On Gladwell’s Outliers: A Misleading Image of What Contributes to Success
What is success? How does one define it? To some, it is based on social status or the accomplishment of a vision. To others, it is based on wealth, respect, happiness, fame, etc. But beyond definitions, how does one achieve success? What factors lead one to become successful? In Outliers: The Story of Success Malcolm Gladwell delves into circumstances that allow individuals to become successful. He argues that systemically patterned justifications are beyond the reach of an individual’s control which contribute to success. Throughout Outliers, he is guided by the idea that outliers are “the beneficiaries of hidden advantages, extraordinary opportunities and cultural legacies that allow them to learn, work hard and make sense of the world in ways others cannot” (19). One of Gladwell’s strengths is that he identifies these patterned systems, however he overlooks one of the most essential factors beyond an individual’s control, possibly because it is happening at the individual level, our innate biology.
Gladwell examines the lives of remarkable individuals who are “self made”. He claims that when one encounters a successful person, they begin by asking the question of “what they’re like- what kind of personality they have, how intelligent they are, what kind of lifestyle they have, or what special talents they might have been born with”(18). To Gladwell, it is human nature for one to assume that those personal qualities are what allow an individual to become elite to reach the top. However, according to Gladwell we as individuals are profoundly wrong with the way that we view success. Gladwell’s first claim is “The Matthew Effect”, he states that we attribute success to one’s individual qualities, such as talent, motivation, genius, when in fact those factors should not be the main points that foster success. We attribute success to an individual’s efforts, when in reality a major contribution is parentage and patronage, the cultural legacies that allowed successful people to learn and work hard, extraordinary opportunities that were given to them, as well as timing and location. He parallels this concept with an analogy, stating that the tallest tree in a forest grew from a “good seed” but it did not become the tallest tree in the forest because it grew from a good seed, but rather because of its environment, the soil, sunlight, atmosphere, etc. He uses this analogy to allude to the concept of individual success, and further expressing that there are a plethora of factors to take into account when analyzing a successful person, which most of the time are mistakenly not taken into account.
Gladwell uses the story of the Canadian hockey team to support his claim on the Matthew Effect, further expressing that outside factors contribute to the success of the hockey players.
He pinpoints that relative age plays a major role, and an overwhelming number of successful players were born in the months of January- March, and few were born in the later months of October — December. The explanation is that the cutoff date is January 1st, so a player who turns 10 in January in comparison to a player who turns 10 in December plays a role. This creates an advantage, therefore contributing to their success, since at this preadolescent age, a 12 month gap is significant in terms of physical maturity and has an effect on performance.
He claims that whenever there is a severe age cut- off, where there is a selection and differentiation process, the result is unfair and that “ it locks children into patterns of achievement and underachievement, encouragement and discouragement, that stretch on and on for years” (28). This ideology is also compared to the schooling and education system. The relative disadvantage creates a systemic impact, and that opportunity plays a significant role in an individual’s success, as those who are more successful continue to be given more opportunities and will continue to excel and progress.
In the education system, the Matthew Effect is prominent. Keith Stanovich, an applied psychologist and human development professor at the University of Toronto further researches the Matthew Effect and its implications on education. Stanovich looks into the effect that differential education has on students, which process of dividing students into different groups according to their academic performance. Stanovich explains how children who are put into the less advanced reading classes fall behind, “[are] reading less, [therefore] increasing the gap between them and their peers”, which leads to later implications and learning problems. Their difficulty with reading creates difficulty in other school subjects, which causes such students to drop out at a higher rate than their classmates. He emphasizes the importance that reading has on behavioral, cognitive, and motivational consequences and how they are directly linked to cognitive development and inhibits one’s performance on academic achievement. Stanovich states, “The longer this developmental sequence is allowed to continue, the more generalized the deficits will become, seeping into more and more areas of cognition and behavior”(Stanovich). Similar to Stanovich’s argument, Daniel Rigney, sociologist and author of the book, “The Matthew Effect: How Advantage Begets Further Advantage” explains a “self-perpetuating cycle”, and expresses the importance of intervention in a young student’s life. Without intervention he believes they will continue to go into a “downward spiral”. Rigney mentions how a student who hates to read, will read less, which in turn will hinder their development and proficiency in reading, resulting in a decline in academic success, causing them to be more discouraged to excel. Rigney believes that “ Understanding this basic dynamic is essential to those working in education and the social services, such as social work, who encounter daily the effects of such downward spirals on the lives of their students and clients” (Daniel Rigney). Although differential education is aimed at helping students, the reasoning behind its failure is due to the result of the Matthew Effect. Even in aims of fixing the gap, through programs for the gifted and talented such as NCLB (No Child Left Behind Act), such programs were ironically unsuccessful and instead were catalysts of the Matthew Effect, further causing more disadvantages to the education system.
Gladwell’s view on the Matthew Effect is valid. I believe that we are too in awe with those who are succeeding and too dismissive towards those who are left behind and need more attention to grow. We are too focused on individualizing success. We as a society need to shift our mentality to incorporate and not differentiate amongst people based on their abilities and how successful they are, but rather help cultivate an environment for every “level”, whether that level is an age group, socioeconomic class, or a disability when it comes to learning in the education system. Our current systems are not fair and efficient, as we as a society are blocking the advancement of individuals who are left behind and differentiated against. Rather than excluding individuals, we can create an environment to help them thrive, therefore benefiting our society. But with our current system, those who are excluded are unmotivated, as they see their fellow peers excelling and are not given the opportunities and resources to grow. If we utilize these missed opportunities to lift them up as well as create an environment where they can succeed, we as a society will progress and move forward.
The 10,000 hour rule is another significant ideology within the story of Outliers. He mentions that just because a hockey player was born in January does not mean that they will end up playing at the professional level, only those who are “the innately talented ones”. He claims that “achievement is talent plus preparation. The problem with this view is the closer psychologists look at the careers of the gifted, the smaller the role innate talent seems to play and the bigger the role preparation seems to play” (38). Gladwell argues that innate talent will never become expertise without preparation. He delves into multiple prodigy’s upbringing, such as Mozart and finds a similarity between all musicians, experts, chess players, etc. The studies found that no prodigy rose to the top without the magic number of 10,000 hours of practice, Gladwell claims that 10,000 hours of practice is what one needs to achieve such a level of “mastery” (40). Gladwell expresses that without prolonged , intense practice, no one can become successful.
Although Gladwell correctly believes that intense practice enables success, he completely disregards other contributing variables, such as talent and genetics. For instance, talent is a confounding variable between success and practice. However, individuals may not need to practice for 10,000 hours to reach mastery. Some individuals are gifted without practice. Gladwell acknowledges the role of effort being a factor, but not talent. Further, he overlooks the fact that exceptional success is also attributed to genetics. He neglects to mention genetics. Talent is passed down from generation to generation, whether it is artistic ability, musical skill, or being a mathematical genius, there is no doubt that genetic factors play a significant role and are involved in the idea of success. In addition, there are certain environmental factors that play a role as well. One’s genes and environment work together, and are intertwined, so that such remarkable genetics give rise to talent which in turn will thrive, only if such talent is nurtured suitably. This concept of nature vs. nurture is significant and is woven into the outcome of one’s success that Gladwell disregards.
Gladwell’s view of practice is not completely false. However, Gladwell creates a theme within the book of “If conditionals”, stating that success will happen “If” an individual proceeds with certain habits, or in this case, practicing 10,000 hours. This accusation is false because there are other components that could hinder an individual from succeeding, even when proceeding with Gladwell’s ideologies and practicing 10,000 hours. Other factors could be environmental, learning disabilities, money, social status, etc. Also learning is a gradual process and varies between individuals, some retain information at a different rate and will excel slower than others, and there is a large difference between individuals and how they reach their own success and peak of proficiency.
Similarly, in an article “Talent Matters Even More than People Think” by the Harvard Business Review, the author Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic addresses the question of why some people are more successful than others. He states that when leaving luck to the side, there are 2 explanations to this answer: talent and effort. Premuzic expresses how the reason behind success is intertwined between talent and hardwork, and there is often tension between the two components. He states how talent can make a person lazy, therefore having them rely less on working hard, while, those who have lower levels of talent, use hard work to compensate. He believes that it is possible for an individual to lack both, but then success is most likely linked to luck. Premuzic expresses the importance of talent, and emphasizes its link to the “Pareto Effect” in management. He explains how a few talented individuals in a corporation will make a “disproportionate contribution to the collective output”, and that 20% of individuals are responsible and account for 80% — 98% of performance output. This is an example of how talented people are the main drivers of a corporation’s success. The study proved that a company will be more successful and see higher returns on investment if they chose to dedicate more resources towards those few talented individuals who are beneficial to growth, instead of investing their efforts into being more “productive” overall. In addition, Premuzic mentions how multiple meta-analytic studies show that there are other personality attributes that are associated with successful top professionals, and mentions how they have “ higher levels of ability, likability, and drive”. He mentions that a crucial component of ability is one’s learnability, which is the “capacity to learn new things — it is a function of IQ and curiosity.” Second component that is pivotal to success is likability, which he links to emotional intelligence and soft skills and lastly states that “drive is the dispositional level of ambition”, which is one’s desire to compete. Premuzic focuses the discussion around motivation and how it should be considered a main component of talent. Motivation is important to understand as “it has a strong dispositional and genetic basis”, meaning that genetics plays a major role in one’s personality characteristics. For example conscientiousness, neuroticism, extraversion, etc. “account for 50% of the measurable variability in motivation”, therefore being a major component in one’s motivation. Premuzic mentions how people’s personality which is affected by genes, can affect motivation, which in turn will impact one’s success and are usually projected at a young age. Multiple studies in behavioral genetics propose that variability is caused by environmental factors. This explains why it is very difficult to transform individuals with lazy unambitious personalities into competitive and intense personalities. This does not mean that a lazy individual can not be coached and given the opportunity to develop their skills and improve their performance, but he states that it is difficult to. In short, Premuzic emphasizes the importance of talent and its link to success and how we think talent is underrated. Unlike Gladwell, Premuzic’s view competes as he takes into account talent and argues that individual success is attributable to motivation and talent. Both Gladwell and Premuzic agree on the role of effort; they disagree on the role of talent; and Gladwell is silent on motivation.
In the second half of the book, Gladwell investigates cultural legacies. He strongly emphasizes that people can not understand the present without understanding their cultural past. He states “Cultural legacies are powerful forces” and that cultural traditions, attitudes and legacies of our past have an impact on our current success. He notes that if we understand them and take our legacies seriously, we can further improve. He gives an example of Korean airlines. In the 80’s and 90’s they were a part of multiple plane crashes that earned them a bad reputation due to under trained employees and bad safety protocols, however, after multiple incidents Korean Air lines has had a clean safety record since 1999. Gladwell proves through this example that because Korean Airlines “acknowledged the importance of its cultural legacy” they were able to recognize and identify key issues such as Power Distance Index and cultural expectations that lead to poor communication which caused such safety concerns. Gladwell provides another example of how rice farmers in China worked to perfection, and how growing rice required constant vigilance, and because of such hardworking traditions, Chinese history repeats itself, and many Chinese nowadays carry the same values and hardwork.
Gladwell devotes time to analyze cultural legacies that are beyond our control. Gladwell focuses on systems at the level of society and culture, and because of that, it leads him to overlook one of the most important individual level systems, that is outside of individual control, even though it paradoxically resides within the individual. This is weird about our genetic nature. This is a system that us individuals do not control, but it resides within us humans. Gladwell is obsessed with cultural systems in which individuals are embedded, but ironically misses systems that reside inside an individual. A person’s biology is a delicate patterned system over which they don’t have much control over. The Korean airline plane crash story is an example of a cultural system that happens interpersonally between human beings, however it is systemic, patterned, and learned behavior that we can not do much to change such patterns. Gladwell is interested in these social systems, and he misses individual level systems, which have a major contribution towards cultural legacies.
Gladwell reveals the patterns of success. Now that we are aware of such patterns, what do we do with that information? How can we use such information to distribute opportunity and success more equitably and implement social change? It’s our responsibility to take his information and take it a step further, create opportunity and break the cycle of the Matthew Effect. Since Gladwell’s argument is that success isn’t individual uniqueness, it’s a patterned in-equity of opportunity, once we as a society see the pattern we can fight the pattern in order to create change. If we are interested in making success broadly accessible, how can we dismantle this cycle? Educational equity is a great place to start, because as Gladwell shows us, the inequalities start early and accrue from early on. We need to find a way to level the playing field of these patterns.
Works Cited
Chamorro-Premuzic, Tomas. “Talent Matters Even More than People Think.” Harvard Business
Review, 21 Apr. 2017, https://hbr.org/2016/10/talent-matters-even-more-than-people-think
Columbia University. “An Interview with Daniel Rigney.” Columbia University Press,
https://cup.columbia.edu/author-interviews/rigney-matthew-effect
Gladwell, Malcolm. Outliers the Story of Success. Little Brown & Company, 2008.
Rigney, Daniel. The Matthew Effect: How Advantage Begets Further Advantage.
Columbia, 2010.
Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience
and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934–945. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-43226-005?doi=1
