One Thing Well

To do one thing well you often have to do many other things at the margin of adequacy. Everybody is mediocre, only in different areas.
TIMO VIRKKALA

Timo is a Facebooker, and I enjoyed this statement of his. I have read some variation on it from different sources that said approximately the same thing. H.L. Mencken said, "It is impossible to imagine Goethe or Beethoven being good at billiards or golf." The gist of the statement is that to do something well requires specialization.

Malcolm Gladwell tells us to practice something for 10,000 hours. If you do anything for that amount of time, you are going to get good at it. Some will argue that talented people don't need all that, but I have yet to see the talented but lazy individual go anywhere significant.

The downside of hyperspecialization is that it carries a great deal of risk. For instance, the superstar athlete is one injury away from oblivion. Petroleum engineers spend years and money to become tops in their high demand field. Right now, that pays off with a large salary. But what happens when oil prices go down again?

The flip side to specialization is being a generalist. It carries smaller rewards but also smaller risks. I think this was what was going through the head of Lukas Verzbicas when he opted to leave the cross country program at Oregon to become a triathlete. Lukas is one of the most talented runners in the country, but I think he knows what I know. He would have to push himself hard to ever match up against and beat the Kenyans and the Ethiopians in the more lucrative career on the track or in the marathon. Triathlon is a generalist sport, so Lukas is clearly taking less risk for a lower but more certain payoff.

Which way is better? Should you specialize or generalize? On a risk/reward basis, both are roughly equal. Or as someone told me once, the greatest guitar player in the world is unknown and playing on some back porch somewhere. You can see some of these guys playing on YouTube or pulling a Susan Boyle. How do these people go unknown? The reason is obvious. Talent is more common than you realize, and the world is not exactly a meritocracy.

I can only speak for myself, but I have found that when it comes to your vocation that the generalist way is better. Being adequate in a variety of things will trump being the best at one thing when it comes to remaining employed and having a consistent stream of earnings. Consider the Mercedes-Benz. It is the best car in the world, yet taxi companies rarely use them. Why is this? This is because you can buy five Chevy automobiles for a single Benz. This is why the petroleum engineer will almost certainly lose his job if oil prices fall. If your specialty is no longer in demand, they don't keep paying you unless you have something else to offer. This is especially true if you are making an eye popping amount of money. The generalist moves from one job to the other, so this diversification of skills makes him more valuable. You only have to be adequate to remain employed.

When it comes to your avocations, I recommend having as few as possible. Most people specialize in their work and generalize in their hobbies. This is how they accumulate all that clutter in the garage. When you focus on one hobby, you get really good at it. You can even become so good that it can become a new career for you. But the added benefit is that one hobby costs far less than multiple hobbies. Considering free time is usually less than work time, you want to concentrate your resources. This is one of the reasons why I don't understand triathletes. Between work and training, how do they pull it off? They don't.

The difficult thing for people to decide is what level of dedication they want to give to a project. I used to play guitar, and I toyed with getting better at it. But I am much better at writing than I am playing guitar. My brother is much better than me on the six string. His level of musical talent makes it a wise choice for him but not so wise for me. But I do write well or at least people tell me this. So, I ditched the guitar and started blogging. I admit that I have times when I would like to play a tune or two. I also like to sing. But I really suck at music. I would be fired from any band I played in. I would be like Sherlock Holmes with his violin.

At work, I want to be a Swiss Army knife. I learned a long time ago that the modern workplace merely seeks adequacy and not superlative achievement. For instance, the short order cook at Waffle House is not going to work the same as a chef at a restaurant that gets three stars in the Michelin guide. Most business is short order cooking. As such, specializing makes little sense because being better at such a task is not going to make much difference. But if you can cook, run the register, and memorize orders, this becomes very valuable.

Most paid work is simply not about achieving something great. This is the province of inventors, athletes, artists, scientists, and the like. You're just not going to achieve greatness as an assembly line worker or working in the service sector. Those achievements are strictly pass/fail. Either it works or it doesn't. This is why you should save your efforts at greatness for your hobbies where it actually makes a difference. The short order cook can make those excellent dishes at home, prepare a cookbook, or even start his own business. But if he decides to spend that time playing golf and sucking at it, this is just a waste.

For me, work should result in money or greatness. If you get neither, stop wasting your time on it.

Posted in: