The End of Average

Have you ever felt mismatched with the expectations of your school, job, or society—like the systems around you weren’t built for who you really are? In The End of Average, Todd Rose argues that our world was designed for mythic “average” people who don’t actually exist. He contends that the belief in the average—once seen as scientific truth—is holding back individuals and institutions alike. Rose shows that human beings are far too complex, dynamic, and unique to be measured or managed against averages.

The book dismantles what Rose calls “averagarianism”—the habit of comparing individuals to an average and designing systems that reward conformity rather than individuality. He takes readers from the early days of industrial standardization to the modern world of education and employment, showing how this mindset has shaped everything from classroom grades to office performance reviews. But his central claim is revolutionary: any system built around the average person is doomed to fail.

From the Age of Average to the Science of the Individual

Rose begins by tracing the origins of the average to nineteenth-century scientists Adolphe Quetelet and Francis Galton. Quetelet sought to understand society through averages, inventing the notion of the “Average Man.” Galton later twisted this concept into hierarchies of rank—linking average deviation to superiority or inferiority. Together, they created the intellectual foundation of a world obsessed with measuring people against a norm.

This mindset evolved into the modern institutions we know today. Frederick Winslow Taylor used it to design standardized factories and management systems, where workers were treated as replaceable “human units.” Educators like Edward Thorndike adopted it to rank students and determine who was gifted or slow, cementing the standardized curriculum and age-based norms that still rule most schools. Averagarianism became so entrenched that we forgot to ask whether the “average person” was even real.

Three Principles of Individuality

Rose presents three fundamental principles to replace our reliance on the average:

• The Jaggedness Principle: Human abilities are multidimensional—intelligence, talent, and character can’t be captured by one score or rank. You might be brilliant at creativity but average at math, and that unevenness is perfectly normal.
• The Context Principle: Behavior depends on situation and environment. People aren’t consistent across all contexts—your actions change depending on who you’re with and what you’re doing.
• The Pathways Principle: There’s no single correct path to success. Just as babies learn to walk in countless ways, we all reach milestones differently. Pace does not equal ability.

Together, these principles form what Rose calls the Science of the Individual, a framework for decision-making based on personal uniqueness instead of standardized metrics. This lens transforms how we understand education, work, innovation, and opportunity.

Why It Matters Today

Rose’s argument isn’t theoretical—it’s deeply human and practical. He shows how companies like Google, Costco, and Morning Star achieve success by valuing individuality in hiring and management. Schools that adopt self-paced, competency-based learning (like Western Governors University or Khan Academy) produce dramatically better results than those that force all students to learn at the same speed. Even in the military, the shift from designing cockpits for the “average pilot” to adjustable cockpits saved lives and unlocked untapped talent, including pilots like Colonel Kim Campbell who would have been excluded under the old system.

According to Rose, embracing individuality isn’t just good ethics—it’s good economics and good design. When businesses, schools, and governments recognize that each person’s jagged profile interacts uniquely with specific contexts, innovation multiplies and human potential flourishes.

“Any system designed around the average person is doomed to fail.”

This statement captures the heart of Rose’s message. The future belongs to organizations and individuals who design for the edges—not the average.

Through personal stories, scientific history, and powerful examples, The End of Average challenges you to rethink how you measure success, design systems, and value yourself. Rose invites you to join the Age of Individuals—where excellence no longer means beating the average but becoming the best version of yourself.

Todd Rose traces the rise of the average from a mathematical curiosity to a powerful social principle. In the nineteenth century, Adolphe Quetelet introduced the idea of the “Average Man” while attempting to apply the tools of astronomy to the chaos of human society. He measured the chest sizes of Scottish soldiers and concluded that the average measurement represented the ideal soldier—while every deviation was “error.” That insight launched a cultural revolution.

Quetelet and Galton: Turning Math into Social Philosophy

Quetelet’s averages promised order amid social disorder. By imagining the “Average Man” as perfection, governments and scientists could standardize policies. But Francis Galton took Quetelet’s idea further—and darker. Galton argued that deviation from average wasn’t random error but rank: people above average were “Eminent,” those below were “Imbeciles.” He claimed that human traits like intelligence and character could be measured and ranked along a single ladder of worth, laying the foundations for modern testing and meritocracy.

(In contrast, later psychologists like Howard Gardner and Robert Sternberg argued for multiple intelligences, challenging Galton’s one-dimensional vision—an intellectual echo of Rose’s jaggedness principle.)

Taylorism and the Rise of the Average Worker

In the early twentieth century, Frederick Winslow Taylor used this mindset to revolutionize industry. His system of “scientific management,” or Taylorism, separated thinking from doing and standardized every motion on the factory floor. Workers were treated as interchangeable parts in a vast machine; individuality was irrelevant. Taylor’s slogan—“In the past the man was first; in the future the system must be first”—summed up the philosophy of the new industrial world.

Education quickly followed. Psychologist Edward Thorndike refitted Taylor’s ideas for schools, turning classrooms into factories for producing average students. He standardized age-based grades, fixed schedules, and testing regimes to sort children into ranks of ability. Thorndike’s mantra, “Quality is more important than equality,” justified allocating resources to “gifted” students while neglecting others deemed slow.

The Legacy of Standardization

By mid-century, business and education were thoroughly Taylorized. Companies hired and promoted based on standardized tests; schools measured progress through curves and averages. As Rose recounts, even the author himself was once labeled a “troublemaker” and destined for mediocrity because his test scores fell below average. These systems may have fueled efficiency and prosperity, but they also crushed human diversity under the weight of uniformity.

“Gifted students are designated as gifted because they took the same standardized tests as everyone else—but performed better.”

Such logic, Rose notes, turns individuality into competition within sameness rather than uniqueness—a paradox at the heart of averagarian society.

The Age of Average built the modern world: efficient factories, ranked schools, and corporatized workplaces. But Rose shows that this efficiency comes at a cost—the loss of individuality, creativity, and engagement. In our pursuit of perfection by numbers, we designed systems that work on average, and fail for everyone in particular.

One of Rose’s most radical insights is that human abilities are jagged—they exist across multiple dimensions that rarely correlate. You may excel at writing but struggle with math; be charismatic in public but awkward in small talk. We’re not smooth curves but jagged landscapes of strengths and weaknesses, and this jaggedness makes one-dimensional measures—IQs, GPAs, test scores—profoundly inaccurate.

Human Size as a Metaphor for Human Talent

Rose begins with the story of Air Force researcher Gilbert Daniels, who discovered that no “average” pilot existed. When cockpits were built to standard dimensions, they fit nobody. Only adjustable designs accommodating variation improved performance. Similarly, most systems of evaluation are built for an average that no real person fits.

In the same way that bodies differ across height, reach, and chest size, minds differ across verbal ability, memory, creativity, and reasoning. Early psychologist James Cattell tried to prove that intelligence was one-dimensional but found weak correlations between mental tests—students who excelled in Latin might flounder in arithmetic. His study revealed that talent, like physical size, is jagged all the way down.

The Failure of One-Dimensional Hiring

Businesses like Google and Microsoft learned this lesson the hard way. Early on, they hired “top students” based on test scores and GPAs. But they discovered that these metrics failed to predict real-world success. Todd Carlisle’s experiment inside Google examined over 300 candidate variables—from SAT scores to hobbies—and found no single predictor of performance. Intelligence wasn’t flat; it was multifaceted. As a result, Google scrapped GPA and prestige as hiring criteria.

A smaller company, IGN, demonstrated how embracing jaggedness could unlock hidden talent. Its Code-Foo program required no résumé—only passion and problem-solving tests. IGN ended up hiring eight programmers who would have been overlooked by traditional metrics. These discoveries revealed that “missed talent” wasn’t rare—it was the rule.

Unleashing Your Full Potential

Rose concludes with his own story: after failing standardized tests repeatedly, he realized his weakness wasn’t in intelligence but in working memory. When he adopted a visual problem-solving method that matched his strengths, his scores skyrocketed and his life trajectory changed. The jaggedness principle demands that we stop defining ourselves—or others—by averages. Success comes not from fitting the mold but from knowing and leveraging your unique pattern of abilities.

“You can only produce a good fit if you think about all the dimensions.”

Rose’s point is clear: jaggedness isn’t a flaw—it’s the signature of individuality.

Once you recognize your jagged profile, you stop trying to be average. Instead, you can design your work, education, and life around your unique strengths—and help others do the same.

You might think of yourself as introverted, honest, or self-controlled. But Todd Rose, building on psychologist Yuichi Shoda’s work, shows that personality isn’t fixed—it’s situational. People behave differently in different contexts, and those contextual patterns are the key to understanding individuality. This is the context principle: behavior and performance emerge from the interaction between person and situation.

The Myth of Stable Traits

Traditional personality tests like the Myers-Briggs assume we are consistent—either introverts or extroverts. But Shoda’s study at Wediko Children’s Services, tracking 84 children over six weeks, found that each child had multiple “personalities” depending on context. A boy might be aggressive with peers but docile with adults; a girl might be outgoing in the cafeteria but shy on the playground. No one was “an extrovert” or “an introvert” overall—they were both, depending on the environment.

Rose himself experienced this when labeled an “aggressive child” after fights at school. His counselor saw aggression as a trait, but the real cause was context: he acted out only to deflect bullies. In different settings—like with his grandmother—he was kind and calm. The label ignored situational triggers entirely.

If–Then Signatures

Shoda proposed a more accurate way to describe personality: “if–then” signatures. Instead of saying “Jack is extroverted,” we say “If Jack is with friends, then he’s extroverted; if he’s with strangers, then he’s reserved.” These individualized formulas capture how traits manifest across contexts. They explain why workers thrive in one environment and falter in another, and why students succeed under one teacher and fail under another.

Psychologist Hugh Hartshorne’s historic moral studies echoed this truth. Tracking thousands of children across situations, he found honesty wasn’t a trait—it varied by context. A child might cheat on a test but never steal money. The same pattern held for empathy, self-control, and cooperation.

Matching Individuals to Contexts

Applying the context principle to business transforms hiring and management. Recruiter Lou Adler pioneered this with “performance-based hiring.” Instead of judging candidates by qualifications, he matches their past successes with the context of the role. For example, Adler helped London entrepreneur Callum Negus-Fancey hire a Belgian pharmacist—an unexpected candidate—to manage HR, simply because his previous work showed success under fast-changing conditions similar to the job’s context. The result: a standout employee.

“There’s no such thing as an all-around good communicator.”

Every skill thrives or falters depending on the setting. The context principle reveals that fit—not rank—determines excellence.

Once you see context as central, you stop labeling yourself and others. Instead, you ask: in what situations do I shine? Understanding your if–then signatures helps you build better relationships, choose favorable environments, and lead with empathy for others’ circumstances. Character and talent aren’t fixed—they’re contextual performances of individuality.

According to Todd Rose’s pathways principle, there’s no single correct route to learning, growth, or success. Every individual reaches goals through a unique sequence and pace. This insight overturns what Rose calls normative thinking—the belief that progress must follow the “average” pathway made famous by figures like Taylor and Thorndike.

Challenging the Myth of Normal Development

Psychologist Karen Adolph’s research on infant crawling revealed that there is no universal path to walking. In her studies, babies used 25 unique crawling styles—and some never crawled at all. Similarly, anthropologist David Tracer found that infants in Papua New Guinea skip crawling entirely due to cultural caregiving practices. Rose uses these examples to show that deviation isn’t delay or defect—it’s diversity.

This truth holds for all domains, from medicine to learning. Colon cancer researchers discovered that the “standard” biological pathway explained only 7% of cases. Psychotherapists found that depression recovery followed several different trajectories, not one average curve. In every complex system—including human lives—multiple paths lead to the same destination.

Pace ≠ Ability

Rose dismantles Thorndike’s idea that “faster equals smarter.” Citing Benjamin Bloom’s self-paced learning experiments, he shows that when students learn at their own speed, 90% achieve mastery compared to only 20% in fixed-paced classrooms. Khan Academy’s data later confirmed this globally: students once labeled “slow” flourish when allowed flexibility. In short, the pace of excellence is individual, not average.

Different Sequences, Same Destination

Later research by Kurt Fischer revealed that even learning sequences vary. In studying reading development, Fischer found three equally effective paths for children, each using different skill orders. Similarly, a European Research Council study identified seven pathways to scientific success, each named after a dance—from the Quickstep to the Tango—proving that excellence arises from diverse rhythms of progress.

Creating Your Own Path

Rose’s own journey embodies this principle. After dropping out of high school, he ignored the “normal” college sequence and charted his own course—skipping remedial math, delaying freshman English, and pursuing classes that sparked his curiosity first. This unorthodox path led him from a D–average student to a Harvard professor. For Rose, individuality means designing your own map rather than following the crowd.

“We are all special cases.”

Every person’s path is legitimate if it aligns with their strengths, contexts, and goals. The best path for you will likely be the one less traveled.

Embracing the pathways principle frees you from chasing the average timeline. Whether you’re learning, working, or reinventing yourself, your progress isn’t behind—it’s just uniquely yours.

In part three of the book, Rose turns theory into action, showing how companies succeed when they commit to individuality. Through case studies of Costco, Zoho Corporation, and Morning Star, he contrasts “Taylorist efficiency” with “win-win capitalism”—where both organizations and people flourish.

Costco: Loyalty Through Dignity and Fit

Costco treats employees not as interchangeable labor but as individuals. Founder Jim Sinegal insists, “If you hire great people, give them good wages, treat them with dignity, and give them a career path—great things will happen.” The company promotes from within—70% of managers started as hourly workers—and encourages employees to forge unique careers, like Annette Alvarez-Peters, who rose from accounting clerk to global wine buyer. Costco’s turnover rate is a fraction of Walmart’s, saving money while increasing engagement.

Zoho: Cultivating Untapped Talent

Indian entrepreneur Sridhar Vembu founded Zoho based on the belief that talent can be found anywhere. Unable to compete for elite graduates, he created Zoho University, training economically disadvantaged students through self-paced, project-based programs. There are no grades and no contracts—students learn at their own pace and often become leaders within the company. By rejecting averages and rigid job descriptions, Zoho discovered hidden innovators whom traditional firms ignored.

Morning Star: Innovation Without Managers

Even in manufacturing, individuality drives excellence. Tomato-processing giant Morning Star has no managers or titles. Each employee writes a personal mission statement and negotiates collaboration directly with peers. Worker Paul Green began as a seasonal laborer but redesigned machinery to improve efficiency by 25%. Another employee, “Abe,” invented his own role as “master tinkerer.” In empowering individuals to pursue ideas freely, Morning Star transformed every worker into an innovator.

“You cannot run a company like Costco without thinking about individuals. You can make money the other way, but you cannot create a place where everyone wins.”

Jim Sinegal’s statement captures Rose’s idea of win-win capitalism—profit through purpose.

These companies prove that individuality isn’t anarchic—it’s efficient. When employees can fit their roles to their jagged profiles and pursue pathways aligned with their contexts, engagement soars. Treating people as individuals turns productivity into purpose and organizations into vibrant ecosystems of innovation.

Rose applies individuality to education, arguing that higher education must abandon the factory model inherited from Taylorism. Our current system ranks students by GPA, rewards conformity, and enforces fixed timelines. Instead, Rose proposes three reforms: credentials instead of degrees, competency instead of grades, and student-determined pathways.

Credentials Instead of Diplomas

Degrees measure seat time, not skill mastery. Credentials, however, certify specific abilities—like Java programming or molecular biology. Programs such as Virginia’s state credentialing initiative and MIT’s online certificates already offer flexible alternatives. Students can stack credentials to build custom career paths, reducing costs and aligning learning with jobs.

Competency Over Grades

Grades rank students against averages, but competence measures what they can actually do. Universities like Western Governors University use competency-based learning, letting students progress at their pace and earn credit by proving mastery. This model directly connects education to real-world performance, strengthening ties between academia and industry.

Self-Determined Pathways

Students should control how, when, and where they learn—online, hybrid, or experiential. Credentials from multiple institutions could be combined, allowing personalized journeys rather than rigid curricula. As Rose notes, skeptics fear young learners will make mistakes, but denying choice only perpetuates Taylorist control. Trusting individuals fosters responsibility and motivation.

“Do we want a system that forces students to be like everyone else, only better—or empowers each to make their own choices?”

Rose’s challenge reframes education as a platform for individuality, not conformity.

An individualized, competency-based education aligns perfectly with Rose’s principles: jaggedness (personal strengths), context (real-world fit), and pathways (unique learning routes). In this model, students pursue excellence defined by who they are, not how they compare to the average.

In his final chapter, Rose redefines equality itself. True opportunity, he argues, comes from equal fit, not equal access. Equal access gives everyone the same standardized system—the same cockpit, class, or workplace—but equal fit ensures those systems adjust to individual needs. His example: fighter pilot Kim Campbell, who made an impossible manual landing only because the cockpit was adjustable. Old designs, built for the “average pilot,” would have kept her out entirely.

Fit Creates Opportunity

When systems fit individuals, excellence flourishes. Adjustable cockpits let pilots of all shapes succeed; flexible schools let students of all backgrounds thrive. The same principle holds for workplaces and social programs. Equal fit doesn’t mean everyone gets the same—it means everyone gets what they need to succeed. For Rose, this is the moral and practical foundation of the “Age of Individuals.”

Restoring the American Dream

Rose revisits James Truslow Adams’s original vision of the American Dream: not riches, but the chance for each person to “attain to the fullest stature of which they are capable.” Standardization corrupted this dream, turning life into a race up identical ladders. The principles of individuality restore it—offering a vision of success defined by self-realization rather than comparison.

The Age of Individuals

Rose imagines a world redesigned for diversity: healthcare based on personalized medicine, education shaped by self-paced learning, workplaces built on context-based hiring. In this new era, conformity wanes and creativity thrives. Equal fit isn’t merely fair—it unlocks collective prosperity by respecting human variability.

“We can break free from the tyranny of the average by choosing to value individuality over conformity to the system.”

Rose’s closing reminder challenges institutions and individuals alike to build a society that fits everyone, not just the mythical norm.

By embracing equal fit, Rose concludes, we can create a future where everyone has an unfettered start and a fair chance—not on average, but as unique individuals with infinite paths to excellence.