I came down with the flu on Wednesday. Staying in bed for two days straight allowed me to catch up on some recreational reading... and blog about it. My current book is Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. I'm only halfway through, but I have some thoughts about Gladwell's theories of success.
In Outliers, Gladwell postulates that people are successful because of the opportunities they are given rather than their own hard work or intelligence or desire to suceed. He cites Bill Gates and other titans of the computer/software/internet industry and their particular fortune to have been born around the year 1955 and have access to computers (to practice their programming skills) in a time when computer access was virtually non-existent. He cites Joe Flom, of law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, and Flom, and other successful Manhattan Jewish attorneys born in the 1930's for the opportunity of discrimination against Jewish lawyers, which allowed them to get an edge in emerging areas of corporate law. And he cites the fortune of Canadian hockey players born in January, children born to involved parents, and oil and steel tycoons born in the 1830's. Gladwell is right, probably every person we hail as truly successful was given opportunities beyond their control that, when seized, led to their fame, fortune, and success.
Because that's what success is, right? Success must mean excessive amounts of wealth and widespread recognition within one's chosen profession. Right? The American dream is becoming a Rockerfeller or a Carnegie? And the only way to do that is by having opportunities you can't control? Success must mean a Harvard undergrad, a Yale law degree, and a clerkship on the Second or Ninth Circuits followed by one on the Supreme Court? Or success must mean winning the national science fair at age 10, going to MIT, graduating from Harvard medical school, inventing the cure for cancer, and winning the Nobel prize (all by age 40, of course)?
Gladwell is wrong--not in his observations, they seem to be on point--but in his definition of success. He disparages the value we, as Americans, place on hard work and intelligence when evaluating success. Yet, none of his success stories were stupid and/or lazy. They were all committed, 110%. But Gladwell argues that commitment, hard work, and intelligence are not enough to suceed. He's wrong because he thinks success means having your name up in lights and driving a fancy car to your fancy house. He thinks that success must mean being an outlier. He's missing the bigger picture, the real American dream.
Success means progress. Being better than you were yesterday, a year ago, five years ago. Success means setting a goal and achieving it. Now for the smart aleck who is going to go to Webster's dictionary and tell me that definition 2b says "also : the attainment of wealth, favor, or eminence" consider whether we all need to shift our focus a little bit. I know too many people who think they are unsuccessful because they study law at Georgetown instead of Harvard (I mean, really people, why stop at Harvard, we all know you haven't really achieved success unless you are at Yale), or who think that they are unsuccessful because they are a staff assistant on the Hill instead of the legislative director, or who aren't making as much money as they want to be, or who aren't getting the grades they want, or the car they want, or the living situation they want, or the pant size they want, or the boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse they want.
I propose two suggestions. On one level, my response is: "Go get it!" If you want something, and really want it, then go get it. You can do it. You can make a goal and achieve it. And don't let Malcolm Gladwell tell you that some fortuitous opportunity is required to achieve your goal. Make opportunities where none exist. You will see results. Maybe you won't be #1 in your class or make millions, but I bet if you really wanted those things, at the expense of everything else near and dear to you, you could achieve those things. You could be at the top.
But you don't really want that. Because to you, that's not success. Because some part of success necessarily includes happiness. And happiness is derived from a variety of sources. Trust me, I was the kid who accepted nothing less than an A+ in junior high once I found out that was the best possible (see post on the five paragraph essay). And I worked my butt off, and I had the highest grades of anyone in my junior high. And achieving that goal made me happy, but now there is more to life. Real success includes some combination of success in family, friends, extracurricular learning, and living life. It may include being successful in living your religion, which brings me to my second point.
You can make goals, and you can try to achieve them, and sometimes you will fail. Not everyone can make a million dollars, look like Brangelina, have a perfectly happy family, and be number one at work. If that is your view of success, you are not only likely to fail, you are destined to fail, because under that definition, success in one area comes at the expense of success in another area.
However, you and I are children of God. And if success means following God's will for us, then faithful hard work never goes unrewarded. The rewards may be delayed for a time, and we will undoubtedly suffer disappointments as we quest for success, but striving to understand God's will for us helps us achieve balance, which is the most difficult of all tasks. It is much easier to binge on success in one area and starve yourself of success in another area than it is to be successful at balancing all the areas of your life. Successful balance (which often comes without fame or fortune) brings the greatest happiness and satisfaction. And while opportunity to learn about balance and God's will may come at different times for different people, a loving and just God never denies those opportunities to His children. Thank goodness Malcolm Gladwell and his definition of success do not rule the universe.
No comments:
Post a Comment