On LinkedIn there was an Image of Marissa Mayer's resume (also described as a one-page CV) where it's suggested she is productive 18/24 (and apparently sleeps 3-4 hours a day).
Then, via the BBC I came across a blogpost suggesting that mediocrity was actually quite reasonable.
I have a suspicion that one appeals considerably more than the other. :-)
The "mediocrity" blog post actually has something important to say, but in subtle ways. "Mediocrity" is a relative term and has negative connotations in relation to our culture's understanding of "excellence" (e.g. Not sleeping enough in order to achieve more). But why do we assume the world's definition of excellence is the correct one?
ReplyDeleteThe contrast - that I didn't really emphasise - was that one person was a determined, almost pathological over achiever, while the other was much more interested in a relatively sensible life balance. Compared to the world of LinkedIn and pressured business she's suggesting one should try for achieving way less than the absolute maximum one might manage, and in that world it's edging close to failure.
ReplyDeleteAs you suggest, definitions of excellence vary considerably and one size doesn't fit all. I find it hard to imagine a job that coud be worth working 18 hours/day, short of running a country, and then for a strictly limited period of time.
I'd be interested in Dixie's views on this too.