David Epstein was previously a senior writer for Sports Illustrated and has a master’s degree in environmental science and journalism. This important book discusses how to improve performance, i.e. explore how to be successful. Perhaps surprising to many, the author convincingly concludes that the key is to embrace breath and to embark on a journey of experimentation. The author has convincingly documented that the power of breath is real, that experience matters, and that interdisciplinary experience is thus key. And this must notably take place within organizations that increasingly seem to demand hyper-specialization.
Not surprisingly the book starts out with a comparison of the careers of two successful sports legends; Tiger Woods and Roger Federer. Both became specialists in their disciplines, golf and tennis respectively. But, while Tiger seems to have been focusing on golf, golf, golf exclusively, and from an early age, Roger, in contrast, seems to have initially been practicing a wide range of sports during his early years – skiing, soccer, badminton, …, until he eventually specialized in tennis. One might argue that this, at least in part, might be due to the different nature of the sports: golf being perhaps more routine, thus representing a somewhat kinder learning environment, in contrast to the less predictable tennis, a more ”wicked” learning environment. But beyond this it seems clear that the more specialized Tiger hit the wall in his career much earlier than the more generalist Roger.
While an early specialized head start is clearly one key to success, particularly when it comes to “wicked” areas of learning a more generalist approach, combined with specialization later on, might be more appropriate. The two world-leading psychologists Gary Klein and Daniel Kahneman put diametrically opposite weight on the two dimensions. The reality seems to be that both specialization and generalization are needed!
How was this wicked world made, i.e. where we have a world with relative weak repetitive patterns? We might expect relatively more cross-disciplinarity in these cases. To cope in such settings is certainly not easy. The so-called Flynn effect, for instance, seems to be documenting a steady rise in the quality of IQ in soldiers. But this seems to have to do with the fact that the gist of the questions for most IQ-tests tend to focus on more predictable issues. So, while people seem to get smarter and smarter over time, the reality is a steady and constant IQ pattern. The author thus focusses on the “wicked” world – with lack of predictability and regular, recognizable patterns. Cross-disciplinarity and a more generalist approach is essential, to effectively cope in these settings.
The author then discusses how a more generalist background seems to be key also when it comes to the field of music, and his span of analysis goes from Vivaldi to Django Reinhart. New heights of difficulties in composing and/or playing seem again to be attainable, primarily for generalists.
Thinking “outside the box” as we commonly say, seems to be closely related to generalism also. Among the many examples cited are perhaps the astronomical discoveries of Keppler the most noticeable. The free-wheeling thinking and reasoning here is in contrast to the so-called “inside view”, a phrase coined by Tversky and Kahneman.
The ability to be able to decide when it might be time to quit, rather than to become trapped in decisions that seems to be leading us down a wrong path, seems key. Such entrapment is always hard to cope with. However, it is probably more easily handled by generalists. On a personal basis I experienced this when it came to the sale of my shipping company, S. Ugelstad. I was widely criticized for being very stupid, plainly “wrong” by many. However, it became apparent later that this decision seemed to be a good one!
Mr. Epstein also analyses career shifts, and reports on several illuminaries “winding” careers - critical when it comes to learning, testing and becoming “fuller” generalists. This is thus not a “linear” career planning process. Leading artists such as Leonardo da Vinci, Paul Gaugin or Vincent van Gogh are examples of this “winding” world career evolutions.
Again, the non-specialists win out with their ability to “see” things more clearly by having a stronger outsider’s advantage! One story regarding this comes to mind in particular, which was told to me by my mathematics professor at Yale: The young undergraduate George Dantzig was enrolled in a mathematics class at UCLA. The professor always started each session by writing down a problem for the students to solve at home before the next session. George Dantzig came a few minutes late to one of the last classes (he was caught in a typical Los Angeles traffic jam!), but just in time to copy down the problem that the professor had written down. He then went home and solved this the same evening. He has not heard that the professor had just said: “This problem has never been solved, and never will be!”. The young Dantzig, a generalist not a specialist, came up with the seminal proof of the theorem behind linear programming (the so-called Simplex algorithm)!
“Lateral” thinking is key to complement so-called “horizontal” thinking. We clearly need both – “visionary birds”/generalists and “focused frogs”/ linear specialists. But significant innovative contributions seem to be based more on lateral experiences. We can often see examples of this. In contrast, when considering so-called experts providing forecasts, they are almost always poor! In contrast, non-experts, more curious and more actively open-minded, may often do better!
Familiar analytical tools, especially statistical ones, may lead statistics experts down non-sustainable paths. One should, of course, not ignore available data, but always keep in mind that there also probably are so-called missing data. There is a premium on generalist thinking in handling this.
The author makes the observation that, while the funding levels in many areas of research have increased, in some cases dramatically, it is puzzling to register that the levels of research break-throughs generally do not seem to have accrued as much as we perhaps might have hoped for. Is there too much narrow specialization in many research teams? The author thinks so! Perhaps this also might be illustrated by the wave of take-overs that large, established firms seem to be making, “gobbling up” smaller, innovative firms! This is perhaps especially apparent in the pharmaceutical field. Larger firms seem to be built up around specialized departmental silos, in contrast to the cross-functionality that by necessity is the reality in smaller firms. It might perhaps not have been the intension, but more innovation/generalist focus/smaller firms seem to do better, in contrast to what we find in larger firms, with more of a focus on departmentalization.
The book concludes with a renewed plea for a generalist view based on breath and experimentation. Such experimentation must of course be done in a context that tolerates occasional setbacks, even failures. Without such an open culture it may be difficult to see how the generalist’s way might work. A willingness to adjust as you go is of course also key here, i.e. with no defense of “old specialized departmental turfs”!
I am recommending this book. It is time that we move outside our specialized silos, and embrace teamwork – “we, we, we”!
Comments