I think it’s a fair assumption that if one does something very well, then the doing of that something will tend to take longer than if it is just done adequately.
So here’s the question…If you can do more things if you do them all adequately, since they collectively take the same amount of time as less things done more thoroughly, are you better or worse off? Or is it simply a matter of choice?
I’ll use a little story to clarify the intent of my question and to perhaps guide you to the answer that best answers the question:
I know someone training for a Triathalon. Wow! I mean, that takes effort and intention and every bit of gumption she’s got, I think. But she trains 3 hours a day. This is in addition to her day job. So, she’s incredibly powerful, athletic, and one might find her inspirational. And I do in some ways. But then I think to myself, would I want to spend that much time to do something that well, that I have little time for anything else? My answer is no, as I would prefer to run or work out lightly every couple of days,but still have time to read and attend seminars and visit with friends and take in a show and have a beer and ride my bike (casually) and volunteer.
But then I wonder, when someone says that I do everything adequately, but nothing well, should I feel less than excellent? Should they be looking at me with disdain? “Oh, that Standup Karmic, he’s just so…so…mediocre.”
What says you, good people…do well or do average?