A torch, the lighthouse, a large hammer and a dart throwing chimpanzee
Tags: Collective wisdom; T-Skills in Teams; Transactional Behavior; Knowledge; Fly Over VS Deep Dive; Mental Models; Shared Mental Model & Diversity; Ability Vs Diversity; Performance Problem Solving
Phil Tetlock talks about Hedgehogs (domain specific experts who have a narrow/deep expertise range) and Foxes (generalist experts who have broad range of interests and shallower expertise). Hedgehogs tend to solve all problems through their specific lens, have high levels of hindsight bias and when it comes to predicting future events are no better than chimpanzees throwing darts at a dart board. Foxes, although lacking in deep specific expertise, have been shown to be better at predicting outcomes and perhaps are better at making cross discipline connections and presenting accessible and meaningful solutions based on their breadth of knowledge.
- Within the MDT do you operate with a flashlight or are you in a light house?
- How do you look ‘cross discipline’ or across ‘expertise’ to present viable solutions and better identify problems?
- As an individual practitioner, how do incorporate the raft of ‘deep expertise’ into your applied practise?
- Is there a danger that you have gone so deep in your thinking that both you and your skills become misunderstood and inaccessible to the wider support team or coach/athlete?
Perhaps Practitioners need to have clear ‘multi-nodal mental models‘ to make sense of ‘within’ or ‘across’ discipline expertise. Consider S&C/PPC scientists with specific interests:
- Change of direction
- Deceleration
- FMax; RFD and Weight Training
- Skill Acquisition and Movement
- Energy System Development
- Prehab and injury prevention
As a result of their primary interest, are they able to give appropriate interventions/prescriptions or do they revert to their most available solutions? Do they add value to the MDT process and can they balance content accordingly – how do they ensure they understand the big picture? Across discipline, how do practitioners weight their input accordingly, moderate their input (and voice) and blend it into and across the holistic programme? How do practitioners land impactful messages and interventions that are understood and accessible?