The Equation of Performance, V.1

Prologue

The first car I drove was a 1992 Crown Victoria Police Interceptor that my family got at a police auction.  I soon came to refer to her as Victoria. Now, I imagine back when Victoria first hit the streets as a part of the Woodford County police force that she was quite the vehicle. To give us a metric, let’s say she was able to reach a maximum speed of 200 miles per hour.  This was her peak performance that her design would allow.  Over time, after sustaining thousands of bumps and bruises due to having to chase down all the crooks running amuck in Woodford County, Victoria’s maximum speed decreased to 60 miles per hour.  She could only perform at %30 of her potential.  Her performance level had declined low enough to allow my family to buy her for next to nothing at a police auction.

Performance is an extremely important piece of the human experience, and one that I think is often over looked.  It governs our work, our play, almost everything we do.  It even plays an important role in how much we pay for a car.

Performance is simply the degree to which one achieves an ideal condition.  According to this definition, Performance has two simple characteristics:

• Performance requires an action.  You have to do something in order to perform.  Of course, since we’re always doing something (even when we’re doing nothing), this is hardly a problem.
• Performance requires a reference point.  In order to perform, we have to have something compare our performance to—what I call an ideal condition.  We need a metric, a baseline, something in order to be performing.  Without this ideal condition, we aren’t performing, we’re being, or something esoteric like that…..

We are always aware of Performance, whether it be consciously or subconsciously.  In this essay, I hope to communicate how I believe Performance fits within our human experience along with Happiness and Committment.

Lastly, this essay is labeled “V.1” meaning this is version 1.  I hope that after receiving comments and questions that one day I’ll eventually be able to revise the errors and publish version 2.

The Simple Rule

I postulate that Performance, Happiness, and Commitment exhibit properties best captured by the following equation:

Performance = Happiness * Commitment

To escape the use of abstract concepts, we should simply ground the conversation in a concrete example.  I enjoy lifting weights, so we’ll use that as our example.

The terms—Happiness, Performance, Commitment—are inextricably linked. Our performance hinges upon our commitment to achieving an ideal condition and satisfaction while performing the necessary actions.   This message is probably the first that comes to mind.  However, This Equation of Performance doesn’t only say that Performance is a product of Happiness and Commitment. The Equation is a relationship.  We can’t alter one without affecting the others.

This means the converse is true as well: In order to be happy, we have to perform.  This isn’t to say we have to be competing to be the best in order to be happy.  According to our definition of Performance, you could measure performance simply by the amount of time you spend being happy.

We can’t perform without Committment. The equation isn’t additive.  We couldn’t rewrite it as so:

Performance = Commitment + Happiness.

This would mean that an individual could perform with zero commitment.   The equation would then reduce to Peformance = Happiness, and this simply isn’t the nature of the relationship. For instance, if I were to exist in a permanent state of drug-induced euphoria, I would feel extremely happy, but I would have no desire/ability to work on my bench press (in theory this could be disputed, but in practice I don’t believe so).  I would fall extremely short of my ideal condition of benching 300 pounds.  No matter how happy this drug-induced euphoria made me, my performance would not increase.

We can’t perform without Happiness. The case of having zero happiness is much more delicate and interesting.  It is also a topic I would like to receive comments on.   An individual is certainly able to perform much better when she is happy.  Unhappiness creates drag that holds us back from performing to our potential.  I don’t think that is to be disputed.  But can someone perform with zero happiness (Performance = Commitment)?

If I’m very committed to a cause, I’m certainly able to perform to some level, so to some degree this doesn’t completely throw out the possibility of performance being equal to commitment.  However, I’ll offer two thoughts as to why performance could not be truly equal to commitment alone. 

I defined Performance as the degree to which one achieves an ideal condition.  We have varying thresholds for performing actions we can’t stand.  I won’t deny this.  But, there’s an implied time element of performance.  It’s something done over time.  If we’re completely unhappy performing, we will eventually change our “ideal condition.”  If I hate bench pressing, I will eventually toss away the ideal condition of benching 300 pounds and would likely choose running a four minute mile as my ideal condition and completely alter the nature of my performance in order to put Happiness back into the equation.

Here’s another thought: we can’t be committed without becoming happy. The two are inextricably linked. This is part of human nature and a topic for another entire essay.  But in short, I believe commitment is a reflection of our sense of purpose, which has a direct link to Happiness.  If you commit to something, happiness will come of it.

The Equation governs both personal and absolute performance. An ideal condition is something that can be set according to our own personal expectations for ourselves.  In this context, the previous discussion makes perfect sense as to why Performance is equal to Commitment multiplied by Happiness.  Commitment to the cause will get me to go to the gym on the days when I’m not feeling up to the challenge.  Happiness and enjoyment of bench pressing will help me push myself and stay engaged in trying to achieve a bench press of 300 lbs.

However, an ideal condition can also be set on a more absolute level.  I can choose to gauge my performance on the bench press according to what I perceive as my personal potential or my personal best.  I could also choose to measure my performance based on the bench press world record of 1010 pounds, something I simply could never achieve.  In light of this “ideal condition” to be the very best, I would be an extremely low performer.  And even if I’m just as committed and just as happy bench pressing as Gene Rychlak (the record holder), I will never perform as well as him.

This begs the question: doesn’t performance depend on resources?  Things like natural talent, money, networks, etc.  Don’t they deserve a place in this equation?

I’ll believe the model holds true even for absolute performance, and the reason being, yet again, that Performance is inextricably linked with Happiness.  It may help illustrate my reasoning if we rewrite the equation like so:

Performance/Commitment = Happiness

People are happiest when they are performing.  If my ideal condition is to be able to bench press 300 lbs, I will either consciously or subconsciously be aware that I’m performing relatively well.  This creates positive feedback that makes me happy.  However, if my ideal condition is to be the world’s best bench presser, I will consciously or subconsciously be aware that my performance is extremely low, and frankly, that I suck.  This creates negative feedback, which reduces happiness.  And according to the current model, my performance and happiness will spiral down until I  change my ideal condition and change the nature of my performance.

Alternatively, an individual committed to performance could also choose to somehow gain the necessary resources.  This is of course much harder when the necessary resource is a genetic predisposition, but if I was that committed to my bench press numbers I would find a way to alter or augment my own genetics.  (Perhaps my Biological Engineering education would come in handy after all….)

For these reasons, whether our performance is defined by personal or absolute metrics, performance still depends on Commitment and Happiness, and Happiness and Commitment still depend on Performance.

Closing Remarks. Some people claim that they’re happiest doing absolutely nothing.  I’d say that this either actually isn’t true or that they simply measure their performance in a different manner.  For instance, while I can gauge performance according to what I believe is my personal potential for bench press, I can also measure my performance according to how little I move throughout the day or how few tasks I can perform during a week.

We are all consciously or subconsciously aware of Performance. Performance is ingrained in our brains.  In the context of evolution, this makes sense. Humans need to do things to survive.  It even makes sense evolutionarily that this would be related to  Happiness as well.  The need to Perform helps motivate us to move, build, fight  and improve our ability to do so.  Happiness could then be thought to dictate the context and nature of how we choose to apply ourselves.  By using Happiness and Performance, our brains have made sure that we apply our energies in diverse and specialized ways.  The requirement of Commitment helps us make sure we’ve thought deeply about how we’ve chosen to apply ourselves and don’t invest our energies haphazardly.

I look forward to your thoughts and comments.

Kevin
6.29.2009