What Is The Thesis Of Outliers Malcolm Gladwell

The rich and the famous of history are not exceptional individuals made successful by pure hard work; instead, they are lucky people possessing just the right mix of qualities, for which they are not responsible and without which their success would not be possible. This is the thesis of Malcom Gladwell’s Outliers, in which he uses examples from the worlds of sports, music, academics, and business to demonstrate the external factors which created the success of Canadian hockey players, American programmers, European musicians, and Jewish lawyers. His conclusions are astonishing, but may be more strongly stated than the facts warrant. Still, the evidence he cites demonstrates astonishing correlations which demand explanation, even if they are

different than the conclusions he propounds.
Gladwell concludes that the defining characteristics which predict which persons will be successful in any given field are not those traditionally identified in the western archetype of the “self-made man.” He contends that qualities for which the successful people can take no credit have the greater impact.

Sharps wits, an incredible work ethic, and academic achievement, while necessary in some measure, are less important than, birth date, upbringing, and rare opportunities.

He points out how academic and sports cut-off dates result in children of up to 12 months age difference compete against one another for recognition. Those recognized for their skills will be groomed for success with extra practice and coaching. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which coaches raise for success those children branded as successful (p. 30). Considering the birthdates of minors in competitive hockey and children in schools, he shows those born just after the cut-off dates for their groupings (thus, the oldest) disproportionately outperform their younger

peers.
Another factor which successful individuals do not control, but benefit from, is upbringing. Parents with higher income invest in their children’s hobbies more, and teach them to work with authorities to obtain desired outcomes. By contrast, lower-income parents teach their children to find their own way and to avoid conflict with (pp. 104-105). This difference in upbringing explains why some people succeed and others run afoul of authority structures, failing to attain success.
Gladwell also points out how special opportunities generate success. He cites the success of immigrant Jewish clothiers, resulting from skills those immigrants possessed fitting perfectly into the booming urban economy. Their wealth enabled their children to pursue law. Established lawyers ostracized Jews, who took to second-rate law practices, just in time for those second-rate practices to boom in the late twentieth century. And so, in a culmination of all his examples, Joe Flom, the child of Jewish clothiers, rejected from corporate law practice, becomes an associate partner, and avails himself of the opportunity to be the foremost litigation lawyer of his time.
Gladwell’s conclusions are overstated.

He is correct and perceptive to note the, often ignored, factors that contribute to the success of remarkable persons. However, the rhetoric of his argument is designed to instill the notion that those factors create successful people, as though remarkable persons were passive in receiving the success, not active in pursuing it. Many Canadian children born in January do not use their size advantage to become professional hockey players; some children born in December overcome the disadvantage. Bill Gates chose to pour ten thousand hours of work into programming; the fact that others did not have such an opportunity does not reduce the import of his committed

effort.
Gladwell’s examples demonstrate how success is determined by how well one works with available opportunities, and not radical commitment to impossible goals. While the American notion of the “self-made man” is often pitched as one’s ability to do whatever one chooses, Gladwell’s examples demonstrate that “self-made men” are usually men who availed themselves of the best opportunities they had. Successful people rarely work against the grain; instead they unexpectedly benefit from the status quo. Flom did not fight to become a corporate lawyer; he accepted litigation work and became the best at it. Chris Langan grew frustrated and refused to work with existing systems; James Oppenheimer was so adept with the existing system he evaded an attempted murder charge and obtained a job for which he was less qualified than other candidates.
Gladwell’s conclusions are strongly contrary to popular notions. He assertions that birthdate, upbringing, and unique opportunities are primary in determining success is unpalatable, and over stated. His evidence demonstrates that these factors are important, and those who work with, instead of against, them are most likely to succeed.