abilities, and
average in others. I have also been blessed with a phenomenal educaton. I
knew when I was in my early twenties that the limits to my performance
would never be from my talents, innate lack, but from the personality that
enables one to make best use of the talents.
There are certainly people who are better writers, better trainers,
better anythings than I am, particularly if they have a combination
of talent and personality that fits.
Which I think is what you said below. See, I should have read all of it
first.
Here’s the critical HR question:
Given that most jobs do NOT require talent beyond an average level,
how much should we invest in a) hiring the best (when average will
do), and b) training people beyond the level of “average”?
If you need brilliance and genius you hire for it, aim them and let
them work.
#2 by Gregorio Billikopf on July 13, 2009 - 8:19 pm
Robert,
Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Here are my responses.
_________________
Interesting and thought provoking. First wonder if you might permit
me to reprint this on my blog, with proper attribution so we might be
able to discuss the issues there.
Just one or two points.
On 10 Jul 2009 at 15:34, Gregorio Billikopf wrote:
> I have come to the conclusion that each one of us is born with
> specific inherent potential gifts. In order for these gifts to
> flourish we must be exposed to the appropriate activity. I hate to
> think of what would have happened if Johann Sebastian Bach had not
> been born to the home and epoch that he was born to.
There’s a need for great care here. For every Bach, there are
thousands of workaday musicians and composers, and when we are
talking about work, let’s say in music, there isn’t actually a great
need for every worker to be Bach.
The point here is that most jobs are simply not so demanding as to
require great inherent ability/talent to fulfill at a satisfactory
level. In fact, generally, even in knowledge work, you probably don’t
want 10 brilliant people.
*** Robert: I agree that there are many jobs that do not require brilliance. Just basic competitiveness to get the job done at a reasonable speed and handle the necessary exceptions. For instance, working in a toll bridge requires someone who can give change quickly, but there is a limit after which additional speed will not make a difference. – GB
I agree that genetics and early home life place an upper ceiling on an
individual BUT that the huge majority of jobs can be done without
bumping up against one’s limitations.
Simply, few jobs require genius. That in fact is why it appears that
training, etc, can bring people along. It can, because the job
doesn’t require more than people have to offer. (this are all
horrible generalizations, sorry)
You do not have to be born with incredible dexterity to function
excel at a keyboard, or to drive a tractor on a farm. Most people,
with proper training, can learn to be “good enough”. However most
people cannot learn to drive Indy 500 cars safely and competitively.
Then again, we don’t need many.
*** Robert: I have done tests in terms of handling a keyboard (or did you mean a musical keyboard, here?), that show that on the top end of a group of 120 applicants, the best was typing at 90 words per minute without mistakes and the worst at 15 words per minute. All of the applicants knew that the minimum speed for the job was 60 words per minute. Driving a tractor at a farm can be quite tricky when it comes to tractors with a trailer, in that it takes quite a bit of skill to back up a tractor and trailer into a row (a vital skill when working in a vineyard or orchard). I have also tested secretaries and found huge variances in terms of their ability to write or proofread. So, perhaps we are taking a bit about the extremes. The genius category could, I agree, be detrimental. In the case of vineyard pruners, hiring the master pruners can make a huge difference if I pay piece rate, but it probably does not matter if I pay by the hour. If I pay by the hour, the best pruner in the crew will work no faster than the slowest one. If my piece rate is properly designed, on the other hand, I can end up hiring pruners who are brilliant at what they do and pay them four times (or more) than what they would earn by the hour and save money on my pruning costs per acre because I can prune with fewer employees who can perform at a higher quality level. The challenge here is what Frederick Taylor spoke about, the fear of having the piece rate cut when employees show the employer how fast they really can go and still do the job well. But Taylor made other mistakes I will write about at another time. Employees are often punished when they do their best in piece-rate pay situations. The rate is almost always cut–either today or in the future. So trust plays a huge role here. Also, as minimum hourly wages go up, piece rate pay has to go up even if the employees are already making huge amounts over the minimum wage already. I have a number of employers who are working with me on these concepts and we have had great success. I hope to publish these results over the coming years. But yes, I agree that for most jobs that are paid on an hourly basis, we do not need that level of master performance. -GB
I wonder how many
> people have hidden talents that are just as powerful but go
> undiscovered or, worse, do not surface from lack of deliberate
> practice. Some may give up too soon, supposing that if they were
> really good at something success would be quickly manifested. Other
> factors also come into play, of course, such as availability of an
> appropriate coach or limited time to spend on developing talents. I
> suspect that lack of deliberate practice is a much more serious
> setback than a lack of inherent gifts. Relatively few people seem
> committed enough to wish to tackle learning that requires extensive
> dedication. Once we choose an area or field to improve in, however, I
> would suggest that each one of us has a different inherent potential
> in terms of how far we can succeed.
WOW. Lots of good stuff there. Again the one thing is this: The level
or proficiency required. I learned a number of things as an adult,
self-taught that involve a LOT of deliberate practice – guitar, piano
keyboards, bicycling and driving a car.
The truth is that it became clear that musically, I could go only so
far without additional formal arduous instruction because of some
lack of certain abilities. I could play pretty well, mind you. But
not very well. But even so, no amount of instruction and practice
would make me into Eric Clapton.
Just to add, I’ll never have the proficiency and skill in driving a
bicycle or a car compared to if I had learned when I was 8yrs or
16yrs. When one learns matters.
>
> Many skills, abilities and gifts can be measured over time and have
> been shown to be quite a constant. This is true of IQ tests and it is
> also true of pruning tests. I have given brief pruning tests (46
> minutes) to farm workers at the beginning of the season. Then, I have
> compared the test results to their on-the-job performance and obtained
> very high correlation coefficients (thus showing that the test was
> predictive of on-the-job performance). I would expect that for tasks
> that require a relatively short learning curve, each person has an
> upper potential limit. Once a person reaches close to their top
> performance, additional improvement requires much more effort.
Yes. Exactly. But the issue is what level the job requires. Does it
really matter if Joe prunes 5% faster because he’s a pruning genius?
If we could raise pruning by 5% via training, would it really be
worthwhile? What about 50%? What would be the fail rate at that
level?
*** Robert. As I mentioned in the pruning work, my studies show that the best pruner can outperform the worst, in a typical crew, in the order of a 4:1 to an 8:1 ratio. It makes all the difference in the world if I pay these men and women 4 to 8 times more, and hire fewer people. I am working toward the idea of a professional farm worker, a master of his or her trade. To use actual numbers, one worker pruned 3 vines while another pruned 24! This was a 46 minute test. Just do the math for an eight hour day. But none of this matters if the pay design is wrong. I have written specific guidelines for piece rate paid work. When there is a labor shortage, I can be quite assured I will have an adequate labor supply if I am hiring the master pruners. This would not work if everyone wanted to hire the master pruners. Not to worry, this will not happen anytime soon. Once again, it has to be a combination of hiring the masters and paying them correctly. –GB
Olympic
> 100 meter runners spend years training to shave of a few seconds from
> their best times. A fraction of a second normally makes the difference
> between a gold and silver medalist or not even medaling at all.
> Theoretical upper limits exist for almost any activity we are
> interested in perfecting. I say theoretical, as some activities or
> jobs-such as a human resource manager-would require more than a
> lifetime to perfect. These upper limits are more artificial and self
> imposed.
I’d have to take more care reading, but aren’t there some
contradictions in your statements about upper limits? They can’t be
both controlled by self, AND subject to fixed talent parameters.
*** Robert. Hmm. Here is what I meant. The upper limit is not automaticaly achieved. We have to work to reach it. We can never achieve that upper limit. As we get closer and closer to it, the effort and time required increases. This is an important point, so please question me again if I am still not being clear. I may have to use a graph to illustrate it. You could, as described by your words above, dedicate a lot more time to your musical talents and improve greatly (although I suspect you are quite good). But all the same you realize that even then (expectancy theory) your upper limit is not high enough to play as well as a gifted artist. Or, you have other tallents where you know that the improvement will be more valued, perhaps (once again, expectancy theory).
–GB
As a result we are nowhere close to hitting our potential
> upper limit. We can easily continue to make huge improvements
> throughout our lives, regardless of our inherent management abilities.
> Of ?ourse, someone with more inheren? management skills, who is also
> willing to dedicate the necessary effort, will simply improve faster.
> We cannot downplay the role of inherent ability.
Or what many would call personality, but which I prefer to call
“other personal characteristics”.
*** Robert. I also would prefer personal characteristics. –GB
The level that any person can achieve is a function of both ability
(which sets a ceiling) PLUS personality factors.
I’m a smart guy, blessed with some verbal talents and abilities, and
average in others. I have also been blessed with a phenomenal
educaton. I knew when I was in my early twenties that the limits to
my performance would never be from my talents, innate lack, but from
the personality that enables one to make best use of the talents.
There are certainly people who are better writers, better trainers,
better anythings than I am, particularly if they have a combination
of talent and personality that fits.
Which I think is what you said below. See, I should have read all of
it first.
*** Robert. Yeap. That is what I was trying to say. –GB
Here’s the critical HR question:
Given that most jobs do NOT require talent beyond an average level,
how much should we invest in a) hiring the best (when average will
do), and b) training people beyond the level of “average”?
If you need brilliance and genius you hire for it, aim them and let
them work.
*** Robert: Yes, for every job a person needs a certain level of competence in the subject matter. Some jobs are such that these levels may be reached relatively quickly. Let us not discount human differences, though. I hired two people for a particular position. One employee was so fabulous, she walked on water and went on to bigger and better things after four years. When she left we used the same test to hire the next individual. This person scored about 87% as well. Not bad. Her performance turned out to be 87% as good, in terms of her ability to make decisions and think analytically. For jobs that take creativity and analytical skills, it pays to hire people with higher level skills. Even for simple tasks, it pays to test people. I trained two soccer referees to be a linesman. This requires a decent amount of brains, but there are mechanical aspects, too, which are relatively easy to learn.
One was able to master the mechanics of raising the flag after being shown twice, the other was not able to do so after being shown ten times and given opportunities to practice. Once again, thanks for letting me comment. –GB