Sure thing

In 2005, after his second season with the Cleveland Cavaliers, LeBron James gifted Nike co-founder Phil Knight a Rolex watch. The engraving said – “With thanks for taking a chance on me.” Knight reflected on that moment in his book and said – “It wasn’t much of a chance. He was pretty close to a sure thing.”

That is a powerful example of the nature of risk.

In the popular imagination, risk is this mystical quality that daredevils have. They gamble all of their life’s savings in a bet that would make no sense to others. That is far from the truth.

When you become really good at something, things that seem risky to other people aren’t as risky to you. An expert soccer player wouldn’t describe a complicated trick in a massive game as a big risk. He has probably practiced it a million times. Similarly, Adele may have created music that was very different from the norm at the time. But, when you’ve become as competent as Adele, you know you’ve probably got something that is close to a sure thing.

That, then, brings us to three things we can learn about risk.

First, risk and reward go together. Learning to take risks well can be very rewarding.

Second, our perception of risk changes with expertise. To an expert talent scout like Phil Knight, LeBron was an obvious pick. Similarly, the Pixar founding team would have told you that computer graphics were obviously the future of animated movies. Obvious in retrospect to the rest of us.

Finally, Phil Knight’s wording is important. he said “he was pretty close to a sure thing.” Notice that he doesn’t say “he was a sure thing.” That’s important because there isn’t such an interesting endeavor without risk. Your expertise may minimize the risk in your eyes, but it doesn’t eliminates it.

Measuring laundry

I have a recurring task on weekends to get laundry done. We’ve been living in university apartments/dorms and the laundry room is downstairs. So, I rewarded myself with a “done” on laundry once I ran the clothes on the washer and dryer and brought them back home. After that, I’d pass the baton to the wife.

Over time, I realized my wife doesn’t enjoy folding clothes (I don’t mind it all that much). So, I began folding mine and passing her clothes over.

Now, just as additional background, our share of the housework is about 30%-70% in my eyes. Given our propensity to overestimate our own contribution, I think it might be closer to 20%-80%. So, a few weeks back, I made a small mental switch – I wouldn’t take laundry out of my task list until I’d folder all our clothes in.

My wife loves the new arrangement and I feel I’ve definitely notched up an extra 5% on the contribution index.

Was that switch hard to do? Absolutely not. It just required me to measure a task a different way.

So, why did I not measure it this way when I started? I just never gave it much thought.

It made for a profound lesson, though. Give careful thought to what you measure.. because the behavior you measure and reward is the behavior you get.