Research Paper on 10,000 Hour Rule

Introduction

The author describes the 10,000-hour rule in which it is explained that 10,000 hours of practice are all that it takes to become an expert in a certain field. This supports the idea of quantity over quality. The critics of this hour rule, however, are biased in their criticism due to the introduction of the politically oriented term "advantage." They claim the rule does not consider the economic or social status of an individual. The author's stand on the issue is that irrespective of the social or financial status, focused and consistent practice that strains the physical and mental limits is most beneficial compared to just being present and clocking in.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The 10,000 hour rule would be difficult to apply in the field of management. For instance in the field of arts and sciences, such as rule can be used but the same would be hard for managers to acquire. Taking 10,000 hours does not mean a manager will learn much but on if they are committed to learning and improving. I agree with the author's point, the 10,000-hour rule just physical presence is not enough to gain expertise but focused and consistent research is necessary. It is easy to see the applicability of the 10,000-hour rule in elite performance such as arts and sciences. The idea is that an individual has to invest approximately 10,000 hours of deliberate practice to become an expert in their field. However, I also think that it is not enough to just spend the time working on the specific skills. It is necessary for an individual to improve every day, address inappropriate habits, engage a mentor and coach and take criticism positively in addition to working extremely hard. Very few would become experts or masters since deliberate practice is counter-intuitive, painful and it is not enjoyable. I would say the 10,000-hour rule is a noble idea by I doubt its scientific credibility. There are great technical obstacles to completing such a research in controlled conditions to adequately test the claim.

I agree with the author's perspective that only ensuring a physical presence for 10,000 hours is not enough practice without continuous improvement. I do not have personal experience of working 10,000 hours which approximates to ten years on a specific field. However, the thought of it seems daunting.

Conclusion

After reading some articles, they echo the same sentiments outlined by the author. The author points out that the rule did not adequately differentiate the number of hours used for practicing and the quality of that particular practice (Nightingale 2015). There is more to mastering a skill than hours spent in practices. Other factors such as genes are also involved. More focus should be on the quality of practice instead of quantity. Another article points out that the 10,000-hour rule is oversimplified. The rule asserts that for the realization of true expertise in any skill, practice is critical which amounts to 10,000 hours of practice. However, for the success of an individual, others factors are important such as culture, friendship and family among others (Wong, 2015). The evidence provided by the articles supports the statement of the author. The conclusion of the articles is similar in pointing out that practicing for 10,000 hours is not enough. The quality of practice is also important to ensure that an individual becomes an expert.

References

Course Reading: Mini Lecture: 10,000 hour rule

Nightingale, R. (2015). The 10,000 Hour Rule Is Wrong. How to Really Master a Skill. Retrieved from https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/10000-hour-rule-wrong-really-master-skill/

Wong, N. (2015). The 10 000-hour rule. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 9(9-10), 299. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.3267