Early Findings in the Development of Expertise*

Adriaan DeGroot (1914-2006)

Adriaan DeGroot and later Simon and Chase developed what's considered the original theory of human expertise.  DeGroot, a Dutch chess master turned psychologist, is known for his studies of chess and memory.  These early theorists emphasized the importance of extended experience in attaining expert levels of achievement.  

Subsequently, Anders Ericsson, with the advantage of updated information, better research access, and modernized tools, put a hard qualification on DeGroot's finding.  Ericsson found that only narrow forms of deliberate practice would yield expertise. Since DeGroot's time, we've come to see that the raw number of years of experience is a poor predictor of objective performance.  There's ample evidence from a wide range of fields to show this.  

In fact, it's worse.  In some cases, such as in applied medical positions, there can be an inverse relationship.  Additional years of experience after a certain point correlates with lower levels of performance in certain tasks. 

Both of these dismal findings are easily explained.  Someone once quipped that you can have 10 years of experience or 2 years of experience 5 times. That quip addresses the first finding, that performance doesn't steadily rise along with time on the job.  Obviously, not all experience is progressive.  

The second finding, where performance may actually deteriorate over time, surely (imo) comes from the time-gap between formal training and job application.  Education is front-loaded.  You spend years in school, doing nothing but learning and studying. Then, once on the job, you spend much of the initial period engaged in learning activities .  Orientation, job-skills training, apprenticeships,  certifications.  By comparison, you spend much less time in such training after the initial year or so.  Naturally, the further out you are from this formal learning, the more you forget.  And, once underway on the job, you learn less from reading or formal sources (proven, verified theory); you learn more from others (who may not follow the theory, or even do things correctly!); and you start slacking on the fundamentals and take more short-cuts (good and bad). 

So sure, experience is not a guaranteed path to expertise. 

Yet, DeGroot is right in one important sense: quantity matters.  While it's true that not all of those with lots of experience become experts, all experts have lots of experience.  In that there are no exceptions.  One way or other you need the trials. 

------------------------

* Development of Professional Expertise, Toward Measurement of Expert Performance and Design of Optimal Learning Environment🇱🇱

Edited  by K. Anders Ericsson

Andy Stanley

Andy Stanley is the lead pastor at Northpoint Church, one of the top five congregations in the country.  Each week, he addresses an audience of some 2-3 thousand people live, and perhaps 5x that via simulcast in member locations.  Don’t quote me on the number, but I think at last count, the full congregation was some 30,000 people.  

Regardless of what you think of Northpoint Church (it’s not for everyone) or of religion, in general (it’s not for everyone), you have to admire the prowess of Andy Stanley.  There’s something to be said for maintaining a following of 30,000 people. 

Imagine writing a speech for professional purposes.  Public speaking is daunting enough for most of us, but, if you have some experience, or are otherwise determined you could certainly do so.  For instance, you could probably write a speech on a narrow topic in your field— "Technology Trends in XYZ Business” or “The 5 Keys to Customer Service in ABC Industry.”  With some refining and practice, you might even muster a presentation good enough to deliver at a conference to 50-150 people. 

Now, imagine having to address that same group of people every week for a month or two —drafting a talk that was good enough to keep them coming back.  Keep in mind, this is not the same thing as speaking at five different conferences or giving five different talks over a year.  In those cases you'd probably give variations of the same speech.  And you could pull it off, because there are likely new members in the audience.  Even if the core group was the same, your talks are spread out and you'd be able to refine the speech over time, keeping it fresh and updated.  

But, speaking on consecutive weeks, as pastors or other religious leaders do, is a different matter altogether.  In order to keep the same people interested on consecutive weeks, you would have to come up with different and sufficiently engaging material.  Imagine having to do this week in and week out for a year.

Now imagine, if instead of convincing 50-150 people to show up and sit still and listen, you have to convince 30,000 people.

Finally, consider how much competition there is.  Everyone goes to church on the same day, more or less at the same time. This means that you're competing with every other pastor in the area.  While you're speaking, there are perhaps 25-50 other speakers, just in your zip code, speaking on the same topic, at the same time, using--quite literally--the same book.  Your audience has no shortage of alternatives. Your own rendering and your own delivery has to be good enough to convince that audience to choose you above all of the others.