10,000 Hour Rule: Malcolm Gladwell’s 10,000 Hours of Practice Theory from Outliers Visualized

The value of expertise is something we spend a lot of time thinking about at Zintro. Having years (and thousands of hours) of dedicated focus and practice within a specific niche is obviously highly valuable and allows a person to have a unique, proprietary perspective on that niche (and usually highly valuable expertise). But how many hours is “enough” to achieve expertise status? One take on the subject we (and many others) found interesting was Malcolm Gladwell’s in the book Outliers where he popularized the theory that 10,000 hours of dedicated practice in a given field or area of expertise allows a person to become truly “expert”. We’ve created the infographic below to take a deeper look at this idea:

A visual representation of Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 Hour Rule

 

Zintro has experts in every industry sector, across every job function, in every geographic region. Recently, some of the following topics have seen inquiry activity:

Comments

  1. It is not “PRACTICE” alone that brings mastery. One must practice the CORRECT behaviors. If a speaker spends 10K hours practicing bad or poor communication skills the result will not be anything like perfection. In fact, good skills practiced well (with regular coaching) could achieve mastery in LESS than 10K hours.

    • It states all that in the graphic. Did you even read it?

    • @menairwilson: goes to show you might not have gone the expert route yourself… important is not that you do the “right” thing; whatever you do with passion and deliberate practice is what you learn, be it recognizing patterns in movies (something “useless” or “wrong”) or quantum physics (something “right”).

      Another factor is simply that one can’t keep on going for 10000 hours (or any other sufficiently high number) without developing a personal relationship and intimate understanding with the subject.

      A speaker that spends his 10k “practicing bad or poor communication skills” (whatever that means, bad accent?) and loving it will achieve expert level on that particular communication style: he will have theories on how to do that kind of communication right; he has standards. Whether those are the “right” standards (e.g. that someone is willing to pay for) is completely another issue and beside the point.

    • but at least those 10K hours in bad practice will make you an expert in the “wrong” way. which in it’s turn then might simply become a “new” way? especially in the case of art, this is very desirable i would say. 10.000 hours of unusual use of materials might do a lot of good.

    • Yes agreed, but the 10k hours also gives you contacts, context, feedback, experience and so much more. You are right, sitting alone in your bedroom doing something badly won’t help, no matter how long you do it.

  2. Michael Holl says:

    I would love to have this as a poster in my classroom. Any plans? Suggestions?

  3. The more you practice the closer you get to achieving your goal. I will work my way to 10,000 hours. To getting closer to any job I career I wish.

  4. I think (above) this is one of the reasons why “build expert habits” (number 3) comes before “practice” (number 5) – you are practicing the expert habits that you have built …

  5. You stated that teaching others was not deliberate practice, then proceded to say that teaching others would help you “cheat the rule.”
    Please don’t contradic yourself in a post. It really undermines the whole value of it.

  6. As an executive coach, I quickly realized that to create commitment to change requires a simple measurable plan custom made to how the client learns and within their time availability.

  7. It explains why a lot of Aspergers types become experts, I have a sneaking suspicion that they are less intelligent than pathologically focused.

  8. Crediting Malcolm Gladwell with this rule is an insult to K. Anders Ericsson, whose research laid the foundation for the 10,000 hour rule. Even crediting Gladwell as a popularizer is deeply lazy writing, since Geoff Colvin’s “Talent is overrated” (2008) and Daniel Coyle’s “The Talent Code” (2010) did a great deal to popularize the idea in more depth than Gladwell’s 2009 book.

  9. Do not forget, they had the talent. Yes, to excel you need a certain amount of talent. But, only talent but no practie will not end in excellence.

  10. Can’t say I’ve read any of the books. I used to work as a teacher, I have met individuals who have easily logged their 10,000 hours classroom teaching and were still rather poor at it. A person could log that with a musical instrument with no understanding of music theory at all, they would not be as proficient as a person who has a very skilled music teacher, but has practiced less.

    I very much suspect that age is also an issue, Mozart learned from his father at a very young age, whether a person who starts in their 30′s could ever catch up with him, I suspect not. Though I personally very much enjoy teaching new skills to people who take them up in later life… they often seem to delight in this more than the youngsters do.

What do you think?