The 10,000-Hour Rule

What’s the idea?

If you want to achieve world-class expertise in any skill, you only need to commit at least 10,000 hours of good practice. Put more concisely by Malcolm Gladwell: ‘Ten thousand hours is the magic number of greatness’.

What makes it powerful?

The 10,000-Hour Rule is powerful because it offers us the possibility that it’s practice, not the person, that makes perfect. Telling us anyone can reach world-class expertise if we just commit the right amount of hard work transforms what is an aspiration for many, into a concrete and achievable roadmap to success. It peddles a serious dream for a society who have always been obsessed with exceptional people: just in the last two years alone, we’ve seen films about Elvis, Leonard Bernstein and J. Robert Oppenheimer break the box office and open to rave reviews. The rule essentially democratises giftedness, helping us to feel that bit closer to the people on the screen and safe in the belief that we’re only 10,000 hours away from fulfilling our untapped potential.?

How did it start?

The basis of the theory originated in a study by Anders Ericsson, which focused on violin students at a music academy in Berlin. The study found that, on average, the most accomplished violin students had played 10,000 hours of practice by the age of twenty. Although Ericsson noted that the number 10,000 was completely arbitrary, and that the study rejected the role of natural talent and ability, Gladwell jumped on the round number for his best-selling book ‘Outliers’, propelling the simplification of Ericsson’s study into the mainstream.

How did it change the world?

Hot off the heels of Obama’s 2008 presidential election which told people ‘You Can’, the publishing of Gladwell’s book was perfectly timed with the optimistic period of belief in the American Dream which told us that with hard work anyone can become anything. Following the runaway success of ‘Outliers’, the pseudo-scientific theory became widely referenced and tied into wider social discussions, such as the nature vs nurture debate. Oprah referenced her love of the 10,000-Hour rule in an interview with Vogue, and think-pieces came out in Forbes, The New York Times, and the National Geographic. The rule also found itself adopted within the sports world, and has since become a much maligned motivator for children’s early specialisation in sport.

What’s next?

In the last few years, the 10,000-Hour rule as defined by Gladwell has been debunked by scientists, taken on by David Epstein’s book ‘The Sports Gene’, and clarified by Anders Ericsson himself. Ericsson has explained the importance of deliberate practice, and called Gladwell’s interpretation ‘an oversimplification’. A study which attempted to replicate the findings of the original found that deliberate practice only accounted for a quarter percentage of the skills difference: environmental factors, genetic factors and opportunities all majorly factored into the ultimate level of success the musicians achieved.?

With the growing awareness of the significance of environment and opportunity raised by the ‘nepo-baby’ discourse, we’re more cynical than ever about the idea of meritocracy. In an age where any celebrity or celebrity-adjacent child can have a clothes line, make-up line, and career all rolled into one before they hit their teenage years, the rule has since become a relic of a more optimistic time, if not an enduring hope for some that all it takes is a little hard work to make a name for themselves.