Search: mediocrity

Life After Salary: The Human Connection

This article was written by Flexo in Career and Work, Featured. 20 comments.

Working in an office on a team with other employees is a social activity. Although there is work to be done and goals to accomplish, and although most of us stare at computer screens all day and spend most of the time in a cubicle or an office, many tasks require communicating with the people around us.

Many people cite their co-workers as the primary reason for staying in their current job. When all else is frustrating and disappointing on the job, you can always count on your officemates for a sounding boards and commiseration.

As I shift from working in a corporate department consisting of offices, cubicles, and people to occupy them to my home with no human company, I’ll need to grow accustomed to not having anyone to chat with during the day other than my cat. He listens and occasionally responds, but I’m not convinced he understands.

I’m a single guy, so I’m used to spending time by myself. I’d prefer to have some social interaction throughout the day, however. I have a few options to consider.

Meet friends for lunch.

I’m not the only self-employed individual making his own hours in my social circle. I have the opportunity to meet my friends for lunch as frequently as we can arrange. This isn’t difficult when we all have the ability to make our own hours to an extent and can take a break in the middle of the day for an hour or two if necessary.

My soon-to-be-former co-workers are interested in getting together for lunch occasionally, as well. They’ll be limited to their typical lunch hour. Although they have some flexibility with scheduling and can take a longer lunch occasionally, I’ll have to respect their time constraints. During busy periods of the year, this plan may not work at all. There were many times we were too busy to leave the office for lunch. Dinner is another option, but my concern is the ability to break up the “work hours” with interaction with people.

Move my work out of my home.

A friend of mine intends to rent office and warehouse space for his audio production and installation company. He offered to set me up with an office in the new space. It would be a perfect arrangement were it not for the fact that the office will be forty minutes from my house. On the other hand, I could travel to and from the location outside of the busy rush hour. Perhaps I will take him up on the offer.

Another idea is to join a co-working space. There are a few such locations in New Jersey, such as Converge. I’m not sure this arrangement is worth the expense, and I’m not convinced that it would provide enough social interaction. It would allow me to have a work space where I’m not distracted, like I could easily be at home or even in my friend’s new office space.

There are cafés and fast food locations (like Panera) that offer free WiFi access to the internet, which many freelancers or aspiring writers use for their daily activities. The benefit here could be meeting new, friendly, like-minded people, but it’s more likely that other individuals would prefer not to be bothered. Still, being around people in public could be a good way to keep myself sane.

Attend more conferences.

I’ve attended blogging-related conferences occasionally, but I generally find the seminars a complete waste of time. The way information is presented often reminds me of those awful motivational speakers a former boss of mine loved. The presentations are full of general information, none of which was particularly unique or insightful, designed primarily to make attendees feel happy or to sell a product without much long-term benefit.

The best aspect about these conferences takes place behind the scenes. There are opportunities to meet people from around the world with similar interests and goals, but networking doesn’t make the conference tickets worth the price. If you are invited to speak, however, you have the opportunity to reach people — and if you offer a presentation that does go beyond making people feel happy or selling a product, you could stand out amongst mediocrity.

Attending conferences doesn’t change the day-to-day likelihood of increased lonesomeness induced by working in a solitary environment, but without set hours or schedules, there is the flexibility to travel more often and meet interesting people.

Do you work out of your home? How do you keep a connection with other humans? Is the idea of interaction throughout the day overrated?

{ 20 comments }

What It Takes To Really Succeed

This article was written by Flexo in Career and Work. 11 comments.

While half-watching the Primetime Emmy Awards last night, I considered what it must take to be the best in an industry. From what I could glean from the broadcast, and from what I’ve seen in my own life, winners share intense focus, hard work including sleepless nights, strong talent, moral support, and no tolerance of mediocrity. None of this applies only to the entertainment industry, of course. The most successful CEOs don’t receive their positions by luck, except perhaps for the few who inherit a business from their relatives, whose good fortune rests slowly in birthright.

Intense focus. I’ve made the case for generalism in today’s economy. Being good at a wide variety of things can lead to better career prospects, being a better leader of people, and living a more fulfilled life. Successful specialists, however, have configured their lives in such a way that they don’t have time for spreading their attention around too many unrelated interests. Their efforts are singularly focused on perfecting their skills and competing amongst the best.

Eric Thomas says it well: “When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe, you’ll be successful.” Eric talks about wanting success so much that you don’t have time to eat or even sleep.

Sleepless nights. Like many people, I had a boss who was a workaholic. As executive director of an understaffed, overreaching non-profit organization, he often worked in his office overnight in order to accomplish everything that needed to be done. We’d come into work in the morning to find him asleep as his desk. I’ve disagreed with him about the importance of sleep to a body and mind’s ability to function, but it was difficult to argue with the leader of an organization that is arguably one of the best, if not the best, in the world in its category.

While I reclaimed some sleep this weekend, I usually sleep less than five hours a night. With my day job taking my time an energy — and this coming week is going to be a major test of my stamina — I spend the rest of my waking time writing and otherwise handling business pertaining to my websites. There is very little time right now to fit in other extracurricular activities like photography.

Strong talent. I tend to think a very small portion of talent is inborn. Genetics may play a role to a point, and learning something new is easier for some people than others, but hard work often leads to what other people would identify as talent. And talent is often relative. According to my recollection, which could be wrong, I started off in third grade as a mediocre clarinetist — for a third grader. After a few months with the instrument, the teacher still placed me towards the end of the row, with the best players at the other end.

That summer, I moved from upstate New York to New Jersey, continued playing the clarinet in elementary school, but discovered I was somewhat more advanced than the students who were just starting in fourth grade. This gave me some momentum and by high school I held the “first chair” position among strong classmates for every year starting as a sophomore. If I hadn’t moved to New Jersey, I might have continue to struggle in comparison to my classmates and never given myself the motivation to succeed.

Moral support. An interesting theme in this year’s Emmy Awards, which I mentioned above, was the tendency for winners to credit parents for supporting their desire to succeed in an extremely difficult industry. While some people are motivated by adversity, and one man or woman vs. the rest of the world often makes an interesting story, most people can’t succeed without cheerleaders. You can make the most of a feedback loop by surrounding yourself with people who believe in what you do and share your intensity.

No tolerance of mediocrity. If you define success by being the best in your industry, you can only succeed by seeking excellence all the time. Like the boss in the non-profit, that organization could only remain world-class by having high expectations for everyone involved. In music, this is obvious. Composer Jack Stamp gives a wonderful presentation about why music matters and explains that 95%, considered an “A” in most courses, is a rate of failure for music performance. Nothing other than 100% is acceptable, because if everybody misses only 5% of the notes of a performance, the music will be unlistenable.

While most activities don’t require 100% accuracy all the time, the danger is mediocrity. This is probably the most difficult of all the above keys to success, particularly for those who don’t like hurting other people’s feelings. Nobody will care about your success as much as you, so the strive for excellence is often solitary. Don’t settle.

The above suggestions don’t guarantee success, and you can reach different level of success without adhering to these tips. These attitudes or philosophies are practically necessary, however, if you are striving for world-class success at the level of an Emmy Award winner.

{ 11 comments }

“What Works For You” Can Be a Trap

This article was written by Flexo in Personal Finance. 21 comments.

One of my favorite bloggers, and likely one of yours, is J.D. Roth. He has been writing about personal finance at Get Rich Slowly for some time now, and I was a fan of his writing at foldedspace when “blog” was still a new word. He is working on a book now, which I can’t wait to get my hands on (and read), and at the same time, he has been working on a blog series condensing his thoughts about personal finance into thirteen core tenets.

This is one of J.D.’s favorite mantras when offering financial advice or support: Do what works for you.

I think this is a great philosophy, and I can see how it is appealing to intelligent people who are capable of thinking independently, performing objective analysis, and making decisions based on empirical data and other established facts. It cuts directly to the core of personal finance: that money is personal and not every solution is universal. Different people require different answers, and what works for one person might not necessarily work for another.

The spirit of “What Works For You” is the important aspect: there are many paths to success and one should find the path that fits personally, using experimentation and consideration as a guide.

There are many open questions in personal finance but few concrete answers. What is a good investment? What will the stock market do tomorrow? Will I be able to afford college for my children in ten years? health care for myself next year? Uncertainty can lead to frustration, and when people don’t know what to do, they want to stick with something that feels comfortable.

I think it’s easy for the spirit of the “What Works For you” philosophy to be lost as one spreads the message, because the philosophy implies a search for comfort and is therefore subject to a number of psychological traps.

“What Works for You” grants a license to ignore criticism

itsatrap One thing I remember about the time I was required to listen to a day-long Landmark Education seminar is the leader’s ability to silence anyone who didn’t accept their philosophy. If you disagreed with one aspect of their nonsense, a Landmark follower simply claimed you had a “racket” and you were immediately dismissed. The “What Works for You” argument does the same thing.

If you are focused on doing “What Works For You,” there is no room for opposing viewpoints. We are given the opportunity to selectively ignore facts that don’t fit our world view. Consider credit cards that offer rewards when you use them. I use a cash back credit card and never pay interest or late fees. That sounds like a great deal, and I often suggest this as a good way to make the credit card companies work for you. But according to consumer studies, on average, people like me spend more using credit cards than they would with cash. Even the rewards earned, particularly as credit card companies find ways to keep reducing these rewards, don’t make up the difference due to increased spending.

But many like me continue to use credit cards because it works for us. We say that we are spending less than we earn and we’re winning the battle with credit cards. But unless we have conducted our own experiments to determine how our own behavior, as an individual or family, is affected differently through using credit or cash, we have silenced criticism from cash-only advocates with a nothing more than a wave of the hand and the contentment that since we don’t see any surface damage on our finances, our behavior works for us.

“What Works For You” invites analysis that could be far too simple

Notice that the philosophy is not “What Works Best For You.” Whether something works is a binary state: either something works or something does not work. The only answers are yes or no. There is no gray area, no sliding scale, no room for judgment.

The Debt Snowball is often touted as the best method to pay off debt. There is no doubt this method, which calls for paying off your credit card debt from the card with the lowest balance to the highest, works for many people. And its popularity leads people to believe that it’s not worth considering another choice.

But many people who have succeeded paying off debt with the Debt Snowball would have succeeded with the Debt Avalanche, which offers similar psychological benefits but saves money and time. It’s important for someone embarking on the journey to pay off debt to be presented with options and be allowed to make their own decision. If you look only for “What Works For You,” you could be missing something that works better.

“What Works for You” accepts mediocrity as a way of life

I have been around enough high-achievers to be jaded with the constant strive for excellence and the endless desire to be the best in whatever activity happens to be involved. Determination to be the best is how some teams win world championships but others live in misery with failure. Thankfully we don’t all have to be the best in the world at what we do.

But that’s not an excuse for refusing to seek improvement. Since the 1970s, there has been a new focus on self-esteem, which after many years of filtering from psychologists through to popular culture, has resulted in an environment where “everybody is a winner.” Everyone in Little League gets trophies, even the team with the worst record. Consideration of self-esteem is important to a point, and the placement of that point is debatable; before too long, people should be rewarded for something more than just participation, something beyond just the minimum.

“What Works” is just the minimum. Do more than that. Do what works and look for something that works better. Don’t just stop buying daily $5 lattes, stop leasing expensive cars every three years. Don’t just start putting 5% of your salary into a savings account, put 10% into a great savings account, contribute the maximum to your Roth IRA, and get at least the maximum employer match in your 401(k).

It’s important, in dealing with personal finance, to just start somewhere but that’s not an excuse to stop doing or to stop thinking.

The spirit of “What Works For You” is a good philosophy. Personal finance is personal. You should be free to make your own choices based on the best information and experiences and find the path that works best for you. I will submit that it is also important that while searching for your personalized version of a financial plan that you don’t fall into the above traps.

{ 21 comments }

The Path to Mediocrity: Doing What Works For You and Other Self-Limiting Philosophies

This article was written by Flexo in Financial Advice and Advisers. 36 comments.

General advice for an imaginary average person

Personal finance advice comes in many forms, running the gamut from Dave Ramsey’s philosophies on getting out of debt to Suze Orman’s no-nonsense anti-stupidity spending advice. Opinions vary wildly as you stroll down the promenade from the broker, a salesperson, to the financial planner paid by the hour rather than commission. Mass media, by definition, must appeal to the masses, so unless you’re working individually with a professional, the advice you hear is geared towards the “average” individual.

I don’t know any average individuals. This concept is a fictional statistical human being, an amalgamation of a sample population, with no defining characteristics. Mass advice cannot cater to the most diligent or intelligent of the crowd, because invariably less apt individuals overestimate their abilities, attempt techniques designed for the more able, and fail. Thus, advice is often “dumbed down” or simplified to meet the lower qualifications of a larger group.

Take, for example, the case of the best way to pay off credit card debt. I call it the “Debt Avalanche” but it certainly wasn’t my invention. While there are exceptions, this method of debt repayment calls for credit card debt always being paid off by focusing on the debt with the highest interest rate first. But people don’t always want to take this approach. They may receive more “satisfaction” by paying off the debt with the lowest balance first, which they believe will motivate them to continue paying off debt. Money, after all, is emotional more than it is mathematical.

Unfortunately, it’s this mindset which helps many people fall into debt in the first place (or repeatedly), and it is not correct. The best way of reaching a specific financial goal will always be the mathematical way. If not, your true goal is not purely financial. For example, is your true goal to get out of debt quickly and efficiently or is it to feel good about your debt situation? You will feel better in the end knowing you took less time and spent less money to get out of debt. If not, then perhaps you haven’t learned much from the experience and will find yourself succumbing to the “emotions” of money again and perhaps falling back into debt.

There are legitimate places for emotions when dealing with money, but debt reduction is not one.

Self-limiting philosophies and beliefs

You may hear that “doing what works for you” is the best way to approach a financial situation, but it’s often not a good idea. Doing what works the best mathematically is the ultimate approach. Other approaches may help you reach your goal, but not in the best way possible. “Doing what works for you” is an admission that you feel you have no need to improve yourself. This philosophy tells the world that you’ve learned everything you need to learn and are satisfied with your choice, even though you know it may not be the best. Or worse, if you have not learned all you need to know about your situation, you may not even realize that what you’re doing is in fact “not working.”

“Doing what works for you” is one of a number of self-limiting philosophies, excuses that people will use to convince themselves that they don’t need to strive for excellence. Here are some others:

“Luck and chance affect me more than my effort and skills.” Do you attribute a missed career opportunity to bad luck or not enough hard work? When you received a good grade on a college exam, was it due to the ease of the test or your preparedness? Those who attain their goals are more likely to be those who believe their own decisions and actions affect outcomes, good or bad. Those whose philosophy of outcomes is built around an internal locus of control have been shown to reach their goals more often.

The locus of control is one way psychology pays a significant role in your goals, financial or otherwise.

“Anything is better than nothing.” When it comes to saving, reducing debt, and investing and planning for the future, I agree. You have to start somewhere, but it is only a start. But if you believe that your financial condition in the future is important, the minimum is not enough. Don’t stop at “anything,” even if it is better than “nothing.” This is like saying it’s fine to feed your children one meal a day because one meal is better than no meals. Everyone is busy, but if the minimum is all you have time for, don’t expect results.

“At least I’m better than average.” The New York Times recently cited the Federal Reserve Board with an “average household credit card debt” figure of $8,565. Owe less than that and you’re in good shape, right? It’s unclear how that figure is determined. It may in fact be the average credit card debt of only households that have credit card debt. Include debt-free households in the calculation and the figure will drop. A number this high lulls many people into a false sense of security with the belief that with their balance of $6,000 in credit card debt, they’re “doing better” than most of the country.

This “security” leads to inaction and, in this case, to the glee of credit card providers, merchants, and manufacturers around the world.

Getting over it

The result of a lifetime with these beliefs is guaranteed mediocrity. While removing self-limiting philosophies doesn’t guarantee excellence and the ability to reach every goal, keeping these philosophies guarantees that you will not do your best. I do not know any man or woman with children who is satisfied with being anything but the best father or mother he or she could possibly be, so why are so many people satisfied with being an average personal financial officer?

There is usually a perfect mathematical solution to financial goals, like the Debt Avalanche mentioned above. Although Dave Ramsey says that most people have more success with a different, more expensive and time-consuming technique, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t strive for the better solution. Just because perfection is not always attainable doesn’t mean that it’s worthwhile to stop striving for that approach and settle for lackluster results, especially if the better approach is not more difficult than the alternatives.

If you’ve found something that “works for you,” don’t assume that there isn’t something else that works better for you. Follow the best examples, not examples set by the fictional average individual. If your financial security is important to you, don’t settle for mediocrity. You won’t always reach your highest goals or always be excellent, but you’ll never be excellent if you limit yourself.

{ 36 comments }

My MBA at the University of Phoenix Online, Part 3.5: The Stadium

by Flexo

As you may know, I’ve been writing a series about my experiences with the University of Phoenix Online. So far, I’ve written about my decision, the admissions process and course logistics. Before continuing with the rest of the series, I wanted to mention a recent development. The University has purchased naming rights to the stadium ... Continue reading this article…

7 comments Read the full article →