I'm not one who usually criticizes books on spec, but after numerous discussions and a lot of public praise and outrage engendered by Malcolm Gladwell's latest book, Outliers, which I haven't yet read, I feel confident enough to remark on a few points.
"He challenges the American Dream," claimed John Keehler, author of Random Culture and Director of Strategy at the company I work for, Click Here.
"Gladwell conveys how systems and environments favor certain people and not others," wrote my brother, Gannon. Consequently, he says, Gladwell "gives luck far more weight than it deserves."
The Hockey Problem
In the example in Outliers I hear most frequently, Gladwell notes that a person's month of birth determines how successful they are in hockey, because the cutoff age favors the older players at an age when 11 months difference can result in huge disparities in talent.
This systematic disparity rewards the older, more developed players with more attention and even further development at the expense of those whose only drawback was to be born a bit too early or too late, which, of course, they had no control over. Over time, this advantage exponentially rewards the older players (relative to the cutoff date) and confounds the younger into quitting.
Theoretically, this same advantage applies to children in school, who face similar cutoff dates and rewards the children who have had proportionally more time to cognitively develop.
All of these things may be shown true by statistics, but that does not mean that success is determined by the luck of the draw, or when one's parents happened to procreate.
What is an Opportunity?
As Gannon said, there is a stark difference between learning opportunities and success opportunities.
Learning opportunities, which are plentiful and unlimited, cost a lot in terms of time or both time and money. It is what well-meaning coaches and parents provide to the older hockey players and students. The chance to learn something new. Or the chance to learn something better.
Success opportunities are typically more financially rewarding, and they favor those who risked their time and money to become experts in an area where those opportunities abide.
Based on the reviews I've read and the conversations I've had, Gladwell seems to discount the probability that people are capable of overcoming the obstacles put in their path by the systems of which they are a part.
He correctly notes the most people don't, and incorrectly concludes that because of that, there's a significant problem with the system.
Economist and author Thomas Sowell puts it this way:
It is not easy, however, to share the author's belief that social
policies can spread the advantages of some to the population at large.
It seems even less likely that empowering politicians to do so will
make things better overall than they are in the very imperfect world we
currently live in.
As Gladwell says, the famous people we correctly admire did not achieve all that they achieved by themselves. They were the beneficiaries of all sorts of advantages and opportunities.
However, Gladwell incorrectly focuses on the success opportunities, not the learning opportunities the "lucky" put themselves through in order to be in the position to take advantage of the success opportunities.
The Problem With "Success"
Part of the problem, I think, is with Gladwell's notion of success. It is not just the Bill Gateses, Benjamin Franklins, Alexander Hamiltons, Oprah Winfreys, and Wayne Gretzkies of the world who are successful.
It is also the teachers, mentors, and coaches who saw something in them that is worthwhile enough to lend them a hand. To help them develop in spite of whatever shortcomings they may have had.
Yes, the more well-known individuals achieved something few ever have and few ever will. They are outliers in the pantheon of success.
But what they accomplished could not have been but for the contributions of a lot of good, common people who willingly and without remorse gave of themselves to others -- people who contemporary society views with less admiration.
Why is it that we only recognize success if people have written books about them? Or if they have achieved some measure of fame in their own right?
Fame isn't success. Fame is fame. Prosperity isn't success, either. Prosperity is prosperity.
Perhaps no one knew this better than one of Gladwell's "outliers," Benjamin Franklin, who once remarked, "I would rather have it said, 'he lived usefully' than 'he died rich.'"
Know Your Role - And Exceed It
Success is measured in one's ability to constructively contribute to a noble and worthwhile goal in ones' existence or beyond.
You may be the one who, like the people mentioned earlier, is recognized for his contribution. Or you may be the one who gave the key insight to someone who took advantage of an opportunity to make a connection no one else previously had.
You get there by helping people, not by whining about the system seemingly stacked against your accumulation of material wealth or knowledge.
And you will frequently find yourself in position to help people only if you're dedicated to learn and share what you learned.
It matters not one bit when you were born.
- Cam Beck
Recent Comments