Defining Your Range, One Meander at a Time

David Epstein doesn’t think we should be asking little kids what they want to be when they grow up, and I tend to agree. He also doesn’t think we should be asking that question of college freshmen. Seeing as how my undergraduate degree is in biology, and I’m writing this blog as part of my job, I tend to agree with him there as well.

There is simply too much out there that an 18-year-old couldn’t possibly even know about yet. Plus, finding the right fit often takes some trial and error. That’s likely why only 27 percent of graduates end up in a field related to their major.

But if you’re a scientist-turned-writer or a literature major-turned-sales professional, don’t fret. You’ve got something that Epstein regards as essential—a greater breadth of knowledge, or range. While we love to hear stories of child prodigies and swear our kid is going to be a virtuoso musician because they were the only one that didn’t cry in Kindermusik (adults included), Epstein cautions us about the dangers of specializing too early in life. Because for every Tiger Woods, there are a lot more Roger Federers.

WHY MORE EXPERTISE ISN’T ALWAYS BETTER

In Range, Epstein makes the case against early and narrow specialization. He starts off telling the story of golf prodigy Tiger Woods. Woods is an example of early specialization. He entered his first golf tournament at two and won the 10-and-under division.

Epstein then shares the story of tennis champion Roger Federer. Federer played tennis when he was young, but not seriously. He enjoyed skateboarding, basketball, and soccer. When he finally decided to focus on tennis, he was already “behind” other kids who hoped to play professionally. Epstein’s point in Range is that Federer didn’t catch up and surpass his peers despite dabbling in other sports first, but because of it. Tiger’s story is more memorable, but Roger’s is more typical of elite athletes.

These findings don’t apply solely to professional athletes, either. Early career specializers make more money out of college, but late specializers soon catch up and ultimately do better since they are more likely to have found jobs that fit their skills and personality.

While Epstein is careful to acknowledge that the world needs both professionals with depth and breadth of knowledge, he points out several instances in which depth alone can result in catastrophe. From the fact that cardiac patients are less likely to die when admitted to the hospital during a national cardiology meeting (that’s right, when most of the cardiologists are out of the hospital), to decisions made prior to the space shuttle Challenger disaster, deep expertise that is not balanced with at least some breadth can be deadly.

IT’S A WICKED WORLD

There are some scenarios in which narrow and early specialization work well. Epstein gives chess and classical music as examples. These are learning environments in which instinctive pattern recognition works well, and feedback is quick and accurate. In these types of settings, experience does indeed equal expertise.

Games like chess are what are known as kind learning environments. This means that there are clear rules that everyone knows, and that feedback is immediate and always accurate. The problem is that most of the real world is not a kind environment. It is what’s known as a wicked learning environment.

Cancer research is an example of a wicked learning environment. There may be rules to cancer, but if there are, we are far from identifying all of them. It takes a long time to know whether or not experimental treatments are working. And it’s possible that while tumor size is shrinking and clinicians think they are seeing positive feedback, an entirely different part of the body is being negatively impacted. Politics? The success of Broadway plays? Environmental threats? Wicked. Wicked. Wicked.

LET THE OUTSIDERS IN

In the wicked world in which we live, it helps to have the perspective of outsiders. Epstein shares the story of Alph Bingham, an organic chemist who noticed that when he and his graduate-school classmates were trying to figure out how to create particular molecules, the most clever solutions always seemed to come from a piece of knowledge that was outside of the normal curriculum.

Once when Bingham had the cleverest idea, it was based not on his years of chemistry training, but rather because of some knowledge about baking he had picked up in his childhood. His breakthrough in molecular synthesis was based on his understanding of cream of tartar, a stabilizer used in cookies.

When Bingham was the VP of research and development strategy at pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly, he thought inviting outsiders to solve some of the hardest problems was a great idea. It was, not surprisingly, met with pushback. He eventually got permission to post 21 problems online that scientists at Eli Lilly couldn’t crack. Bingham invited solution submissions from anyone and everyone on the outside. The concept was so successful that it became its own separate company, InnoCentive, and has been used by NASA to crowdsource solutions.

It turns out that one of the best ways to solve problems is to come up with analogous problems and look at their solutions. Often, however, analogies from within your specific field are not enough. Research has shown that labs with scientists of more varied professional backgrounds come up with more analogies when trying to solve problems, which leads them to be more successful.

NARROW TO BROAD TO NARROW AGAIN?

Some of the most fascinating research Epstein shares had to do with what’s called the Flynn effect—the fact that the correct number of questions on IQ tests has increased with each generation in the twentieth century. Does this mean that people around the world are getting smarter? No, but it does mean that we are changing the way that we think.

People are getting better at abstract reasoning, likely due to environmental factors. In the 1930s, Alexander Luria did research on remote villages in the Soviet Union that had not yet been touched by the rapid social and economic changes occurring around them. Luria found that members of these communities found it nearly impossible to think abstractly. They were stymied by questions like, “which of the objects does not belong—a hatchet, a hammer, a saw, or a log?” The abstract concept that the first three are all tools did not make sense to them.

If something was not a concrete part of their daily lives, they could not apply any sort of reasoning. Some of the descriptions of the villagers’ reactions shared in Range seem almost impossible, but other more recent studies on pre-modern cultures have found the same phenomenon. Abstract thinking has been improving with modernization.

James Flynn, for whom the Flynn effect is named, is disappointed that today’s society is now pushing specialization. It’s as though human society started out with a more narrow way of thinking based on concrete experience, got broader as people have been able to make connections through more abstract thinking, but is now narrowing again through overspecialization.

KNOWING WHEN TO QUIT

Epstein not only sees early specialization as a problem, but he also thinks people are dissuaded from changing specializations due to our “never give up” culture. We talk about things like determination, perseverance, and grit. We hang up Winston Churchill’s quote, “never give in, never, never, never, never,” but leave off the next part of it, “except to convictions of honor and good sense.”

We all fall prey to the sunk cost fallacy—we continue down a path that is not in our best interest because we have already invested so much time, energy, and money. So, we specialize early, are told not to be quitters, and then stay the course because we can’t admit that it could be the wrong path.

Epstein shares one of Seth Godin’s ideas, and it’s one that is especially relevant to sales. “Knowing when to quit is such a big strategic advantage that every single person, before undertaking an endeavor, should enumerate conditions under which they should quit.” Remember our Zombies in Your Pipeline blog? Sometimes not knowing when to quit leads to dead deals that suck the life out of your sales team.

IN CONCLUSION, START THE YEAR OFF RIGHT WITH RANGE

Range was a great read, and I highly recommend it. It was full of research backing the idea that taking a circuitous route is not only okay, but beneficial. One of the most constructive takeaways for me came from the chapter titled “Flirting with Your Possible Selves.” It’s based on Hermina Ibarra’s research on career switching. Instead of asking ourselves who we want to become, we should ask smaller questions that we can then test, like “which of my possible selves do I want to explore?” 

As we enter a new year, maybe it’s worth rethinking the “new you” hype and instead simply asking ourselves what we want to learn about this year. Oh, and schedule your heart attacks for March 17th or 18th during the International Conference on Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine. And finally, if you need a motivational poster about never giving up for your office, let me recommend this one about perseverance. Happy New Year, everyone!

Get a head start on the new year—contact us at mastery@maestrogroup.co to schedule your training!