10: The Rate Of Improvement
"No novice develops suddenly into an expert," Scott asserts. However, he does notice that when men first apply themselves to some new activity, they do seem to make very rapid progress in learning it - then eventually rise to a level of mediocrity in which improvement seems very slow again, increasing gradually and for long periods not at all until they reach a level of mastery. And once a person has become a master, they continue to improve, but at an almost imperceptible rate.
The rate of improvement in a man's skills is inconstant, and "has been the subject of many careful studies" each of which has attempted to quantify and chart the rate of improvement. Their various diagrams have different names - efficiency curve, practice curve, learning curve, or other based on the nature of the task or test - yet all show a similar pattern: an initial period of rapid improvement, followed by a plateau, followed by a very gradual increase.
He mentions, in rather too much detail, a few experiments he conducted:
- Speed and accuracy when adding numbers
- Strength of physical grip by squeezing with the hands
- Developing skill at using a typewriter
- Recognizing letters from hearing telegraphs (Morse Code)
- Translating words from a foreign language
These five tests each measure different capacities and a blend of mental and physical skills, and they all demonstrate roughly the same rate of improvement: rapid progress within the first two weeks, steady progress to the end of the first month, and then very little progress afterward.
Each of these experiments involved little to no training - the skill was exercised only during the experimental period and participants learned by doing. Scott reckons that the speed at which a person initially learns a skill, or later improves it, would likely be improved by coaching and demonstration by someone who is more adept at the task. But even then, the speed increase would reduce the time by showing them something rather than leaving them to figure it out on their own, and the ability to put the demonstrated techniques into action would require practice.
The general pattern observed in the rate of improvement is thus rapid progress initially, then leading to a plateau, then periods of gradual progress, each of which is followed by a stage of stagnation or retrogression. He speculates about the cause and reckons there to be four factors that are the most significant:
- Easy improvements are made first, and only slight improvements discovered afterward. That is, the more expertise you have at a task, the less you have to gain, and the less the margin of improvement
- The enthusiasm for the task becomes exhausted. It is novel and interesting, then becomes a bit boring, and discovering a new technique that increases enthusiasm rekindles a lesser level of enthusiasm
- A trial-and-error process of learning involves many periods of incubation in which a new technique is practiced and no further adjustments made until it has proven out over a period of time
- The attention given to the task wavers, and is greatest after a new technique has been learned, and then the individual becomes inattentive for a time
Considering the nature of the plateaus, it seems unlikely that they could be eliminated altogether, as some of them are beyond our ability to consciously control whereas others are quite functional in their purpose. It stands to reason that training and coaching can increase the amount learned during a period of growth, but the subject would still need some time for the new skills/techniques learned to settle in and become part of the general manner by which he performs a task.
Interest in Novelty
When the interest in work derives from its novelty, the plateau occurs early in development. The individual is keenly interested and applies himself with great energy to learning a new skill. But after the skill has been learned and a modicum of proficiency gained, the novelty wears off. Further improvement is only possible if new motives can be discovered.
It is for this reason that many young men begin things with enthusiasm and abandon them just as quickly, often without completing their initial goal. Their interest was in the idea, and the novelty of it, and is not enough to sustain them through the learning period - or if it does, they complete their original goal and then abandon the practice.
In their professional lives, younger men will drift, from one house to another and from one profession to another, and this will carry on for a time until they finally settle in. Until then, they are in constant pursuit of novelty and their interest is not sustained until their curiosity about "new" things is satisfied. Unfortunately for their employers, this often means they will quit a job just as they seem to be getting proficient at it.
It's observed that this is not particular of any given class of worker. While it is often ascribed to laborers, it is also evident in clerks and executives: they simply "go stale" and lose interest in their work. Their enthusiasm diminishes and the petty annoyances of the workplace surpass their ability to sustain interest, at which point they resign or are dismissed for non-productivity. Scott describes this disillusioned and unenthusiastic condition as being "worn out." (EN: The modern term for this is "burned out" - but it's exactly the same.)
While some individuals have the stamina, or perhaps lack of intellectual curiosity, to remain well entertained by the same practice for decades, most will last less than five years at a job before they become weary of it. Thus considered, it is entirely normal for a person to find fascination in novelty, and over time to become bored with a predictable routine and seek novelty elsewhere.
Some employers have addressed this tendency by keeping their workforce in motion: an individual will not be held in a position indefinitely, but promoted or moved every two to three years, as a way of sustaining his service over a very long period of time. Other employers who do not have sufficient size or flexibility to move or promote employees seek to make the work more interesting by proposing change to the routine, whether changing the procedures and process of doing a given job, or simply by adding new incentives, such as contents or rewards for accuracy or productivity staged among teams of workers to add a competitive element to their work.
Wages alone cannot stimulate renewed interest in work. The difference is only appreciated on payday, and the rest of the week remains as boring, stale, and monotonous as ever. If anything, increased wages trap a man in a job he finds boring, and smothers his enthusiasm for doing it as he realizes he's only in it for the money and takes no satisfaction from the job itself. The fact that wages enable him to afford things that make his non-working hours more pleasurable only adds to his dissatisfaction with the time he spends on the job.
The Cumulative Effect of Knowledge
It is in the nature of knowledge to accumulate over time, and our ability to learn new skills depends on the previous mastery of more basic skills.
Consider the study of mathematics. A child must first recognize numbers, then he learns to add, then to subtract, then to multiply, then to divide in grammar school. He must have those basic skills to approach algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and calculus in high school. When he reaches college, he then learns to put these skills to use in various courses. All the calculation skills he will develop the rest of his life will depend on his having learned the very basics. A man cannot perform calculus if he cannot add.
Even where there is no formal academic program for the progression of knowledge, it accumulates on basic skills. A salesman muse be equipped with information and skills he developed informally. He must have the ability to communicate with people, negotiate, and influence, which in turn are built on his knowledge of composition, then on words. He must have developed certain agreeable manners, know how to read a clock, and do numerous other things in order to be successful in selling.
This applies not only to labor and clerical work, but also to executives, who must possess the knowledge of a great many things to competently run a business. Such a man will succeed if he has those basic skills, but fail if he has not.
Very often, a man becomes stranded on a plateau because of a lack of basic skills. He cannot develop the more advanced skills needed to improve his efficiency and effectiveness if he lacks the basics - and no amount of lecturing or demonstrating to him will help him to learn an advanced skills if he does not have the basics well within his command. To return to the academic example, a man who never learned to add, subtract, multiply, and divide will be lost in an introductory calculus class, no matter how attentive he is to the lectures he will not be able to gain the skills.
Variances in the Progress of Productivity
In addition to plateaus in productivity, there will also be periods of decrease. It is particularly true when a person must quit an old pattern of behavior to learn a new one that is more efficient. He will lose the efficiency of the old before having sufficiently learned and adopted the new, to the degree it will surpass his previous level of production.
Also, learning new things is a trial-and-error process. We generally consent to try something without knowing whether it will succeed - and because we accept that new skills are learned gradually, we may persist in a less productive process believing that we will in time become more efficient at it and enjoy the full benefit of its advantages. But after some time, we may recognize that the new technique is less efficient than the old, and abandon it - at which point we must re-accustom ourselves to the previous technique in order to restore our productivity.
(EN: Some mention should be made here of stubbornness - particularly of those who insist that a new method is better than an old, and soldier on in spite of all evidence to the contrary. This is more often seen in managers, who do not perform the work themselves but insist that others are merely being lazy and uncooperative rather than fairly assess whether their "new idea" may have been a mistake.)
Developing expertise thus relies "great exertion of the will" to be unsatisfied with one's current level of productivity, willing to assess an alternative, willing to attempt to change one's habits, willing to persevere in spite of the awkwardness, and willing to permanently adopt or abandon the new habit if it seems more or less productive than the old.
The simple path is to keep doing whatever one has been doing and refuse to attempt to improve. Such a person feels no motivation to be more productive - whether he finds it easier to doubt that a change will be productive, or whether he has no incentive to produce more. This is not always irrational, as a man who is satisfied with his lot may find better uses for his energy than in constantly increasing his output.
In the same vein, increasing productivity can also be irrational: if there is nothing to be gained by additional production, there is no point in pursuing it. Once a person's basic needs are met by their efforts, and they have all the luxuries they desire, additional toil profits them nothing, even if it means additional reward.
There is also the notion of bad management, which holds men to a procedure by fiat and discourages them from attempting to do things differently even if it may achieve greater productivity. Whether it is in the form of punishing those who try a different method regardless of the results, withholding reward form those who try a different method and succeed, or excessively punishing those who try a different method and fail - all of these behaviors sap the will to improve.