Category: Everything else

Clay Christensen wrote a powerful note on extenuating circumstances in his book “How Will You Measure Your Life?” –

“resisting the temptation whose logic was “In this extenuating circumstance, just this once, it’s OK” has proven to be one of the most important decisions of my life. Why? My life has been one unending stream of extenuating circumstances. Had I crossed the line that one time, I would have done it over and over in the years that followed.

The lesson I learned from this is that it’s easier to hold to your principles 100% of the time than it is to hold to them 98% of the time. If you give in to “just this once,” based on a marginal cost analysis, as some of my former classmates have done, you’ll regret where you end up. You’ve got to define for yourself what you stand for and draw the line in a safe place.” 

Clay isn’t an exception in finding life to be a series of extenuating circumstances. We all find ourselves dealing with so many of them in our journeys – a new random problem pops up, someone falls sick, we have disruptive travel, and so on.

Every time I’m tempted to make a decision driven purely because of an extenuating circumstance, I think of this lesson and attempt to live by it.

Thank you, Clay.

Many organizations spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on consulting services to find ways to differentiate their offerings.

The irony: if half those dollars was directed toward rewarding a customer focus within the organization (and perhaps shifting the culture), differentiation in the eyes of the customer would happen naturally.

Two days back, I’d shared this image of Novak Djokovic’s evolution from a 100+ ranked tennis player to world number 1. The noteworthy relationship in the article is the link between % points won and % matches won.

A tennis point is inherently 50-50 (either the player or the opponent). But, when Djokovic improved his abilities enough to win 52% of the points, he increased his % of matches won to 79%. And, at 55%, we were at an awe inspiring 90%.

A friend followed up with an article that showed these stats for world number 1s in the last ~30 years.

Points: Winning Percentage	Year-End No. 1 Total
55%	12
54%	7
53%	4
56%	3
TOTAL	26

It turns out that increasing your ability to win a point by 5% in your favor almost guarantees you a place on top of the worlds rankings.

This is fascinating not just because of the small margins involved (we covered that). The data is also fascinating as it shows how world champions have gotten better and better – the last time we saw a world number 1 with 53% points winning percentage was 2001.

My biggest reflection from these stats is the compound effect of winning a few extra points consistently. In tennis as in life, small and consistent efforts show up incredible well over the long run.

Between the years 2004 and 2011, Novak Djokovic went from being ranked outside the top 100 players in the world to #1. During this period, the % of matches he won climbed from 49% to an impressive 90%.

But, here’s where things get interesting – if we have to understand the root cause of his improvement, we need to get down to the level of his in-match decision making. And, the best way to see that manifest itself is in his ability to win individual points – a culmination of 3-4 key micro decisions.

And, during this period from being ranked 100+ to 3 to 1, his % of points won moved “just” from 49% to 52% to 55%.

Small, consistent, marginal wins -> Massive impact.

(H/T Stephen Weiss who shared the first 4 minutes of this TEDx talk by Stephen Duneier in response to yesterday’s post)

Of course, so is the one after that. And the one after that too.

Every once in a while, we have the thrilling equivalent of a cup final in our professional lives – a big review, an important presentation, and so on.

But, for most of the rest of the time, we’re playing in a league where we score points by showing up every day with hunger, thoughtfulness and a desire to learn and grow. Just as competitive leagues don’t give us extra points for playing a tough team, life appreciates consistent effort – regardless of the events planned for the day.

The difference between the good teams and the great teams is that the good teams put in their best for a few big games in the season while the great teams show up assuming every game is a big game.

And so it is.

We were attempting to articulate the principle behind driving on Indian roads to someone visiting for the first time recently. The best articulation we stumbled upon was – “Every person for themselves.”

On roads all over the world, people drive to get to where they want to go. In many of these places, you have constraints or rules of the road. On Indian roads, you only have to worry about very “hard” constraints (typically driven by traffic lights) – e.g. there’s a wave of traffic in front you and there’s no way you can squeeze through. You don’t worry about lanes, occasionally pay attention to pedestrians, and definitely don’t care about courtesy.

Why is that? Is there something wrong with the people? Why, then, do the same people follow the rules when they’re in a different place?

If you are on a road in Europe, you follow good protocol for two reasons. First, it is because you know that the overall system is more efficient when there is order. If everyone follows the rules, everyone will get to where they want to faster.

Second and probably more important, it is what everyone does and there are real consequences to not doing so. In Switzerland, for example, you get docked a percentage of your pay. The system of rewards and punishments set the guardrails for a culture that shapes behavior. 

My sense is that there is a universal distrust – for the right reasons – in the “system” (or lack thereof) in India that, in turn, results in a culture that incentivizes selfish behavior.

While this could be a rant about Indian roads, it isn’t. Instead, we can draw some interesting parallels with politics in organizations. When organizations have employees who believe in the internal systems to set the guardrails for acceptable behavior while also creating a culture that reinforces the good, you create the sort of environment where employees optimize for the greater good.

Why wouldn’t they? If they did, the company would do better. And, since the system works, they’ll get rewarded for it.

But, in organizations with poorly managed HR functions or poorly administered compensation schemes, every employee is in it to maximize rewards for themselves. Poorly designed compensation systems inevitably result in poor corporate cultures.

When in doubt, look beyond the people problems to the system problems that cause them.

My one line reflection from Ray Dalio’s “Principles” was – “Ray Dalio’s success built on investing since he was 12, building the disciple to reflect on every decision, and approaching every decision with a fear of being wrong (or avoiding over confidence).”

While I love how he built a life around obsessive reflection and truth seeking, I thought his emphasis on making the effort to find something that is fun for you was powerful. He repeatedly talks about how he plans to play the markets till he dies. It is an idea I’ve observed from time to time – when you spend your time doing something that you enjoy, you naturally invest in getting better.

No prodding required.

Directed passion is powerful.*

* I believe in the middle path between “love what you do” and “do what you love.”

It takes a lot of time to build a product.

It generally takes a user few secondS to experience it.

And, it takes a second or two to critique it with a one star review.

The lessons, then –

1. Fall in love with the process of creation. In the long run, that’s where we spend most of our time.

2. When you experience products (or foods), try to put yourself in the shoes of the creator.

3. Consider if adding that critique or one star review will accomplish anything constructive.

(Of course, this analogy works just as well as we think about consuming/cooking our next meal as well.)