In Search of Excellence

Milind: Kobus is one of the closest friends I have. He sent me this note after reading the recent blog entry on my blog. Here is a glimpse of Kobus for you:

1. He created a portable laser light show on a wall after watching professionals do it on a mountain face

2. Created antennas, radios and listen to 911 traffic and ATC-pilot conversations

3. Cooks really well

4. Can tear down entire basement,  build dry-wall,  do electrical wiring, and do plumbing 

5. Buildt computer servers from cratch

6. Went to India to attend a friend’s wedding (it was my wedding).

7. Has visited at least 20 countries.

8. Has camped in the wild in South Africa many times.

9. He is a Guru in web development and manages a technology team as a Technology Officer.

Kobus is from South Africa and currently lives in New Zealand.

Here is the note from Kobus :

————————————————————————————————————————

Arguably in its essence “excellence” is a measure of quality, state or any other quantifiable value comparative to another. Isn’t excellence then the upper limit of the comparative from the perspective of the comparator or must there be an ultimate truth that defines why one quantity is more or less excellent than another?

I rather subscribe to the notion that a measure of excellence is a perception or simply one’s own point of view as to what makes one measure of excellence higher than another. In demonstration:  the execution of jihad with martyrdom attains the ultimate of excellence in one point of view while in another draws scourge and utter condemnation. Another would me Michael Jordan being unhappy with his performance even though he hooped all his shots in a game, claiming that he had to think about it. For me, four out of five would be excellent, but there are more opinions about this than my own and thus: I would theorise that a measure of excellence, beyond individual perspectives, comparative to morals are defined by a collective agreement of families, affiliations (Religious or otherwise), nations, races and possibly even species. As an example: Antony Hopkins thus far in his acting career received more than 60 awards and nominations for excellence in acting. Was it not for the collective agreement on what excellence in acting was, there would have been no Oscars, Saturns, Emmys or Globes.

From this principal view one could argue that excellence in a particular comparison, as in the topic of Milind’s Blog, relates to the actors and comparators  within scope of that comparison. Thus each comparator will make the comparison based on their own perception over a backdrop of what they believe everyone else’s comparison comes to. As a reiteration of the example, the more individuals that express Antony Hopkins’ abilities as excellent, the closer that measurement appears as an ultimate measure of excellence, in this case for acting. Saying that, one is entirely free to conclude that Antony Hopkins and Sylvester Stallone are on par.

In order to reach a conclusion on what is excellent and what is not, one has to decide what the measurement criteria are, and of course use approximation to compensate for the differential in criteria between individuals, groups and so forth. If excellence was a scientific experiment with predefined, weighted and ordered criteria, defined inputs and outputs and a definition of incremental or diminutive value, the answer would be empirical. In practice however, the criteria used by individuals for judging excellence is far from universally defined, weighted, ordered or un-clouted by personal perceptions of self and others. This of course on  a sliding scale of individuals who may be very objective to instinctive or even utterly ignorant.

So could it then be that excellence is the upper limit of a comparison based on the personally attributed, weighted and ordered criteria, approximated to the value perceptions of an individual, superimposed on their perception of the greater criteria and values held by others, comparative to a previously approximated measurement or subconscious intuitive value?

To demonstrate: If two individuals go to a restaurant for dinner, both have individual criteria, which they have built up over their sum of their experiences, for what constitutes the sliding scale of their dining experience. Within the  comparative collective (the two diners) each will have unique criteria, but there will also be common criteria which they may have by accident, but most likely acquired from a greater collective (family, affiliations, race, etc). It is safe to assume that both diners would rate the dining experience as non-excellent if the presented food was rotten, which is nearly a universal criterion unless of course you are starving. Even though both diners may have common criteria for judging the excellence of their experience, the weighting of criteria may be totally different. For instance one diner my rate the speed of service more important than the breath of selection on the menu, while the other may not care about the speed but rather that their selection contain every ingredient they desire and none they don’t. In both cases the taste may be utterly satisfactory, but yet the measurement may have two widely differing outcomes in terms of excellence. Case in point, this example shows just how subjective this measurement can be, seeing that the act of eating in its simpler form seems more relevant to the taste of the food.

In order to make comparisons for the sake of determining the excellence “factor” for an approximated set of criteria, one has to have done this before. In the absence of comparative data everything must be excellent. Not entirely true. Because most individuals initially relate highly approximated or esoterically connected criteria as a reference for comparison and can come up with a positive or negative result without having a real second data reference point.

A clear example would be if a teenager drinks beer with their friends for the first time. It is statistically likely that they would rate this experience as excellent even though they have no real frame of reference. In some way they must have inherited this reference in order to make the comparison. In this case it may be easy because teenagers are part of the greater collective where drinking  is cool, hence beer is excellent.  As the experiences pile up this individual will expand and refine the criteria set that defines their understanding of an excellent drink.  Typically the more experiences one has to relate to, the more empirical the result. In the drink example: that may mean that the comparator dissociates the social connection with the comparison and adds aroma, brand, aftertaste, colour and cost to the criteria list. Essentially this behaviour is characterised as being cultured, refined or most of all an expert.

To conclude then on the ultimate meaning of the term excellence, couldn’t one conclude that it is a process by which a single or a collective of individuals strive for new experiences, while changing the “context” and refining the comparison criteria in order to attain the highest approximate excellence value, for their sphere of influence or visibility. Similarly the term “strive” could also imply judgment of others without necessarily striving for excellence one self.

I believe there are four types of excellence. Personal excellence, self comparative excellence, dissociated excellence and collective excellence.

Personal excellence is of course the act of repetitively gaining experience until we cannot detect a perceived positive differential between this and another similar comparisons for ourselves.  I would argue that this is a fundamental component of being or doing anything excellent. The excellent factor will ebb and flow as one refines the criteria and changes the context. Ultimately one will have an opinion about one’s own excellence point with diminishing improvements over time. Excellence can of course pertain to one’s abilities as well as one’s physical possessions.

Self comparative excellence is where one compares  one’s own excellence point for a specific comparison to that of another person or group of persons. Depending on state of mind, statistically one is likely to pick highly approximated or even imagined criteria so as to favour oneself or one’s possessions as the more excellent. This self favouring is much harder if the result is empirical,  say ‘n boxing match, year end sales result or the BMW model number. Self comparison is a major driving force behind personal excellence and probably the main reason why we “strive” as Milind put it. To me “strive” means with effort, struggle and determination.

Dissociated excellence is the upper value of comparing two individuals, groups or things where the comparator may have a highly approximated understanding of the criteria, and at no point do they include themselves in the equation. For argument sake, any couch potato can conclude that Hopkins is better than Stallone without comparing their own acting skills or that Rolex is better than Casio without owning either.

Last but not least, collective excellence is born from a common agreement that something, some act or someone has attained excellence. In many cases this is handed down dissociated excellence and judgement. On smaller scales it could be relatively refined and precise. For example: Einstein was a genius. It certainly is quantifiably true at MIT, less so on Fox News and much less on MTV, but yet everybody knows it, and for most of us,  without having any grounds or skills for evaluating it.

So to get to Milind’s workplace excellence discussion and my view on his thought provoking questions:

1.      I agree that excellence is “striven” for. We approach excellence by doing something again and again, every time further refining the criteria, manipulating the context and comparing the result. A better result drives excellence.

2.      As I theorised, there are many types of excellence. Self excellence is dissociated from groups or organisations, but individuals within groups or companies may compare themselves with the perceived excellence of others for self comparative excellence. This in turn will drive dissociated and collective excellence to some extent based on the culture and structure of the organization.

3.      I believe that excellence is a process, and the apt term “Strive” also hints that it may be unattainable. Once you get there excellence is one improvement away. Luckily for our human ability to approximate and inherent forgetfulness we perceive excellence far more often that we approach it.

4.      Everyone can be personally excellent. In fact this is our natural disposition true or not by the facts. Growing up and gaining experience and growing old invariably makes us all personally excellent. Learning to walk, talk, drive a car, flip burgers or cure cancer. Self comparative excellence is harder, although with approximation and pure ingenious imagination we can get through life believing we are special, although we all know that there is someone better out there somewhere. Approaching dissociated or collective excellence is much harder because we may have to work really hard to win, be seen and be lucky enough to get other people to believe one’s own abilities. Or ultimately to have a collective excellence where the reality may well be dwarfed by the collective perception.

5.      I believe every living human, and possibly every other living being, can approach personal excellence. At smaller scales, self comparative excellence is approachable for most humans, but at larger scales and contexts become harder, but we are protected by our own sense of superiority. Dissociated excellence is reserved for fewer of us for narrower scopes of comparison, but still common on smaller scopes and scales. Collective excellence is elusive and is approached most of the time people we have no way of judging or at least personally comparing to our own level of aspiration.

6.      Workplace excellence is mostly self comparative. We tend to judge excellence by our own abilities, all be it heavily tilted in our own favour. There is of course dissociated and collective perceptions of excellence in the work place, more prevalent at the executive or management end of the scale.

7.      Better and outstanding are sliding points on the excellence scale. They are by no means an equivalent or alternative to excellence and hence cannot be compared as the questions states. For argument sake, better and outstanding may just be the point closest to excellence. Better I would argue indicates a positive or negative approach to excellence, while outstanding could indicate an approximated result that falls in the same high end range of success as previous attempts.

In the spirit of this blog, I would like to leave you with my own number of provoking statements:

1.  Excellence is in the mind of the comparator.

2. There is no ultimate measure of excellence.

3. Unless the data is universally empirical, excellence is progressively less tied to reality (Loosely defined to avoid another debate) 

4. Excellence is not the secret to personal or company success (Duck for flying tomatoes)

5. Excellence achieves 20% result for 80% effort