Perfectionism is a buzzword.
Often I hear, my friend, how young people with circles under their eyes black from fatigue say proudly about themselves: “I’m supposedly a perfectionist.”
They say, like, with pride, but I don’t hear enthusiasm.
I propose for reflection the thesis that perfectionism, rather, evil rather than good. Specifically, a nervous breakdown.
And second — what can be an alternative to perfectionism?
Wikipedia: Perfectionism — in psychology, the belief that the ideal can and should be achieved. In a pathological form — the belief that the imperfect result of the work has no right to exist. Also, perfectionism is the desire to remove everything “superfluous” or to make an “uneven” object “smooth”.
The pursuit of success is in human nature.
In this sense, perfectionism encourages you to work hard to get things done.
As a driving force — quite a useful quality, the fictional positive perfectionist psychologist in my head tells me.
I agree. Now, my friend, the dark side of the moon:
- Faʻatoʻatoaina high time costs (not so much for developing a solution, but for polishing).
- Faa; pei foi ona malosi faʻaaogaina (doubts, doubts, doubts).
- Denial of reality (rejection of the idea that the ideal result may not be achieved).
- Closeness from feedback.
- Fear of failure = restlessness and high levels of anxiety.
I understand perfectionists well, because for many years I myself proudly positioned myself as a perfectionist workaholic.
I started my career in marketing, and this is just the source of the perfectionism pandemic (especially the part of it related to visual communications — who knows, he will understand).
Benefits: quality products (website, articles, design solutions).
Anti-benefits: work 15 hours a day, lack of personal life, constant feeling of anxiety, lack of opportunity to develop due to feedback.
And then I discovered the concept optimalism (authored by Ben-Shahar), accepted it, and I offer it to you for consideration.
The Optimalist also works hard as a Perfectionist. Key Difference – Optimalist knows how to stop in time.
The Optimalist chooses and realizes not the ideal, but optimal — the best, most favorable under the current set of conditions.
Not ideal, but a sufficient level of quality.
Sufficient does not mean low. Sufficient — means, within the framework of the current task — for the top five without striving for the top five with a plus.
The same Ben-Shahar offers comparative characteristics of two types:
- Atoatoa — path as a straight line, fear of failure, focus on the goal, «all or nothing», defensive position, seeker of mistakes, strict, conservative.
- Optimalist — the path as a spiral, failure as feedback, concentration incl. on the way to the goal, open to advice, seeker of advantages, adapts easily.
«A good plan executed at lightning speed today is much better than a perfect plan for tomorrow»
So my principle of anti-perfectionism is: optimal — the best solution under given conditions in a limited time.
For example, I write creative work. There is a theme, I set a goal. I give myself 60 minutes to write. Another 30 minutes for adjustments (as a rule, “insights” catch up with me after a couple of hours). That’s all. I did it quickly and efficiently, in the best possible way within the framework of the task and in the allotted time, I moved on.
Fautuaga:
- Determine the desired result that will satisfy you
- Define your ideal outcome. Answer, why do you need to bring a satisfactory result to an ideal? What are the benefits?
- Drop the excess
- Set a deadline for completion
- Act!
Another example to think about:
A year ago, I took a course in oratory skills, as a result, I took part in an oratorical tournament.
Since I really invested in the process and achieving the result, I performed brilliantly according to the judges.
And here’s the paradox — the feedback from the judges is enthusiastic, but they vote for my opponents, who were objectively weaker.
I won the tournament. With high energy consumption.
I ask my mentor, — How is it, like feedback “everything is cool, fire”, but they don’t vote?
You perform so perfectly that it annoys people,” Coach tells me.
O lena lava.
And finally, a few examples:
Thomas Edison, who registered 1093 patents — including patents for the electric light bulb, phonograph, telegraph. When it was pointed out to him that he had failed dozens of times while working on his inventions, Edison replied: “I have not had any failures. I just found ten thousand ways that don’t work.»
What if Edison were a perfectionist? Perhaps it would have been a light bulb that was ahead of its time by a century. And just a light bulb. Sometimes quantity is more important than quality.
Michael Jordan, one of the greatest athletes of our time: “In my career, I missed more than nine thousand times. Lost almost three hundred competitions. Twenty-six times I’ve been passed the ball for the winning shot and missed. All my life I have failed again and again. And that’s why it’s been successful.»
What if Jordan waited every time for the perfect set of circumstances to take the shot? The best place to wait for this set of circumstances is on the bench. Sometimes it is better to make even a seemingly hopeless attempt than to wait for the ideal.
One man at the age of twenty-two lost his job. A year later, he tried his luck in politics, running for the state legislature, and lost. Then he tried his hand at business — unsuccessfully. At the age of twenty-seven, he suffered a nervous breakdown. But he recovered, and at the age of thirty-four, having gained some experience, ran for Congress. Lost. The same thing happened five years later. Not at all discouraged by failure, he raises the bar even higher and at the age of forty-six tries to be elected to the Senate. When this idea failed, he puts forward his candidacy for the post of vice president, and again unsuccessfully. Ashamed of decades of professional setbacks and defeats, he runs again for the Senate on the eve of his fiftieth birthday and fails. But two years later, this man becomes the President of the United States. His name was Abraham Lincoln.
What if Lincoln was a perfectionist? Most likely, the first failure would have been a knockout for him. A perfectionist is afraid of failures, an optimalist knows how to rise after failures.
And, of course, in memory, many Microsoft software products that were published «raw», «unfinished», caused a lot of criticism. But they came out ahead of the competition. And they were finalized in the process, including feedback from dissatisfied users. But Bill Gates is a different story.
I summarize:
Optimal — the best solution under given conditions in a limited time. That’s enough, my friend, to be successful.
PS: And also, it seems, a whole generation of procrastinating perfectionists has appeared, they will do everything perfectly, but not today, but tomorrow — have you met such people? 🙂