One of the biggest realizations I’ve had—especially after joining the social sector—is how much I value a good definition. Maybe it’s because both my parents are teachers, but I find it easier to understand the world when things are clearly defined.
In school and college, everything was neatly defined. Even my first job as a programmer felt structured and predictable. I didn’t realize how much I relied on definitions — until I entered the social sector.
The social sector proved to be a different beast. From what constitutes the social sector to definitions of social change, social impact, and social enterprise, everything was still being debated. It was disorienting at first.
This created two challenges for me. First, how do I benchmark my own performance? I wanted to get good at creating social change—but what does that even mean? Second, how do I identify true experts I could learn from? I met many people who spoke passionately (and eloquently), but rarely did their impact match their rhetoric.
In 2009, I stumbled upon a Harvard Business Review article called The Making of an Expert, and it changed the way I think about expertise. It revealed that expertise alone doesn't always correlate with superior performance. More importantly, it offered three clear tests for true expertise:
- Does it consistently lead to performance that is superior to one’s peers?
- Does it produce concrete results?
- Can it be replicated and measured in a lab?
I highly recommend carving out 30 minutes to read this timeless piece. Since then, I’ve learned to judge expertise not by eloquence or credentials, but by results.If someone claims to be an expert, I quietly run them through these three tests.