If you are good enough, you are going to win. Yes? No? Perhaps?
You would agree that there are lots of people who are good at their crafts but they are not winning by any objective measurements (i.e., wealth, education or social status). The converse is also true; meaning, there are many people who are winning but they are not necessarily the best in their crafts.
Take for example Bill Gates. Was he the best computer programmer ever? Of course he was not. Even so, he has built one of the most successful technology companies in the world and currently stands as one of the wealthiest persons in the Information Age. What about Steph Curry? Is he the NBA’s best player? Most current and former players and analysts would say, no. But Curry clearly appears to be winning both on and off the basketball court.
But what does winning imply? And how does one define or measure good enough?
If “winning” means being the best in your craft, as recognized on a global level through objective measurements, then does that not disqualify the individuals who are not recognized? If so, then that leaves us with another dilemma. Does a person have to be recognized as good in order to be winning? The answer is obviously, no.
There are many silent assassins in the workforce who no one knows about and that is how they prefer for it to be. Those people are at their best working in obscurity. Being recognized by the public does not necessarily mean that an individual is the “best” in his or her field. It simply means that individual happened to be at the right place at the right time.
Is Beyoncé a great singer? Many people—experts in the field of music—would offer a resounding, no. But the fact that she is a globally recognized icon and celebrity adds to the narrative that she is a great singer.
Let’s dig deeper. What is Beyoncé winning at? Is it her raw musical talent and theatrical presentation? Or are there other variables at play? The answer lies in addressing the premise at hand and that is: If you are good enough, you are going to win. Well, the answer is both yes and no.
If you are good enough, you are going to win. NO
There are many people who are experts in their fields but fail at everything else in life—well, not everything, but you get my point. Consider professional athletes and Hollywood actors/resses. We see countless examples of those figures who are leading their respective industries in terms of talent and box office attraction, but are terrible parents, financially undisciplined or socially disconnected and irresponsible.
If you are good enough, you are going to win. YES
Well, it depends on a person’s definition of winning. For me, winning centers on gaining the freedom of time. I have attached a specific monetary value to gaining that freedom of time, and it is only when I have hit that mark that I would declare myself to have truly won.
In essence, WINNING IS HOLISTIC! That is…
The recognition of being great or gaining mastery in a particular craft does not necessarily equate to winning.
There is no single definition of what constitutes winning; although, one could argue that winning is striving toward a particular goal and achieving that goal.
Winning is both contextual, i.e., personal and situational, i.e., environmental, and operates on a micro and macro level.
Winning is often measured by external standards such as material gain, achievement of influence and philanthropic contribution.
Winning is also measured by internal standards such as happiness, positive state of mind, self-awareness and self-becoming.
Upcoming post: “You’re Not Built To Break!”