Have you been told that you’re average? How useful is it to use averages as a measure? What harm does it do?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We\u2019re so accustomed to using averages that we neglect to question whether they\u2019re actually useful. The End of Average<\/em> by Todd Rose argues that, when we use averages to judge people, we typically arrive at inaccurate and harmful conclusions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Continue reading for an overview of this book that will have you looking at yourself and everyone else in a new way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n If you\u2019re like most people, you\u2019ve been judged in comparison to the average<\/em> for your entire life. In school, your performance was defined by your difference from the average student. At work, your manager might judge your performance with benchmarks calibrated to the average worker.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The End of Average<\/em><\/a> by Todd Rose contends that our blind faith in the average as a tool to understand people has led to deep-seated structural problems in society\u2014problems that encourage conformity and diminish our unique strengths.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rose is a developmental psychologist, former Harvard professor, and author of several books on individualism and conformity, including Dark Horse<\/em><\/a> (2018) and Collective Illusions<\/em><\/a> (2022). In 2012, he co-founded Populace<\/a>, a think tank dedicated to building a world in which people can flourish by using their unique strengths.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In our guide to The End of Average<\/em><\/a>, we examine two main areas of society that we could improve by redesigning them for unique individuals: the education system and the workplace. We discuss how our education system limits<\/a> students\u2019 potential by failing to treat them as individuals, and we highlight some solutions. We also describe how managers can boost profits by increasing individuality on their teams.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u27a1 This book is on our list of the best books on education. <\/em>See the full list.<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Rose asserts that one of the areas of society in which judging individuals with averages has done the most damage is the <\/strong>modern education system<\/a><\/em><\/strong>. Rather than give each student what they individually need to learn the most, we give them a standardized experience that forces them to conform or fail. As a result, students and society both suffer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let\u2019s discuss three ways that schools fail to treat students as unique individuals, consequently limiting their potential.<\/p>\n\n\n\n First, Rose argues that schools fail to nurture students as individuals because they were designed to achieve an entirely different purpose: sorting<\/em> students. Rather than educate each student to help them reach their full potential, as it\u2019s ostensibly supposed to do, our education system is designed to identify and support \u201cgifted\u201d students. <\/strong>That is, it allocates better opportunities to children with the preexisting potential to learn how to solve complex problems<\/a>. In turn, the system provides less support to those without such potential. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This model has its roots in the beginning of the 20th century, when early American factories needed to identify capable students who would eventually become factory managers. It quickly spread to industrialized nations around the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rose explains that this education system is supposed to benefit society by channeling the most gifted students into the best, most prestigious schools. Eventually, these students end up in the most important jobs, where they can do the most good<\/a> for society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To accomplish this, this education system judges how talented each student is by comparing them to the average student:<\/strong> Schools teach the same fixed curriculum to all students and conduct standardized tests to measure which students are best able to learn that curriculum. In the process, students who score below average end up at a disadvantage when trying to get into good schools and high-skill jobs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rose believes that our system keeps the best education and jobs away from those who lack academic success. In theory, this downside is balanced out by the system\u2019s positive impact on society\u2014everyone is better off if society\u2019s important jobs are filled by the most talented people. However, Rose also contends that the system doesn\u2019t accomplish this purpose very well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Rose, our education system is a deeply flawed sorting mechanism because it\u2019s founded on the false assumption that \u201cgeneral intelligence\u201d exists.<\/strong> We use standardized tests because we assume that students who are better at quickly solving math problems or reasoning through logic puzzles are generally \u201csmarter\u201d than others. In other words, we think they\u2019ll be better at solving all<\/em> problems than their less \u201cgifted\u201d counterparts. Instead of judging students based on individual skills, we average out their various skills into one-dimensional scores that supposedly reflect their general intelligence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, research shows that such scores of general intelligence are completely inaccurate.<\/strong> Rose argues that if you ever judge someone as \u201cgenerally smart,\u201d you\u2019re probably mistaken. That\u2019s because someone who\u2019s good at one intellectual task (for instance, analyzing literature) is no more likely than anyone else to be good at another intellectual task (say, interpreting statistics). For this reason, a student\u2019s standardized test scores or grade point average don\u2019t reliably predict their performance at other tasks, or in their future career.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus, our educational system only gives the best opportunities to students who are good at <\/strong>particular narrow skills<\/em><\/strong>, such as standardized testing, and it needlessly disadvantages students who lack these narrow skills.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rose notes that this system isn\u2019t totally unsuccessful at sorting. A high-scoring student is somewhat more likely to do well in college and the workforce than a low-scoring student. However, this benefit comes at a cost to individual students, who may lack opportunities because they don\u2019t fit the mold. If a student is gifted in ways a standardized test can\u2019t measure, the system incentivizes them to struggle to succeed in the same way as everyone else instead of nurturing the talents they have. This is not only demoralizing for individuals, but also damaging to society at large, as it leaves the labor pool full of underutilized talent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Second, according to Rose, our education system limits students\u2019 potential by teaching all students a fixed curriculum at a fixed pace. <\/strong>This disadvantages those who need more time to effectively learn.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We assume that students who learn more quickly are \u201csmarter\u201d in general, and they\u2019ll also excel at retaining skills and using them to solve problems. However, research suggests this is false: When given the freedom to progress through a curriculum at their own pace, almost any student can learn at a \u201cgifted\u201d level. <\/strong>Students benefit from spending more time on the ideas they struggle with and less time with those that come easily to them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The third way that our education system limits students\u2019 potential is by falsely believing their personalities to be fixed<\/em>, argues Rose. When faced with a \u201cbad student,\u201d schools often assume they can\u2019t change the student\u2019s fundamental nature, so they label them a lost cause.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n However, this approach is based on a misunderstanding of human personality. Contrary to popular belief, personality is context-dependent: People behave differently in different situations<\/strong>. <\/strong>No one is intrinsically a bad student; they\u2019re just not in a learning environment that fits them as an individual.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Rose notes that although personality is context-dependent, it remains fixed across the same context. In other words, people behave consistently when they repeatedly face the same situation. <\/strong>This means that when students behave in a way that prevents them from learning\u2014for instance, rebelling against teachers\u2014you can permanently change their behavior by putting them in a new situation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To resolve context-dependent issues, investigate what aspect of the environment is triggering harmful behavior and try to create a context without that trigger. For example, if a child in elementary school keeps distracting their classmates in the middle of an educational video, you might conclude that the student gets bored by videos and give them the option to read the same information in another room.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to harming the education system, Rose says, averages do significant damage to society when people abuse them <\/strong>in the workplace<\/em><\/strong>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Rose contends that many commonplace business practices at modern companies around the world also follow an outdated model. Instead of seeking uniquely talented individuals, factory managers in the late 19th century sought to maximize efficiency<\/a> by creating systems that could produce consistent results using workers of \u201caverage\u201d skill. They created standardized assembly line-style processes that the average worker could execute consistently without any unique skills. Then, factory managers declared these processes to be the model of perfect efficiency and prohibited workers from deviating in any way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Because many modern organizations follow this same factory model, we have a system that treats workers more like robots than people. Companies expect their employees to follow instructions to the letter, resisting or punishing them if they try to devise their own ways to solve problems. Rose asserts that this is a lose-lose situation<\/strong>: Workers feel dehumanized and unfulfilled, and businesses miss out on the profit potential<\/a> of their employees\u2019 creative ideas and unique strengths as individuals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rose argues that the solution to these issues is to put individuality back in the workplace.<\/strong> When workers have the opportunity to productively utilize their unique skills, they feel more fulfilled and achieve better results than if they just follow instructions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rose offers two main tips for employers who want to increase individuality in the workplace<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n First, Rose recommends that employers give workers more control over the ways they spend their time. Instead of forcing employees to rigidly follow directions, managers should allow them to accomplish the organization\u2019s goals the best way they can.<\/strong> By encouraging workers to find their own creative solutions, managers can leverage their team\u2019s unique strengths to constantly improve the business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, imagine you run a restaurant and hire someone to wait tables. One day, they tell you that customers frequently complain about the confusing menu layout. They reveal that they used to be a freelance graphic designer, and they ask if you\u2019d be willing to pay them to design a new menu. Whereas most organizations wouldn\u2019t even consider this offer, Rose might recommend asking for samples of their work, paying them to create a new menu, and giving them more graphic design work if they succeed.<\/p>\n\n\n\nOverview of The End of Average<\/em> by Todd Rose<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
We Need Individuality in the Education System<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Failure #1: Schools Are Designed to Find Intelligence\u2014Not Create It<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Why Standardized Education Is Bad at Sorting Intelligence<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Failure #2: Schools Force Students to Learn at a Fixed Pace<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Failure #3: Schools Ignore the Context of Students\u2019 Behavior<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
We Need Individuality in the Workplace<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Tip #1: Give Employees More Autonomy<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Autonomy Leads to Evolving Responsibilities<\/h5>\n\n\n\n