Discussion Forum > Imperfectionism
I think you are right in what you say, but on the other hand:
Some day I must write a blog article about "The Joys of Perfectionism". I think perfectionism has currently got a bad name in personal development circles, and maybe the pendulum needs to swing back a bit the other way.
For instance we are always told that goals should be believable, yet I have been experimenting lately with unachievable goals and have found them very powerful. To give a fictitious example, what if I had a goal to become a concert pianist? There's no way in which someone of my age could do that from scratch. But what if I behaved as if I could? Would I make far more progress than if my goal were to "learn to play the piano"? My experiments are suggesting that I would.
As I've occasionally mentioned on this website, I drive a Porsche. A Porsche is to all intents and purposes a perfect car. It's designed to be perfect. It works perfectly and never goes wrong. And it's a completely different driving experience, even in a town, than any of the imperfect cars which most people drive (and which I drive when I'm not driving the Porsche). And there are so many other aspects of life in which someone who is aiming for perfection raises things to a completely new level.
Some day I must write a blog article about "The Joys of Perfectionism". I think perfectionism has currently got a bad name in personal development circles, and maybe the pendulum needs to swing back a bit the other way.
For instance we are always told that goals should be believable, yet I have been experimenting lately with unachievable goals and have found them very powerful. To give a fictitious example, what if I had a goal to become a concert pianist? There's no way in which someone of my age could do that from scratch. But what if I behaved as if I could? Would I make far more progress than if my goal were to "learn to play the piano"? My experiments are suggesting that I would.
As I've occasionally mentioned on this website, I drive a Porsche. A Porsche is to all intents and purposes a perfect car. It's designed to be perfect. It works perfectly and never goes wrong. And it's a completely different driving experience, even in a town, than any of the imperfect cars which most people drive (and which I drive when I'm not driving the Porsche). And there are so many other aspects of life in which someone who is aiming for perfection raises things to a completely new level.
October 12, 2011 at 8:36 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
"Impossible goals" and perfectionism are not the same thing at all.
An impossible goal is one which, objectively, cannot be achieved. Perfectionism is where you spend disproportionate resources on a trivial improvement - reprinting a document because one full stop is slightly misplaced, for example. (That's an example - arguably - of bad perfectionism but one can certainly think of examples of good perfectionism).
An impossible goal is one which, objectively, cannot be achieved. Perfectionism is where you spend disproportionate resources on a trivial improvement - reprinting a document because one full stop is slightly misplaced, for example. (That's an example - arguably - of bad perfectionism but one can certainly think of examples of good perfectionism).
October 12, 2011 at 10:18 |
AndrewW
AndrewW
Andrew:
Well, my dictionary (Oxford Dictionary of English) defines "perfectionism" as "refusal to accept any standard short of perfection". That covers a lot more than "spending disproportionate resources on a trivial improvement".
Well, my dictionary (Oxford Dictionary of English) defines "perfectionism" as "refusal to accept any standard short of perfection". That covers a lot more than "spending disproportionate resources on a trivial improvement".
October 12, 2011 at 10:30 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I tend to reserve perfectionism for certain key areas of my life, like my fiction writing (unless it's National Novel Writing Month) or music rehearsal. Yard work and house cleaning -- very much not perfection!
And I exercise perfectionism very selectively for certain work projects. My workplace tends to favor quick turnaround/iterative stuff, so I tend to want to perfect my processes for supporting quick turnarounds than for ephemeral products. The cost/value ratio doesn't support perfect products. But even then, I have to watch out that I don't lose sight of what I'm trying to perfect and why; I can easily lose myself in the abstract perfectionist process and lose sight of the ephemeral document that is actually what I'm getting paid to produce.
And I exercise perfectionism very selectively for certain work projects. My workplace tends to favor quick turnaround/iterative stuff, so I tend to want to perfect my processes for supporting quick turnarounds than for ephemeral products. The cost/value ratio doesn't support perfect products. But even then, I have to watch out that I don't lose sight of what I'm trying to perfect and why; I can easily lose myself in the abstract perfectionist process and lose sight of the ephemeral document that is actually what I'm getting paid to produce.
October 12, 2011 at 14:47 |
Mike Brown
Mike Brown
Wait: you get paid to produce ephemeral documents?!
October 12, 2011 at 15:39 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Mark,
There was a story last year about a middle age man who was laid off and discovered accidentally that he had a beautiful voice. He was given a scholarship to a music school and is being trained to be a professional opera singer. Many people may have hidden talents that even if discovered later in life may allow them to become very successful.
Gerry
There was a story last year about a middle age man who was laid off and discovered accidentally that he had a beautiful voice. He was given a scholarship to a music school and is being trained to be a professional opera singer. Many people may have hidden talents that even if discovered later in life may allow them to become very successful.
Gerry
October 12, 2011 at 15:58 |
Gerry
Gerry
Let's say I have a fair coin, and I toss it 100 times and it comes up heads every time.
What is the probability that the next coin toss will be heads?
A perfectionist will answer, 50%. "Each coin toss is independent of the others". Which is theoretically correct.
A non-perfectionist will say, 1%. "I don't care what you say -- there's no way that's a fair coin!"
Maybe this story isn't perfectly suitable (!) to the question at hand. And maybe it would be better to say "idealist" and "realist" instead of "perfectionist" and "non-perfectionist" in my example. But in any case, I've found it very hard to overcome my overly theoretical, overly idealistic, overly perfectionistic tendencies and try to embrace a more practical, and ultimately more realistic point of view. Over-idealism and over-emphasis of the theoretical seem to go hand-in-hand with perfectionism.
Here is my working theory which I struggle to reconcile in practice:
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they aren't."
On the other hand, Mark has a really valid point -- sometimes by avoiding perfectionism and end up with mediocrity or shoddiness.
What's the most effective way to achieve the excellence and power of perfectionism that leads to the accomplishment of unattainable goals, without getting lost in the fantasy worlds of the overly-theoretical and overly-ideal?
What's the difference between foolish audacity and the courage to achieve something no one has ever achieved before?
What is the probability that the next coin toss will be heads?
A perfectionist will answer, 50%. "Each coin toss is independent of the others". Which is theoretically correct.
A non-perfectionist will say, 1%. "I don't care what you say -- there's no way that's a fair coin!"
Maybe this story isn't perfectly suitable (!) to the question at hand. And maybe it would be better to say "idealist" and "realist" instead of "perfectionist" and "non-perfectionist" in my example. But in any case, I've found it very hard to overcome my overly theoretical, overly idealistic, overly perfectionistic tendencies and try to embrace a more practical, and ultimately more realistic point of view. Over-idealism and over-emphasis of the theoretical seem to go hand-in-hand with perfectionism.
Here is my working theory which I struggle to reconcile in practice:
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they aren't."
On the other hand, Mark has a really valid point -- sometimes by avoiding perfectionism and end up with mediocrity or shoddiness.
What's the most effective way to achieve the excellence and power of perfectionism that leads to the accomplishment of unattainable goals, without getting lost in the fantasy worlds of the overly-theoretical and overly-ideal?
What's the difference between foolish audacity and the courage to achieve something no one has ever achieved before?
October 12, 2011 at 21:48 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
<< Let's say I have a fair coin, and I toss it 100 times and it comes up heads every time. >>
Have you actually worked out what the odds against that occurring are?
My maths is terrible but I reckon it would be in the region of 126,765,060,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1.
That is something a perfectionist like me would be sure to pick up on!
<< Let's say I have a fair coin, and I toss it 100 times and it comes up heads every time. >>
Have you actually worked out what the odds against that occurring are?
My maths is terrible but I reckon it would be in the region of 126,765,060,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1.
That is something a perfectionist like me would be sure to pick up on!
October 12, 2011 at 21:58 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Aiming for the "impossible" is a good thing if taken with the attitude of an 8-year-old child playing basketball. She can't even shoot the ball high enough to reach the basket, but that doesn't stop putting in her best effort, and enjoying the process all the time.
It's a bad thing when taken with the attitude of a pessimistic socially-prescribed perfectionist. Such a person tries to score a basket, with no hope of success, because he believes someone else expects him to succeed despite the odds and it's just unfair, but we'll keep trying anyway! Well actually it can also be good if the subject's self-doubt is unfounded and the pressure serves to prove it unfounded. But if the impossibility is manifest, the pressure is trouble.
It's a bad thing when taken with the attitude of a pessimistic socially-prescribed perfectionist. Such a person tries to score a basket, with no hope of success, because he believes someone else expects him to succeed despite the odds and it's just unfair, but we'll keep trying anyway! Well actually it can also be good if the subject's self-doubt is unfounded and the pressure serves to prove it unfounded. But if the impossibility is manifest, the pressure is trouble.
October 12, 2011 at 22:32 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan:
In Halvorson's book she makes a big distinction between pursuing a goal to show how good you are and pursuing a goal in order to learn and get better. Maybe perfectionism has got a bad name because we tend to identify it with the first. But aiming for perfection in the second type of goal would be another matter entirely.
In Halvorson's book she makes a big distinction between pursuing a goal to show how good you are and pursuing a goal in order to learn and get better. Maybe perfectionism has got a bad name because we tend to identify it with the first. But aiming for perfection in the second type of goal would be another matter entirely.
October 13, 2011 at 1:38 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
To the saying:
"God Grant me the Serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can and Wisdom to know the difference."
I would add: and the Common Sense to know when to give up.
Perfectionism in this context provides a rational basis to shoot for the sky, as incongruous as that may sound.
"God Grant me the Serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can and Wisdom to know the difference."
I would add: and the Common Sense to know when to give up.
Perfectionism in this context provides a rational basis to shoot for the sky, as incongruous as that may sound.
October 13, 2011 at 3:42 |
JD
JD
Hi. This is my first post on the forum!
I felt called upon from this topic, cause I've been picked on to be a "perfectionist" many times.
To me what Mark intends for being a perfectionist is something different from the meaning that Alan is giving. Alan is talking about the consequences that can arise from the "refusal to accept any standard short of perfection". This habit can easely work against you if you try to do that in fields you're not fully mastering yet.
Perfectionsts often do this because don't handle well critiques, so they try to prevent those being always perfect.
Other thing is a person that already is a master, trying to keep his standards high.
I felt called upon from this topic, cause I've been picked on to be a "perfectionist" many times.
To me what Mark intends for being a perfectionist is something different from the meaning that Alan is giving. Alan is talking about the consequences that can arise from the "refusal to accept any standard short of perfection". This habit can easely work against you if you try to do that in fields you're not fully mastering yet.
Perfectionsts often do this because don't handle well critiques, so they try to prevent those being always perfect.
Other thing is a person that already is a master, trying to keep his standards high.
October 13, 2011 at 12:19 |
Lorenzo
Lorenzo
Returning to the original point: my common thinking is often to avoid working on something because I haven't time to do it well, because I'm focused on more urgent or more important items. I believe the focus is absolutely a good thing. Two things seem to be adjustable though:
1. Working a bit on this other thing needn't distract from my general focus, so it's okay to get started.
2. The item I'm focused on, sometimes doesn't need to be perfected in every respect. Maybe it doesn't need to be comprehensive, or final. By switching up, it keeps another item from languishing, and also keeps me alert to the other important things. It's easier to stop perfecting one thing, when the next thing is in mind, which may be more important.
1. Working a bit on this other thing needn't distract from my general focus, so it's okay to get started.
2. The item I'm focused on, sometimes doesn't need to be perfected in every respect. Maybe it doesn't need to be comprehensive, or final. By switching up, it keeps another item from languishing, and also keeps me alert to the other important things. It's easier to stop perfecting one thing, when the next thing is in mind, which may be more important.
October 13, 2011 at 12:27 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Lorenzo:
<< Perfectionsts often do this because don't handle well critiques, so they try to prevent those being always perfect. >>
That would be an example of doing something to show how good you are, rather than doing it in order to become better. A person who is doing something in order to learn and become better handles critiques much better.
This is where the problem lies - not in perfectionism.
<< Perfectionsts often do this because don't handle well critiques, so they try to prevent those being always perfect. >>
That would be an example of doing something to show how good you are, rather than doing it in order to become better. A person who is doing something in order to learn and become better handles critiques much better.
This is where the problem lies - not in perfectionism.
October 13, 2011 at 12:51 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
What Alan describes in the initial post has a name: "continuous improvement". The "little and often" approach supports this very well. The art here is to decide when to stop improving, i.e deciding whether to re-enter the topic at the end of the list or leave it at that (in AF/SF terms). Perfectionists (like myself) will tend to do much more iterations. But even there, the "standing out" of AF/SF can (could?) be helpful in distinguishing between areas where perfectionism has value and those where it's just overhead and the famous 80/20 principle is the way to go.
October 13, 2011 at 13:58 |
Marc (from Brussels)
Marc (from Brussels)
Alan's "Imperfectionism" reminds me of what Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls "robustness", as opposed to "over-optimization" which leads to fragility. "Robustness" means something can survive random events, vs. over-optimization which might work very well in very constrained circumstances but breaks down quickly if the situation changes slightly or is impacted by randomness.
What's a good name for the good kind of perfectionism that Mark describes, that isn't prone to the negative connotations?
What's a good name for the good kind of perfectionism that Mark describes, that isn't prone to the negative connotations?
October 13, 2011 at 14:31 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I vote to keep the word "perfectionism" for all the negative connotations.
Maybe, as suggested earlier, "continuous improvement" or "pride in your work" for the positive side. Although the second can turn too easily into "if not perfect, then you don't take pride in your work".
The trap of inappropriate perfectionism is easy to fall into. Mark's right, though -- never aspiring to be perfect, or at least better, is just as dangerous.
I have trouble letting my kids dream, even though I know that they need to. I'm afraid of the crash. Intellectually, I know that most dreams will fade and be replaced by something that's more realistic that they will have fun achieving, but as they get older I have trouble keeping my mouth shut.
My voice teacher says adults practise much less than kids. Parents expect their kids to practise and reach milestones. Terrible things will happen (take the "why kids should learn an instrument brochure and turn it backwards") if they don't. Adults expect to enjoy learning and take the occasional exam as a fun challenge.
Seraphim, you must be an engineer at heart. We chanted that theory/practice mantra during many lab sessions.
Another side of perfectionism is "I can't do it perfectly, so I won't do it at all." Rather than quickly cleaning the traffic areas often and sometimes doing a corner or two, you do nothing until even the traffic area is an all-day chore. It becomes a vicious cycle. As has been said here, little and often, and good planning (do the traffic areas first), works.
JD: I always thought the second verse was something like:
But God, grant me the courage not to give up on what I think is right, even though I think it is hopeless.
Google disagrees. The full poem is here: http://www.cptryon.org/prayer/special/serenity.html
I'd like to add something to Mark's reasons to do something well: Tying your self-worth to it. It's a bad reason, but an easy trap to fall into.
Maybe, as suggested earlier, "continuous improvement" or "pride in your work" for the positive side. Although the second can turn too easily into "if not perfect, then you don't take pride in your work".
The trap of inappropriate perfectionism is easy to fall into. Mark's right, though -- never aspiring to be perfect, or at least better, is just as dangerous.
I have trouble letting my kids dream, even though I know that they need to. I'm afraid of the crash. Intellectually, I know that most dreams will fade and be replaced by something that's more realistic that they will have fun achieving, but as they get older I have trouble keeping my mouth shut.
My voice teacher says adults practise much less than kids. Parents expect their kids to practise and reach milestones. Terrible things will happen (take the "why kids should learn an instrument brochure and turn it backwards") if they don't. Adults expect to enjoy learning and take the occasional exam as a fun challenge.
Seraphim, you must be an engineer at heart. We chanted that theory/practice mantra during many lab sessions.
Another side of perfectionism is "I can't do it perfectly, so I won't do it at all." Rather than quickly cleaning the traffic areas often and sometimes doing a corner or two, you do nothing until even the traffic area is an all-day chore. It becomes a vicious cycle. As has been said here, little and often, and good planning (do the traffic areas first), works.
JD: I always thought the second verse was something like:
But God, grant me the courage not to give up on what I think is right, even though I think it is hopeless.
Google disagrees. The full poem is here: http://www.cptryon.org/prayer/special/serenity.html
I'd like to add something to Mark's reasons to do something well: Tying your self-worth to it. It's a bad reason, but an easy trap to fall into.
October 13, 2011 at 17:01 |
Cricket
Cricket
<<This is where the problem lies - not in perfectionism.>>
I totally agree. But these are perfectionists nontheless. That's because a bad interpretation of the word exist.
Anyway, one should choose very well the scopes where he wants to perfect himself. And for all the rest I think a more balanced approach like Alan is saying can be more effective.
I totally agree. But these are perfectionists nontheless. That's because a bad interpretation of the word exist.
Anyway, one should choose very well the scopes where he wants to perfect himself. And for all the rest I think a more balanced approach like Alan is saying can be more effective.
October 13, 2011 at 17:09 |
Lorenzo
Lorenzo
Lorenzo:
<< And for all the rest I think a more balanced approach like Alan is saying can be more effective. >>
That's fine - just as long as you don't want to be an Olympic athlete, a concert pianist, an aircraft pilot, a structural engineer, a top expert on any subject, an event organiser, or anything else which rises above the ordinary.
<< And for all the rest I think a more balanced approach like Alan is saying can be more effective. >>
That's fine - just as long as you don't want to be an Olympic athlete, a concert pianist, an aircraft pilot, a structural engineer, a top expert on any subject, an event organiser, or anything else which rises above the ordinary.
October 13, 2011 at 17:22 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Cricket:
<< I'd like to add something to Mark's reasons to do something well: Tying your self-worth to it. It's a bad reason, but an easy trap to fall into. >>
I'd have thought "doing something to show how good you are, rather than doing it in order to become better" covered that fairly conclusively.
<< I'd like to add something to Mark's reasons to do something well: Tying your self-worth to it. It's a bad reason, but an easy trap to fall into. >>
I'd have thought "doing something to show how good you are, rather than doing it in order to become better" covered that fairly conclusively.
October 13, 2011 at 17:24 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I think "to show how good you are" is to show it to other people. "Self-worth" is more internal, how you feel about yourself.
They're intertwined, but different.
If someone has low self-worth, she might try to get others' approval by being perfect, yet no matter how many people approve, she'll still have low self-worth.
Also, I read this post today:
http://www.heidigranthalvorson.com/2011/04/why-letting-yourself-make-mistakes.html
They're intertwined, but different.
If someone has low self-worth, she might try to get others' approval by being perfect, yet no matter how many people approve, she'll still have low self-worth.
Also, I read this post today:
http://www.heidigranthalvorson.com/2011/04/why-letting-yourself-make-mistakes.html
October 13, 2011 at 18:04 |
Cricket
Cricket
Mark:
Yes it's like you said. But for my experience it's better not to try to perfect too many things at the same time.
Cricket:
For what I feel, behind "proving self-worth" very often hides the others approval too. Or very specific person's approval.
Yes it's like you said. But for my experience it's better not to try to perfect too many things at the same time.
Cricket:
For what I feel, behind "proving self-worth" very often hides the others approval too. Or very specific person's approval.
October 13, 2011 at 18:24 |
Lorenzo
Lorenzo
Lorenzo, I agree. Self-worth encompasses an entire minefield. Even if they get that person's approval they'll discount it. Self-worth isn't about approval, but on the surface it feels that way. Fortunately, there are effective techniques to improve self-worth, and professionals who have well-stocked toolboxes if the self-help route doesn't work.
October 13, 2011 at 21:24 |
Cricket
Cricket
Cricket:
<<
Also, I read this post today:
http://www.heidigranthalvorson.com/2011/04/why-letting-yourself-make-mistakes.html >>
In which she says exactly what I am saying, which is not surprising since I got it from her.
<<
Also, I read this post today:
http://www.heidigranthalvorson.com/2011/04/why-letting-yourself-make-mistakes.html >>
In which she says exactly what I am saying, which is not surprising since I got it from her.
October 13, 2011 at 23:49 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Cricket:
<< Fortunately, there are effective techniques to improve self-worth, and professionals who have well-stocked toolboxes if the self-help route doesn't work. . >>
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=exploding-the-self-esteem
Personally I have always believed that self-esteem comes from a good track-record of success, not the other way round.
<< Fortunately, there are effective techniques to improve self-worth, and professionals who have well-stocked toolboxes if the self-help route doesn't work. . >>
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=exploding-the-self-esteem
Personally I have always believed that self-esteem comes from a good track-record of success, not the other way round.
October 13, 2011 at 23:53 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
<<< And for all the rest I think a more balanced approach like Alan is saying can be more effective. >>
That's fine - just as long as you don't want to be an Olympic athlete, a concert pianist, an aircraft pilot, a structural engineer, a top expert on any subject, an event organiser, or anything else which rises above the ordinary.>
I would agree with Mark's assessment except that he didn't quote the full paragraph and missed the context:
<<Anyway, one should choose very well the scopes where he wants to perfect himself. >>
This certainly applies also to Olympians and pilots. Choose to perfect your field, but leave the rest imperfected.
Now, a word for Mark's positive sense of perfectionism: exuberance?
That's fine - just as long as you don't want to be an Olympic athlete, a concert pianist, an aircraft pilot, a structural engineer, a top expert on any subject, an event organiser, or anything else which rises above the ordinary.>
I would agree with Mark's assessment except that he didn't quote the full paragraph and missed the context:
<<Anyway, one should choose very well the scopes where he wants to perfect himself. >>
This certainly applies also to Olympians and pilots. Choose to perfect your field, but leave the rest imperfected.
Now, a word for Mark's positive sense of perfectionism: exuberance?
October 14, 2011 at 3:26 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
It seems to me AutoFocus itself may be a perfect application of Imperfectionism: Its Achilles heel, if it has one, is a person's reluctance to dismiss and then delete stuff when there is too many things. This is the perfectionists tendency to not want to admit failure to perfectly do everything and accept that some things may be left undone. By embracing imperfection, not as an ideal but as reality, we can allow things to leave the list, thereby keeping AutoFocus in truer balance and working more perfectly as a system.
October 14, 2011 at 3:39 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Mark,
That article describes the problems with what Martin Seligman calls 'boosterism", which is built on repetition and the Law of Attraction and other techniques that don't have a foundation. You're right -- it doesn't't work.
However, people who are prone to depression often interpret the same track record in a pessimistic manner.
Seligman's book The Optimistic Child covers the difference between boosterism and practical, earned optimism, which, as you suggest, concentrates on a track record of success.
At the extreme, pessimistic people perceive bad things are permanent, pervasive (all areas of their lives) and personal (my fault), and good things as impermanent, specific an impersonal. "We got this contract because we worked hard on this project and everyone else on the team did a great job. It probably won't happen again," vs "We got this contract, and will get more, because we are a team that works hard, and I'm a valuable member of it."
Likewise, for something bad, "We lost the contract, and will lose many more, because I screwed everything up and I bring the team down," vs "We lost this specific contract because Joe missed a paragraph in the spec and I made an important typo. We won't make those mistakes again."
It's as much how that success is interpreted as whether it exists. According to Seligman, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy helps you interpret the track record in a more positive manner. (I don't know enough about CBT to know if what he calls CBT really is, but whatever he calls it, much of his book makes sense.)
That article describes the problems with what Martin Seligman calls 'boosterism", which is built on repetition and the Law of Attraction and other techniques that don't have a foundation. You're right -- it doesn't't work.
However, people who are prone to depression often interpret the same track record in a pessimistic manner.
Seligman's book The Optimistic Child covers the difference between boosterism and practical, earned optimism, which, as you suggest, concentrates on a track record of success.
At the extreme, pessimistic people perceive bad things are permanent, pervasive (all areas of their lives) and personal (my fault), and good things as impermanent, specific an impersonal. "We got this contract because we worked hard on this project and everyone else on the team did a great job. It probably won't happen again," vs "We got this contract, and will get more, because we are a team that works hard, and I'm a valuable member of it."
Likewise, for something bad, "We lost the contract, and will lose many more, because I screwed everything up and I bring the team down," vs "We lost this specific contract because Joe missed a paragraph in the spec and I made an important typo. We won't make those mistakes again."
It's as much how that success is interpreted as whether it exists. According to Seligman, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy helps you interpret the track record in a more positive manner. (I don't know enough about CBT to know if what he calls CBT really is, but whatever he calls it, much of his book makes sense.)
October 14, 2011 at 4:00 |
Cricket
Cricket
Alan:
<< Choose to perfect your field, but leave the rest imperfected. >>
I used to make my living out of coaching artists, musicians, authors, etc. who were brilliant in their field but the rest of their lives were in chaos.
<< Choose to perfect your field, but leave the rest imperfected. >>
I used to make my living out of coaching artists, musicians, authors, etc. who were brilliant in their field but the rest of their lives were in chaos.
October 14, 2011 at 8:49 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Cricket:
<< That article describes the problems with what Martin Seligman calls 'boosterism", which is built on repetition and the Law of Attraction and other techniques that don't have a foundation. >>
Whatever Martin Seligman calls it, the concept of "self-esteem" is firmly entrenched in our education system and has had in my opinion extremely pernicious effects.
<< That article describes the problems with what Martin Seligman calls 'boosterism", which is built on repetition and the Law of Attraction and other techniques that don't have a foundation. >>
Whatever Martin Seligman calls it, the concept of "self-esteem" is firmly entrenched in our education system and has had in my opinion extremely pernicious effects.
October 14, 2011 at 8:52 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
You don't need to have the ability of a NASA astronaut to keep a better order in your life or to do the job that pays your bills, if your target is to win the world fishing championship. You reserve the NASA knowledge for fishing and just work out the best you can for the rest, without becoming too much concerned in not being "perfect" on those things. That's the meaning of what Alan is saying. But I could be wrong. Or simply I don't understand your idea of Perfection. Do you think someone should try to be perfect in everything he does?
Off course I think chaos is bad if left uncontrolled, despite having fascinated me for all my teenage and even later. Or I'd better say that chaos still fascinate me, but by a long time I also leared to enjoy method.
You don't need to have the ability of a NASA astronaut to keep a better order in your life or to do the job that pays your bills, if your target is to win the world fishing championship. You reserve the NASA knowledge for fishing and just work out the best you can for the rest, without becoming too much concerned in not being "perfect" on those things. That's the meaning of what Alan is saying. But I could be wrong. Or simply I don't understand your idea of Perfection. Do you think someone should try to be perfect in everything he does?
Off course I think chaos is bad if left uncontrolled, despite having fascinated me for all my teenage and even later. Or I'd better say that chaos still fascinate me, but by a long time I also leared to enjoy method.
October 14, 2011 at 9:53 |
Lorenzo
Lorenzo
Lorenzo:
<< You don't need to have the ability of a NASA astronaut to keep a better order in your life or to do the job that pays your bills >>
Absolutely right. Which means that it is in fact relatively easy to keep perfect order in your life and do your work perfectly.
<<Do you think someone should try to be perfect in everything he does? >>
Yes. Except I would say "aim to be perfect", rather than "try to be perfect".
Which is easier to keep tidy - a room that is perfectly organized with a place for everything, or one that has stuff piled up all over the place and which hasn't been sorted out for years?
Which is easier to keep on top of - a job that is perfectly organized with brilliant systems and clear procedures or one that survives on winging it and in which nothing ever gets done properly?
Perfection makes life easier, not more difficult.
<< You don't need to have the ability of a NASA astronaut to keep a better order in your life or to do the job that pays your bills >>
Absolutely right. Which means that it is in fact relatively easy to keep perfect order in your life and do your work perfectly.
<<Do you think someone should try to be perfect in everything he does? >>
Yes. Except I would say "aim to be perfect", rather than "try to be perfect".
Which is easier to keep tidy - a room that is perfectly organized with a place for everything, or one that has stuff piled up all over the place and which hasn't been sorted out for years?
Which is easier to keep on top of - a job that is perfectly organized with brilliant systems and clear procedures or one that survives on winging it and in which nothing ever gets done properly?
Perfection makes life easier, not more difficult.
October 14, 2011 at 10:48 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
We come to the heart of the disagreement. Neither Lorenzo nor I are arguing for chaos in anything. Our contention is not with " a room that is perfectly organized with a place for everything, or one that has stuff piled up all over the place", as we agree the latter is harder. The dispute is, "a room that is perfectly organized with a place for everything" versus, "one that has a few things out of place".
Mark appears to suggest that aiming for the perfect in all things is the best. In contradiction, I say aiming for the perfect in few things, while accepting second-best in the rest is far superior. This is because perfect us much much harder than imperfect, and keeping a spotless room spotless is much harder than keeping a clean room cleanish. In aiming for the top of everything, you will have less time and energy to aim for the top in the most crucial things. So emphasize the key areas more, and no when good-enough applies to the rest. This doesn't mean accepting chaos anywhere.
Mark appears to suggest that aiming for the perfect in all things is the best. In contradiction, I say aiming for the perfect in few things, while accepting second-best in the rest is far superior. This is because perfect us much much harder than imperfect, and keeping a spotless room spotless is much harder than keeping a clean room cleanish. In aiming for the top of everything, you will have less time and energy to aim for the top in the most crucial things. So emphasize the key areas more, and no when good-enough applies to the rest. This doesn't mean accepting chaos anywhere.
October 14, 2011 at 12:58 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan:
<< Our contention is not with " a room that is perfectly organized with a place for everything, or one that has stuff piled up all over the place", as we agree the latter is harder. The dispute is, "a room that is perfectly organized with a place for everything" versus, "one that has a few things out of place". >>
In order to compare like with like you would need to rephrase that as "a room with a place for everything" versus "a room with a place for everything except a few things which don't have a place".
Frankly that's just laughable. Why on earth would you think a room is better if some things don't have a place? After you've tripped over them or lost them twenty times a day, it might occur to you that for a minimal investment of energy you could actually find a place for all of them.
<< perfect us much much harder than imperfect, and keeping a spotless room spotless is much harder than keeping a clean room cleanish. >>
I don't actually agree with that. If your aim is to keep something spotless, then you will arrange it so that it is easy to keep it spotless. If your aim is only to keep it cleanish, then you will never get down to sorting things out so they are easy to keep clean.
<< In aiming for the top of everything, you will have less time and energy to aim for the top in the most crucial things. >>
You mean after you've wasted time looking for the things which don't have a place, chasing the invoices which have got lost, having to clean the house at midnight because your mother-in-law is coming to stay tomorrow, breaking down because your car hasn't been properly maintained, and feeling the energy drain out of you as you look at the state of your lawn? Yes, you'll have lots of energy to aim for the top - if only you could remember where you'd put the file.
<< Our contention is not with " a room that is perfectly organized with a place for everything, or one that has stuff piled up all over the place", as we agree the latter is harder. The dispute is, "a room that is perfectly organized with a place for everything" versus, "one that has a few things out of place". >>
In order to compare like with like you would need to rephrase that as "a room with a place for everything" versus "a room with a place for everything except a few things which don't have a place".
Frankly that's just laughable. Why on earth would you think a room is better if some things don't have a place? After you've tripped over them or lost them twenty times a day, it might occur to you that for a minimal investment of energy you could actually find a place for all of them.
<< perfect us much much harder than imperfect, and keeping a spotless room spotless is much harder than keeping a clean room cleanish. >>
I don't actually agree with that. If your aim is to keep something spotless, then you will arrange it so that it is easy to keep it spotless. If your aim is only to keep it cleanish, then you will never get down to sorting things out so they are easy to keep clean.
<< In aiming for the top of everything, you will have less time and energy to aim for the top in the most crucial things. >>
You mean after you've wasted time looking for the things which don't have a place, chasing the invoices which have got lost, having to clean the house at midnight because your mother-in-law is coming to stay tomorrow, breaking down because your car hasn't been properly maintained, and feeling the energy drain out of you as you look at the state of your lawn? Yes, you'll have lots of energy to aim for the top - if only you could remember where you'd put the file.
October 14, 2011 at 13:55 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Procedure for perfection:
1. Sort something out thoroughly.
2. Maintain it that way.
3. Benefit from the energy boost that comes from having things in perfect order.
Procedure for imperfection:
1. Sort something out a bit.
2. Let it slide.
3. Spend your time putting things right which shouldn't have gone wrong in the first place.
1. Sort something out thoroughly.
2. Maintain it that way.
3. Benefit from the energy boost that comes from having things in perfect order.
Procedure for imperfection:
1. Sort something out a bit.
2. Let it slide.
3. Spend your time putting things right which shouldn't have gone wrong in the first place.
October 14, 2011 at 14:06 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Yes this is clear. I fully believe of your two procedures, the former is much more difficult and not always worth the effort. I am open to hearing other opinions. Perhaps I shall be persuaded to amend my ways. What do the rest of the crowd here believe?
October 14, 2011 at 14:12 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
My new motto:
EXTEND PERFECTION IN EVERY DIRECTION
EXTEND PERFECTION IN EVERY DIRECTION
October 14, 2011 at 14:21 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Alan:
<< I fully believe of your two procedures, the former is much more difficult and not always worth the effort. >>
You've put your finger on why most people avoid aiming for perfection - Step 1 in the Perfection procedure is more difficult than Step 1 in the Imperfection procedure.
Step 2 is probably no more difficult because it is easy to maintain something once it has been sorted out properly.
Step 3 is much easier in the Perfection scenario. And in both cases Step 3 is with you all the time, outweighing the advantages/disadvantages of Step 1 a thousand times over.
In my workshops I used to give the following example:
Something goes wrong 5 times a day 7 days a week, and it takes 5 minutes to put it right.
It would take 30 minutes to sort the problem out so it never recurs.
Faced with the choice of 1) wasting 175 minutes a week for the rest of one's life, or 2) spending 30 minutes once to sort the problem out for good, what would most people choose?
Answer: 1) because it's 5 minutes work NOW versus 30 minutes work NOW. No contest!
<< I fully believe of your two procedures, the former is much more difficult and not always worth the effort. >>
You've put your finger on why most people avoid aiming for perfection - Step 1 in the Perfection procedure is more difficult than Step 1 in the Imperfection procedure.
Step 2 is probably no more difficult because it is easy to maintain something once it has been sorted out properly.
Step 3 is much easier in the Perfection scenario. And in both cases Step 3 is with you all the time, outweighing the advantages/disadvantages of Step 1 a thousand times over.
In my workshops I used to give the following example:
Something goes wrong 5 times a day 7 days a week, and it takes 5 minutes to put it right.
It would take 30 minutes to sort the problem out so it never recurs.
Faced with the choice of 1) wasting 175 minutes a week for the rest of one's life, or 2) spending 30 minutes once to sort the problem out for good, what would most people choose?
Answer: 1) because it's 5 minutes work NOW versus 30 minutes work NOW. No contest!
October 14, 2011 at 14:28 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I still think we're talking about different things.
As a poorly organized person, I bought Mark's book Do it Tomorrow, I'm interested in his methods and I'm writing here now because I'm trying to find a better way to organize. And I totally embrace what Mark said in his last posts. I'm really hungry of that energy boost coming from point 3, cause I already feeled that in many situations. But I want to feel it in every aspect of my life.
But that is something different from what I was thinking while writing about Perfectionism. I will clarify it.
I can cook. In fact I think I'm pretty good at cooking. Sometimes I cook for many people, and I enjoy to do it. With the years, I've equiped my kitchen just like I want it: not many tools, only good tools, very well organized. I know where everything is, even the small boxes buried in the higher shelf. So that's a field where I can say I'm good enought for me, and already taking advantage of that energy boost. But you know, I'm far from being perfect. Very far. I've got at least two friends of mine that are true cooks that can beat me in every single skill in the kitchen. Yes that is normal, they're professionals! Even if I'm well organized, I'm not trying to be perfect as a cook, I'm just an amateur having fun in his kitchen!
Misunderstanding is lying here.
As a poorly organized person, I bought Mark's book Do it Tomorrow, I'm interested in his methods and I'm writing here now because I'm trying to find a better way to organize. And I totally embrace what Mark said in his last posts. I'm really hungry of that energy boost coming from point 3, cause I already feeled that in many situations. But I want to feel it in every aspect of my life.
But that is something different from what I was thinking while writing about Perfectionism. I will clarify it.
I can cook. In fact I think I'm pretty good at cooking. Sometimes I cook for many people, and I enjoy to do it. With the years, I've equiped my kitchen just like I want it: not many tools, only good tools, very well organized. I know where everything is, even the small boxes buried in the higher shelf. So that's a field where I can say I'm good enought for me, and already taking advantage of that energy boost. But you know, I'm far from being perfect. Very far. I've got at least two friends of mine that are true cooks that can beat me in every single skill in the kitchen. Yes that is normal, they're professionals! Even if I'm well organized, I'm not trying to be perfect as a cook, I'm just an amateur having fun in his kitchen!
Misunderstanding is lying here.
October 14, 2011 at 15:16 |
Lorenzo
Lorenzo
Alan:
<<Wait: you get paid to produce ephemeral documents?! >>
:) As a technical writer, I have to produce lots of reports and bureaucratic stuff that ticks a checkbox on someone else's list, but that is 'archived' and not referred to again. Or, it's a document that will be continually revised over the course of the fiscal year, so getting it perfect the first time isn't the point, delivering a draft on the due date is the point. ("Do you want it good or do you want it Thursday?")
I call them 'ephemeral' because ... I guess I just don't think they're built to last. If I were building a help system for an application, I'd view it differently. But even then, applications get retired and so it's ephemeral too, to me, even if it was heavily used for a few years.
Mike
<<Wait: you get paid to produce ephemeral documents?! >>
:) As a technical writer, I have to produce lots of reports and bureaucratic stuff that ticks a checkbox on someone else's list, but that is 'archived' and not referred to again. Or, it's a document that will be continually revised over the course of the fiscal year, so getting it perfect the first time isn't the point, delivering a draft on the due date is the point. ("Do you want it good or do you want it Thursday?")
I call them 'ephemeral' because ... I guess I just don't think they're built to last. If I were building a help system for an application, I'd view it differently. But even then, applications get retired and so it's ephemeral too, to me, even if it was heavily used for a few years.
Mike
October 14, 2011 at 15:18 |
Mike Brown
Mike Brown
Continuing the search for a label for Mark's approach: progressive progress!
October 14, 2011 at 15:31 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Mark: You, I, and Seligman are in total agreement about the dangers of promoting self-esteem without a basis in actual accomplishment. It's false, flimsy, temporary, and doesn't do the job.
Where we might differ is whether accomplishment alone is enough. If we believe that our accomplishments aren't sufficient, then they aren't, no matter how impressive they might be to others. It can be because there are no accomplishments, but it can also be because we don't believe the accomplishments are sufficient.
Your Dreams book works on this with the "what was better about today" exercise. It helps people look at their accomplishments, even small ones, and take proper credit for them.
Ephemeral documents: One of the hardest parts of my last job was convincing people that procedures were ephemeral. Yes, they're signed by everyone on the top floor, but they are tools, not straight-jackets.
One of the routine lab procedures used an ancient calculation board with logarithmic strips. The math was simple compared to my 2nd year engineering labs, but scary for someone who barely finished high school. Most of the training, and pages of the procedure, were used on it. When we replaced it with a computer (enter these five numbers and press this button) the lab tech was terrified, because we were changing the procedure that was handed-down-from-on-high. He checked with every engineer in the plant, including the president.
+++
A room that is comfortable and easily-maintained is perfect. Putting in the effort up front to build shelves and get rid of clutter is good.
Moving all the furniture every day to clean, because the least bit of dust will make the room imperfect, is bad for your living room, but perfect for a hospital room.
Replacing the couch with one that's easier to clean is good -- unless it's a choice between the perfect couch and a fridge that works.
Where we might differ is whether accomplishment alone is enough. If we believe that our accomplishments aren't sufficient, then they aren't, no matter how impressive they might be to others. It can be because there are no accomplishments, but it can also be because we don't believe the accomplishments are sufficient.
Your Dreams book works on this with the "what was better about today" exercise. It helps people look at their accomplishments, even small ones, and take proper credit for them.
Ephemeral documents: One of the hardest parts of my last job was convincing people that procedures were ephemeral. Yes, they're signed by everyone on the top floor, but they are tools, not straight-jackets.
One of the routine lab procedures used an ancient calculation board with logarithmic strips. The math was simple compared to my 2nd year engineering labs, but scary for someone who barely finished high school. Most of the training, and pages of the procedure, were used on it. When we replaced it with a computer (enter these five numbers and press this button) the lab tech was terrified, because we were changing the procedure that was handed-down-from-on-high. He checked with every engineer in the plant, including the president.
+++
A room that is comfortable and easily-maintained is perfect. Putting in the effort up front to build shelves and get rid of clutter is good.
Moving all the furniture every day to clean, because the least bit of dust will make the room imperfect, is bad for your living room, but perfect for a hospital room.
Replacing the couch with one that's easier to clean is good -- unless it's a choice between the perfect couch and a fridge that works.
October 14, 2011 at 15:58 |
Cricket
Cricket
Lorenzo:
<< Even if I'm well organized, I'm not trying to be perfect as a cook, I'm just an amateur having fun in his kitchen! >>
"Trying to be perfect as a cook" is different from "aiming to be perfect as a cook".
What would be different if you were aiming to be perfect as a cook?
<< Even if I'm well organized, I'm not trying to be perfect as a cook, I'm just an amateur having fun in his kitchen! >>
"Trying to be perfect as a cook" is different from "aiming to be perfect as a cook".
What would be different if you were aiming to be perfect as a cook?
October 14, 2011 at 16:53 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Alan:
<< Continuing the search for a label for Mark's approach: progressive progress! >>
I think there is already a term for it: kaizen or continuous improvement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaizen
<< Continuing the search for a label for Mark's approach: progressive progress! >>
I think there is already a term for it: kaizen or continuous improvement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaizen
October 14, 2011 at 16:58 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Cricket:
<< Where we might differ is whether accomplishment alone is enough. If we believe that our accomplishments aren't sufficient, then they aren't, no matter how impressive they might be to others. It can be because there are no accomplishments, but it can also be because we don't believe the accomplishments are sufficient. >>
I repeat what I said to Alan above:
In Halvorson's book she makes a big distinction between pursuing a goal to show how good you are and pursuing a goal in order to learn and get better. Maybe perfectionism has got a bad name because we tend to identify it with the first. But aiming for perfection in the second type of goal would be another matter entirely.
<< Ephemeral documents: One of the hardest parts of my last job was convincing people that procedures were ephemeral. >>
Just because something is ephemeral doesn't mean it can't be perfect.
<< A room that is comfortable and easily-maintained is perfect... Moving all the furniture every day to clean, because the least bit of dust will make the room imperfect, is bad for your living room, but perfect for a hospital room. >>
So a perfect living room is different from a perfect hospital room. Who'da thunk it?
<< Replacing the couch with one that's easier to clean is good -- unless it's a choice between the perfect couch and a fridge that works. >>
Guess you should have paid more attention to getting the perfect bank balance.
<< Where we might differ is whether accomplishment alone is enough. If we believe that our accomplishments aren't sufficient, then they aren't, no matter how impressive they might be to others. It can be because there are no accomplishments, but it can also be because we don't believe the accomplishments are sufficient. >>
I repeat what I said to Alan above:
In Halvorson's book she makes a big distinction between pursuing a goal to show how good you are and pursuing a goal in order to learn and get better. Maybe perfectionism has got a bad name because we tend to identify it with the first. But aiming for perfection in the second type of goal would be another matter entirely.
<< Ephemeral documents: One of the hardest parts of my last job was convincing people that procedures were ephemeral. >>
Just because something is ephemeral doesn't mean it can't be perfect.
<< A room that is comfortable and easily-maintained is perfect... Moving all the furniture every day to clean, because the least bit of dust will make the room imperfect, is bad for your living room, but perfect for a hospital room. >>
So a perfect living room is different from a perfect hospital room. Who'da thunk it?
<< Replacing the couch with one that's easier to clean is good -- unless it's a choice between the perfect couch and a fridge that works. >>
Guess you should have paid more attention to getting the perfect bank balance.
October 14, 2011 at 17:10 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
<< Just because something is ephemeral doesn't mean it can't be perfect. >>
Unless permanence and significance are part of your definition of perfection. In general terms, they are certainly part of *my* definition of perfection. But there are exceptions, depending on the context -- e.g., the "perfect mobile phone" or the "perfect web browser".
Which gets to the heart of the problem here. The terms "perfect" and "perfection" are being used in this discussion with widely different meanings and contexts. It seems to me most of the disagreement is about those meanings -- and the particular meaning one has in mind determines whether one thinks pursuing perfection is worthwhile or not.
Unless permanence and significance are part of your definition of perfection. In general terms, they are certainly part of *my* definition of perfection. But there are exceptions, depending on the context -- e.g., the "perfect mobile phone" or the "perfect web browser".
Which gets to the heart of the problem here. The terms "perfect" and "perfection" are being used in this discussion with widely different meanings and contexts. It seems to me most of the disagreement is about those meanings -- and the particular meaning one has in mind determines whether one thinks pursuing perfection is worthwhile or not.
October 14, 2011 at 19:41 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I AM NOMAD.
I AM PERFECT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Changeling_%28Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series%29
(Probably not what Mark had in mind!!) :-)
I AM PERFECT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Changeling_%28Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series%29
(Probably not what Mark had in mind!!) :-)
October 14, 2011 at 19:50 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Pathological perfectionists can't even get started until the systems are sorted out and set up. Which means they often just can't get started, period. (I know from personal experience unfortunately, how painful and ineffective this can be.)
"Aim for perfection" --> I.e., don't expect to START with perfection, and don't let the lack of perfection prevent you from moving forward. Don't spend all your time perfecting your systems before moving forward. Start with what you have, get moving, iterate, drop what doesn't work, but once you have momentum with something and are getting things done, start looking to improve your systems to support the work. (I also know from personal experience, how effective and liberating this can be, and what great results can come from it.)
"Aim for perfection" --> I.e., don't expect to START with perfection, and don't let the lack of perfection prevent you from moving forward. Don't spend all your time perfecting your systems before moving forward. Start with what you have, get moving, iterate, drop what doesn't work, but once you have momentum with something and are getting things done, start looking to improve your systems to support the work. (I also know from personal experience, how effective and liberating this can be, and what great results can come from it.)
October 14, 2011 at 19:54 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Here's an example of how one's own ideas of perfection can change over time.
I used to write detailed emails - with executive summaries - pretty frequently. To me, this was "perfect" -- I provided all the details someone might need, with a summary for people who might not have time. Problem: It took too long to write. I'm a fast writer and fast organizer of words, but even so a 2-page email detailing a complex problem might take 30 minutes to write.
Then I came across the 5-sentence rule. And I tried it. http://five.sentenc.es/
I find I get more response, and more discussion, more quickly, and if people need more details, they ask for them. Or we have a phone call or meeting.
The 5-sentence email turns out to be a ***lot*** closer to perfection than my 2-page detailed emails with executive summaries. (Assuming the goal has always been clear timely communication that results in appropriate and timely decisions and actions.)
It also turns out that the 5-sentence rule is a lot more ***robust*** -- in line with Alan's idea of "imperfection". It's a lot easier to FINISH a 5-sentence email and get it sent out in a timely manner. It's a lot harder to break the process when the process is so lightweight.
Which makes me think... Maybe Alan's idea of "imperfection" is very close, in reality, if not semantics, to Mark's idea of "perfection".
I used to write detailed emails - with executive summaries - pretty frequently. To me, this was "perfect" -- I provided all the details someone might need, with a summary for people who might not have time. Problem: It took too long to write. I'm a fast writer and fast organizer of words, but even so a 2-page email detailing a complex problem might take 30 minutes to write.
Then I came across the 5-sentence rule. And I tried it. http://five.sentenc.es/
I find I get more response, and more discussion, more quickly, and if people need more details, they ask for them. Or we have a phone call or meeting.
The 5-sentence email turns out to be a ***lot*** closer to perfection than my 2-page detailed emails with executive summaries. (Assuming the goal has always been clear timely communication that results in appropriate and timely decisions and actions.)
It also turns out that the 5-sentence rule is a lot more ***robust*** -- in line with Alan's idea of "imperfection". It's a lot easier to FINISH a 5-sentence email and get it sent out in a timely manner. It's a lot harder to break the process when the process is so lightweight.
Which makes me think... Maybe Alan's idea of "imperfection" is very close, in reality, if not semantics, to Mark's idea of "perfection".
October 14, 2011 at 19:57 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
It can be valuable if it's restrained.
Imperfectionism says that flaws are acceptable. And if this definition is wrong, that's also okay. The value of Imperfectionism is that by following it, you can get a lot done quickly. This is great when you have a lot to do in little time. Many things are better done poorly than completely undone.
So having accomplished a lot in very little time, what's to do but go back and make some things better? Judge which need bettering, and which are okay. Improve the former and call them done. Still have time? Reexamine done things and improve some. Leave the rest imperfect. In the end, all is done, a few done very well. In sum, a good conclusion.
It's like a History exam. Answering the first essay question exquisitely gets 10 points. Answer ten questions mediocre garners 60. Go back to improve a few and you can score 80.