Mother Nature is just. She does not discriminate. She never pre-conceives with any ulterior motive or sentiments. She carries no preference. The divine nature, with its nobility, gives in equal measure to all human beings all the known and unknown qualities of heart, mind, and soul. The distribution is equitable.

The intriguing question that follows this train of thought is why, then, there is distinction and difference between people and individuals. Some are good; several are not. Some are possessed of enhanced intellectual capacity, with a strong sense of wisdom, while several are dispossessed of basic enlightenment. The provocation here, therefore, is what causes this difference despite divinity’s fairness in the distribution of faculties and talents.

In my opinion, it is all a matter of the availability of resources and the willingness to exploit those resources through toil and effort. That is what makes the difference between people, societies, and nations. It is illogical to think that people living in impoverished conditions are in any manner less intelligent than those living in developed societies. If basic schooling is not made available to children, who then should take the blame—Nature or humanity?

In our blessed country alone, it is estimated that over 25 million children today stand deprived of the chance to attend school. It, therefore, boils down to having access to resources that can help an individual learn, discover, and polish their uniquely God-gifted skills and faculties. The other aspect that creates distinction in excellence between individuals is the “quality of effort”. All societies, locally and globally, have within them people who are economically blessed and those who are either on the fringes of poverty or completely immersed in abject poverty, rendering them painfully unable to put their children into schools. This handicap is the telling difference.

Japan, an OECD member and a developed country, is extremely rich, but its people are not filthy billionaires. Pakistan, is poor and underdeveloped, living almost on handouts from either multilateral financial institutions or so-called friendly countries’ doles, yet there are many citizens who are extremely wealthy. The point being made is that it is up to individuals and communities to feel and take upon themselves the responsibility to improve skills that ultimately must lead to excellence in productivity.

“In the republic of mediocrity, genius is dangerous” (Robert Ingersoll). Individuals and supervisors who disregard the importance of achieving the best results from their teams are actually letting go of a great deal of ambition and energy. The effort has to be “faultless to a fault” (Robert Browning).

Excellence in any field demands hard work, focus, and application. To attain ne plus ultra in any pursuit, there are no shortcuts. I believe, with my corporate experience, that for the lack of excellence, both are at fault—the leader and the led. We have consequently seen the growing acceptance and predominance of mediocrity in every segment of the economy and the social structure.

For a passionate venture to excel, “good enough” should never be good enough for any manager. There are occasions where colleagues take cover under the idealism of excellence as a blinder to the existence of reality. While it is important to remain cognisant of realities, this plea as an excuse for not attaining excellence should remain unacceptable to a supervisor. Isaac Disraeli’s remark is pertinent: “It is a wretched taste to be gratified with mediocrity when the excellent lies before us.”

Regrettably, with the increased supply of substandard educational institutions, there is a visible decline in the quality of education. Consequently, the end product from universities that is received and hired by business, commerce, government, and industry is of mediocre status.

Several organisations, to create a frenzy of action for attaining excellence, use a carrot-and-stick policy. This external stimulus is used to jump-start the naturally gifted intrinsic motivation, which in most individuals remains in an idle state. The element of target-setting and the infusion of competitive spirit indeed bring about the pursuit of excellence. However, many management gurus argue that handing out bonuses, increments, etc., blunts natural, intrinsic motivation, which in turn leads to a significant and largely negative shift in the moral compass of the workforce.

The need for granting bonuses and recognising performance is not being challenged, but what is being addressed here is that leaders are not doing enough to ignite their followers’ (colleagues’) imagination to achieve beyond specified targets, both quantifiable and non-quantifiable. Freedom to perform is a far greater motivator than any other form of recognition. Every organisation, in both the private and public sectors, must use Voltaire’s words as a slogan for performance: “The best is the enemy of good.”

Said humorously but still profound in substance: Someone once told me not to bite off more than I could chew. I said, “I’d rather choke on greatness than nibble on mediocrity.”

Sirajuddin Aziz
The writer is a Senior Banker & Freelance Columnist.