What can success in other fields tell us about politics?

First published in 2008, Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers is a rebuttal of the traditional American emphasis on people’s success coming from the individual merit and triumph of exceptional humans as epitomised in the quote from Robert Winthorp who urged people at the unveiling of a statute of Benjamin Franklin to, “look at the image of a man who rose from nothing, who owned nothing to parentage or patronage, who enjoyed no advantages of early education which are not open – a hundredfold open – to yourselves”. Instead, Gladwell argues that although individual ability matters, it also requires three other crucial elements – hard work, opportunity and the right social legacy.

On the hard work front, Gladwell popularises an idea that has been knocking around for a little while, namely that across several different professions it seems to take around 10,000 hours of practice to make someone into a top-level performer. Whether it is in academic subjects, sports or arts, talent is required – but talent that doesn’t also managed 10,000 hours of learning does not make it to the level of genius. Referencing one study of musical successes, Gladwell says that, “the striking thing about Ericsson’s study is that he and his colleagues couldn’t find any ‘naturals’, musicians who floated effortlessly to the top while practising a fraction of the time their peers did.”

The ability to put in those 10,000 hours often comes from lucky breaks – such as the unusual combination of circumstances that gave Bill Gates the opportunity to spend huge numbers of hours on a computer as a kid at a time when very few adults even were getting more than a few hours on computers. The Beatles too had a big break which allowed them to put in far more practice than many others; in their case it was the chain of events which gave them the opportunity to perform in Hamburg, where they were on stage for many hours at a time, day after day, condensing into a short period the sort of practice that most bands never get the chance to have.

Opportunities matter not only to put in the hours necessary but in all sorts of other ways – such as how being born at the right point in the year makes you bigger and faster than your peers in your year’s sports group and so often gives an edge in then making it to the top teams, the extra training camps and so on.

At times Gladwell rather overplays the sequence of events which gave someone that opportunity as if it was only the actual sequence of events which could have given them the opportunity, side-stepping the alternative view that ‘talent will out’, i.e. if it hadn’t been that sequence of events, another could have instead given an opportunity. Not all his examples are open to this criticism, though, including his striking point that 14 of the 75 richest people in history are Americans both within nine years of each other in the  mid-nineteenth century, strongly suggesting there were some very special opportunities available to that generation which others did not have.

More contentious is Gladwell’s look at how people’s social inheritance also shapes their chances. At its simplest this is not too controversial, such as that people from families where academic study is the norm and encouraged are more likely to have a chance to use their academic potential to the full.

Where he gets into more controversial territory is when he looks at the impact of different cultures, suggesting that the hard work required to tend rice paddies compared with other forms of agriculture explains how South Asian cultures value hard work much more than others and so in turn explain the successes of South Asians at a range of activities including mathematics which most benefit from persistent hard work.

Taken together, this trio of points – hard work, opportunity and social inheritance – mean that those who end up being the outstanding performers, the outliers, are not simply the most talented or the brightest. Instead it is those for whom the trio work in their favour and are good enough to then be able to become stars. Others who might be brighter but don’t have the trio on their side do not become the stars.

What then are the lessons for political candidates? If you consider that becoming a Liberal Democrat MP makes you an outlier amongst party members, does Gladwell’s model fit?

In politics there is more of an opportunity for the lucky break to allow someone to become an MP, such as a Parliamentary by-election occurring on your doorstep at a time when the main opposition is hugely unpopular. Even so, Gladwell’s argument that it is not simply the best who prosper but those who also benefit from the right opportunities will resonate with many, knowing how the national situation and campaigns can make winning your own seat that much easier or harder.

It would be too glib to simply read the 10,000 hours point over to politics, yet there is a pattern that those who succeed often are those in a position to put in huge number of hours, not just directly into campaigning but also into wider learning of skills that help you become an MP.

There is a danger in the rightful rejection of the idea that the party should simply be a glorified leaflet delivery cult that the point about the huge amount of hard work usually required can also get thrown out. Obsessing on only delivering leaflets is wrong, but so too is the idea that if only we do fewer leaflets there is a magic route to political success for all that doesn’t require much work.

Instead it seems to me a better perspective to take is how can we make it easier for a much more diverse and larger group of people get the chances to try out putting in that amount of practice and learning. Federal conferences are one of the very few occasions when you can put in an intensive amount of training in a short period of time (whether in going to training courses or trying out skills, such as speaking at fringes). Perhaps we should try to have more of these sorts of intensive options, which then often become easier to fit in alongside other commitments? Perhaps we need more training that can be done remotely, Open University style?

Perhaps too, when it comes to opportunity there are lessons to learn. Many MPs have paid huge credit to their agent or campaign manager in getting them elected. Is having the right person in that role in your seat just a matter of chance? We certainly treat it as such when you consider how little training or advice is given to candidates on how to find the right agent or how to help them spot who a good agent is or to support the agent in themselves getting better at their role. The party’s efforts at diversity too concentrate overwhelmingly on candidates, rather than – for example – trying to boost diversity by looking to pair up good agents to then help get the candidates elected.

Those are simply some initial thoughts; what are yours?

If you want to find out more about Malcolm Gladwell’s ideas you can buy Outliers from Amazon.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Books and Op-eds.


  • To a trainer, this idea of “10,000 hours of training” irrespective of the cmplexity of skill and the number of tasks, sub tasks etc required (or for that matter, any measure of the level you need to get to to be deemed as performing well / adequately etc) seems highly simplistic. For jobs with many different elements, such as being an MP, and where team work could come in, where you can choose certain elements to delegate etc, you could be exceptionally good at certain aspects of the job, and reliant on others to make good a lack of skills in others. In terms of “being a competent leaflet deliverer”, you may need to put in the hours for muscle development for speed of delivery, understanding your round (s) so that you don’t get lost etc, but if anyone were to suggest you needed 10,000 hours, I think we might have some trouble getting the deliverers we needed!

    Not having read the book, I cannot make informed comments on this, but I think, Mark, you may be trying to fit our party circumstances into a model which isn’t really appropriate!

    Regards Ellie’s comments on becoming an MP, and choosing it as something you might do – the party is trying to broaden candidate diversity (with more women and people from non “white British” backgrounds). Where we don’t even seem to have scratched the surface, and there should be some embarrassment, is with “ordinary Joes” as Ellie says. With approx 7% of people being privately educated, the Lib Dems had no fewer than 40% of our 2010 candidates from that background. That is quite shocking and needs some immediate attention. Controversially, could this be linked to the party’s move to the right in recent years?

    On remote training, the party’s Training Task Group has done some work, again scratching the surface, on online options.

  • If a candidate was to spend 10 000 hours, over the course of a Parliament, knocking on doors, speaking at residents’ meetings, and being seen out and about and active in their communities, then they would stand a very good chance of winning.

    That level of activity may well be impossible, but it is noticeable that the likes of Tessa Munt, Duncan Hames, Stephen Lloyd and Simon Wright, (all of whom, I believe, had stood in previous General Elections), put in enormous amounts of effort and were able to win their seats in May despite the last minute swing away from the Lib Dems.

    I would hazard a guess that Duncan has spent close to 10 000 hours campaigning to be an MP, over the course of a decade – and it one reason why I believe he will make an outstanding contribution in Westminster.

    Contrast that with some of the Labour MPs in 1997 who were elected on the back of the national swing – and through very little effort of their own. With a few notable exceptions, many were very ineffective MPs.

    One of the reasons that I think so many Lib Dem MPs are so highly respected is because they have fought so hard to win their seat in the first place. They therefore arrive at Westminster far more prepared, and far more rigorously tested, than many of the new intake from the other two main parties.

  • Andrew Suffield 14th Jul '10 - 7:36pm

    If a candidate was to spend 10 000 hours, over the course of a Parliament, knocking on doors, speaking at residents’ meetings, and being seen out and about and active in their communities, then they would stand a very good chance of winning.

    That level of activity may well be impossible

    Assuming no holidays or weekends, that’s 5 hours a day, every day. Assuming a more typical 250 day working year, that’s 8 hours a day.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to           show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • expats
    I've just watched the "Line of Duty" satirical "Led By Donkeys" video.....Wonderful!...
  • Lorenzo Cherin
    noncomformistradical, you are correct and compassionate here. Poorer and low paid struggle to pay, for television, too!...
  • Lorenzo Cherin
    Apologies, for typos, utilising a new device and getting used to that!...
  • Lorenzo Cherin
    noncomformistradical I do not think the tone you take there, is pleasant, in this response to my humour and eating humble pie! I admit I said few, but s...
  • cim
    There's a difference between the right to cause "offence" and the right to cause "harm". If I say (to be clear, I wouldn't) "Lib Dems are traitors and the party...