I had heard about Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers long before I actually decided to read it.  My reluctance was due to the emphasis of reviewers—who tended to focus solely on the so-called 10,000 hour rule.  That is, one does not have to be a born genius to master a particular activity (the example in the book was a concert violinist), but merely dedicate a total of 10,000 hours to concentrated practice.  Because my impression was that Outliers was yet another exhortation from the establishment urging all of us to work harder and keep our noses to the grindstone in order to get anywhere in life, I avoided reading it until recently.  However, the book is much more nuanced and complex than most reviewers give it credit for.  Indeed, some of them seem to have missed the primary message entirely.

Gladwell’s premise actually debunks the notion of the self-made genius who through talent, grit and determination accomplishes great things and enjoys worldly success. Although successful people can usually make rightful claim to a certain amount of smarts and hard work, what is often left out of these stories is what Gladwell describes as non-obvious advantages and opportunities.  In other words, the difference between a smart person who works hard and enjoys worldly success and a smart person who works hard and struggles is a matter of being at the right place at the right time.

Gladwell describes a number of scenarios in which a few individuals rise to the top, ranging from Canadian hockey stars to high tech entrepreneurs. He calls this process the “Matthew Effect.”  The Matthew Effect is based on the Book of Matthew in the Bible, in which those who are successful are given more and “from those who hath not…all that they hath will be taken away.”  For now, I will not delve into the theological implications of this verse, but it describes a phenomenon that sociologists term “cumulative advantage.”  Cumulative advantage occurs in a manner similar to that which economists describe as winner-take-all markets, in which a small, early advantage is compounded by further advantages.  In the case of an individual, when parents, teachers and schools identify early talent in a particular student, attention and resources are marshalled to further develop and enhance this talent.  In the economic context, an early advantage allows a business to capture markets, supply chains, and even public consciousness.

While there is nothing harmful in cumulative advantage in and of itself, it can become a problem in the individual context when it draws attention and resources away from the development of other individuals and/or different talents. Similarly, in the business world the winner-take-all phenomenon often leads to monopoly markets, operating to crowd out innovation and diversity. Individuals may make poor career choices because a potential (if statistically improbable) payoff may be huge compared to other options.  Yet, the individual may end up losing sight of his or her own talents and unique path in the world.

In one chapter, Gladwell tells the story of a man who was known to have a high IQ and much intellectual potential, but because he grew up in a dysfunctional home and lived in a remote rural area, he spent his youth bored with school and learned mainly to distrust authority. As an adult, this fellow is working on what Gladwell describes as “a project of enormous sophistication” while eking out a living on a remote farm.  The tragedy is that it is unlikely this man’s work will ever see the light of peer review or even a curious news story because he has no institutional support and no skill for making his voice heard in the world.  Although Gladwell’s main point in this story is that there is a lot of wasted talent out there because it has not been recognized and nurtured, he also suggests that alienation of unrecognized genius will further reduce the talent and knowledge that could be put to beneficial use.

Gladwell’s ultimate message is that the self-made genius or billionaire is a myth because no one “makes it” alone.  He concludes with the observation:

          “[Geniuses] are products of history and community, of opportunity and legacy.  Their success is not exceptional or mysterious.  It is grounded in a web of advantages and inheritances, some deserved, some not, some earned, some just plain luck—but all critical to making them who they are.  The outlier, in the end, is not an outlier at all.”

Outliers is a first step in disabusing ourselves of the exceptionality of individuals and completely “deserved” worldly success. We need not begrudge such individuals the legitimate fruits of their efforts, but we can also rightfully ask for a little less hubris and a little more humility.  However, popular myths surrounding success do more than simply bolster the egos of the successful—they serve to legitimize a system in which a few are over-rewarded while others who are equally talented and hard-working are under-rewarded.  Perhaps Gladwell’s message is that we either need to broaden our idea of what constitutes talent or genius or even dispense with the notion of genius altogether.  Gladwell speaks of a “culture of possibility,” describing how his great-great-great-grandmother was sold into slavery yet managed to found a family legacy based on education and self-betterment.  We can only imagine what the world would be like if every human being was able to reach her or his full potential—and no one had to go it alone.