excellence (ˈeksələns)
1. The quality of being outstanding or extremely good.
2. An outstanding feature or quality.
"Excellence" is meaningless. Case in point. The word is slippery, vague, and uncontroversial. It expresses an aimless desire, with no roadmap for achievement. Saying you "value" it is like saying you value goodness or truth . Saying you "measure yourself by" it is just stating the obvious. Saying you "strive for" it just means you aren't lazy. Saying you "have a passion for" it just comes off as egotistical. Meaningless.
What a tragedy. Where did we go wrong? There's a clue, I think, in the word's origins. The Latin root is "excellens", meaning elevating or rising. But the source of the idea is earlier. It's heavily entwined with two Greek ideas: Arete and Aristos.
Loosely defined, Arete meant living up to one's inner potential, a kind of strength in the face of adversity, and self-control. It suggested a just life and energetic pursuit of right action. In this context Arete is often translated as "Virtue", rather than "Excellence". Arete was process-oriented, applied during a task (or a life) to focus effort. It was measured in personal bests.
Aristos, on the other hand, meant both superior ability and superiority over others. Aristos is the root word of "Aristocracy", which literally translated should mean "rule by the best". Aristos implied a comparative social standard, where beating the competition defined success. It suggested an unbroken continuum of success over multiple actions. Aristos was recognized after the fact, for prior achievements. It was expressed in rank and prestige.
1. The quality of being outstanding or extremely good.
2. An outstanding feature or quality.
"Excellence" is meaningless. Case in point. The word is slippery, vague, and uncontroversial. It expresses an aimless desire, with no roadmap for achievement. Saying you "value" it is like saying you value goodness or truth . Saying you "measure yourself by" it is just stating the obvious. Saying you "strive for" it just means you aren't lazy. Saying you "have a passion for" it just comes off as egotistical. Meaningless.
What a tragedy. Where did we go wrong? There's a clue, I think, in the word's origins. The Latin root is "excellens", meaning elevating or rising. But the source of the idea is earlier. It's heavily entwined with two Greek ideas: Arete and Aristos.
Loosely defined, Arete meant living up to one's inner potential, a kind of strength in the face of adversity, and self-control. It suggested a just life and energetic pursuit of right action. In this context Arete is often translated as "Virtue", rather than "Excellence". Arete was process-oriented, applied during a task (or a life) to focus effort. It was measured in personal bests.
Aristos, on the other hand, meant both superior ability and superiority over others. Aristos is the root word of "Aristocracy", which literally translated should mean "rule by the best". Aristos implied a comparative social standard, where beating the competition defined success. It suggested an unbroken continuum of success over multiple actions. Aristos was recognized after the fact, for prior achievements. It was expressed in rank and prestige.
Our mixed-up modern word contains these two sub-components: disciplined progression toward one's potential (arete) - and - superior achievement (aristos). Depending on the context, one or another of these is subconsciously emphasized. But not both at the same time. When arete is mistaken for aristos, vice-versa, or when neither is clearly identified, that's when the concept gets murky and useless, or worse, dangerous.
In sports, arete is naturally emphasized. Student athletes understand that self-improvement is the true objective, not winning. Most of sports wisdom revolves around this idea. The old saying, "it's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game" is an almost pure expression of arete. But when hockey moms or soccer dads start confusing arete with aristos, dangerous things can happen.
In business and politics, aristos is emphasized. All the focus is on profit and superiority. Process and improvement are just means to the end - being the best. When MBAs substitute resultant aristos for process-oriented arete, confusion sets in. I think this is the main source of dissatisfaction with business books, of which "Good to Great" by Jim Collins is the most famous example. Like nearly all business writing, the book is long on summary and short on substance. Mr. Collins research is exhaustive and perfectly relevant for determining corporate aristos - for finding out, after the fact, which companies are excellent (at making a profit), and why. But the book is almost entirely silent on corporate arete - exactly what to do to make your company better right now - despite that being the stated purpose of the book. Post hoc ≠ propter hoc. If you read the book, ask yourself, "How do I encourage Level 5 leadership"? or "How do I determine my company's BHAG"? Confusion.
Successful modern expressions of excellence avoid the use of the word entirely. Nike's famous slogan "There is no finish line" is a brilliant example. It implies arete perfectly - process oriented, aspirational, and clear. Energizer's slogan, "Nothing outlasts the Energizer. It keeps going and going and going..." is equally brilliant - for Aristos. It ties the product to superior performance. But, although these slogans are clever, skirting the use of the word is flirting with cliche. Say the slogan once, it's powerful. Print it on a million T-shirts, and it fades to nothing.
My inspiration isn't there. But I'm not giving up. There's an idea out there worth aspiring to. And I'll keep pushing toward it.
Further exploration:
http://www.radiolab.org/2010/apr/05/
http://www.paulgraham.com/hs.html
My inspiration isn't there. But I'm not giving up. There's an idea out there worth aspiring to. And I'll keep pushing toward it.
Further exploration:
http://www.radiolab.org/2010/apr/05/
http://www.paulgraham.com/hs.html
No comments:
Post a Comment