Michael Ejercito
2024-12-27 16:23:32 UTC
Reply
PermalinkAn Eternally Troubling Ethics Conundrum—at Least to Me
December 27, 2024 / Jack Marshall
Adam Grant, an organizational psychologist who teaches at the Wharton
School of the University of Pennsylvania, has authored a guest column
for the New York Times that opens up, for the umpteenth time, an ethics
topic that makes me uncomfortable. His subject is the cultural delusion
shared by many in American society that rewarding effort is just as
important as rewarding success, and perhaps moreso. He writes in part:
“….we’ve taken the practice of celebrating industriousness too far.
We’ve gone from commending effort to treating it as an end in itself.
We’ve taught a generation of kids that their worth is defined primarily
by their work ethic. We’ve failed to remind them that working hard
doesn’t guarantee doing a good job (let alone being a good
person)…..[W]hat worries me most about valuing perseverance above all
else: It can motivate people to stick with bad strategies instead of
developing better ones…What counts is not sheer effort but the progress
and performance that result. Motivation is only one of multiple
variables in the achievement equation. Ability, opportunity and luck
count, too. Yes, you can get better at anything, but you can’t be great
at everything.”
I’m sure the column will raise several questions as it did for me,
though maybe not the same ones. For one thing, I don’t see a lot of
evidence that students or adults in general are knocking themselves out
to demonstrate initiative, diligence and persistence. In fact, I see the
opposite. Service in establishments has never been worse: when I see
someone obviously working hard since the pandemic struck I almost always
mention it now, because the individual stands out from the rest, not
only in that locale, but just about everywhere else. (Note to Jack: You
didn’t give little Christmas gifts to the great staff at the local 7-11
this year.) Students expect A’s for showing up, not just for showing up
and “busting their hump” (Note to Jack 2: Find out what that strange
expression refers to…)
Yesterday DOGE maven Vivek Ramaswamy set up an intense debate among the
“Americans are the best workers and this is the greatest country in the
world” gang by accusing the nation of valuing “mediocrity over
excellence.” On Twitter/”X” he blamed a culture that has de-emphasized
earned success over automatic rewards on the tech industry’s practice
“choosing to hire foreign-born & first-generation engineers over
‘native’ Americans.” “A culture that celebrates the prom queen over the
math olympiad champ, or the jock over the valedictorian, will not
produce the best engineers,” he wrote. “A culture that venerates Cory
from ‘Boy Meets World,’ or Zach & Slater over Screech in ‘Saved by the
Bell,’ or ‘Stefan’ over Steve Urkel in ‘Family Matters,’ will not
produce the best engineers.”
I don’t know why MAGA is in an uproar over these comments: It seems
obvious that he is correct. We’ve just seen the results from a
Presidential team consisting of a man who has always presented himself
as a “plodder” and his back-up who has been handed most of her
advancements based on her physical characteristics rather than her
actual performance and being in the right place at the right time. I
don’t know why Vivek is so fond of Screech, who was an idiot, but I’ll
let that one go.
On a personal note, the Times column reawakened my conviction that I
have been a lazy, under-achieving flop my whole life. Looking back, I
have accomplished a lot in a lot of diverse areas from an objective
point of view, but I should have, dammit: I’ve had so many advantages
that most people don’t have, including, before this year, a record of
almost constant good fortune that included good genes, good health,
great parents, and good fortune in finding mentors, allies, friends and
a support network. Misusing or squandering the advantages life hands you
is unethical, to focus on the mandatory topic here.
But this is my conundrum: my dissatisfaction with my own legacy in some
respects flows from my gut feeling that being successful at endeavors
that come easy or natural are less admirable than achievements I could
have obtained if I was more willing to engage in tasks that I didn’t
find interesting or didn’t enjoy. When I directed Peter Schafer’s
“Amadeus,” I found myself sympathizing with Salieri’s resentment of
Mozart who seemed to be successful effortlessly, because he was
brilliant. Poor Salieri worked so much harder but achieved much less
because he was a mediocre talent, and knew it.
On the other hand, I’m more innately talented at many things—all due to
luck and opportunity—than Salieri was at anything. My problem hasn’t
been that you can’t be great at everything: I haven’t been willing to
focus sufficiently and put in the work to be great at anything. I know
this, and have always known this but the self-knowledge wasn’t
sufficient to get me to change my pattern. My role models from a young
age have been “Renaissance men”: Aristotle, Da Vinci, Ben Franklin,
Teddy Roosevelt, Paul Winchell, Michael Crichton, Danny Kaye, many
others. They were special, however: they managed to be great at many
things, and seemingly never stopped working. My other class of heroes
has included icons like Ted Williams, who drove himself to greatness by
settling on one goal and working obsessively to accomplish it, and
creative workaholics like Shakespeare, Paul McCartney and Bill James.
(Final note to Jack: Oh stop whining. Everything isn’t about you.)
Enough about me: that way madness lies. Read the essay. (Gift link!)