Better to do well, or better to do more?

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?

I’d challenge that assumption. If one does something very well, they are usually more efficient at it, and can accomplish the task sooner. To take a mundane example, the first time you try to iron a shirt, you’re not very good at it and it takes you forever. After ironing shirts for several years, you can do it in a fraction of the time it took when you were learning it.

Now, if you mean that if you’re good at something you will do it more, that’s a separate issue, but it still isn’t always true. No matter how good I am at certain things, I will always spend as little time as possible on them. I’m sure you can think of more examples.

Depends. If doing well at a task really takes longer, then do the cost-benefit analysis. In school, for example, I could have studied another couple of hours a day and gotten higher grades. But that meant giving up going to the bar that night. Guess which I chose?

But if I’m having surgery, I’d rather have the surgeon who does well than the surgeon who does more surgeries in a day.

In your example, Standup, you did the cost-benefit analysis for yourself and said, no, I don’t want to spend that time training. Your friend also presumably did the analysis and decided that training was what she wanted to do.

So it all comes back to what your values and priorities are. Sometimes it’s better to do well, and sometimes it’s better to do more.