I received a very kind email yesterday in response to a speech I delivered. The writer said the idea of being an artist and producing great work resonated with him, but he was frequently frustrated when told "don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough." and asked me how to manage that tension.
I have used the phrase "progress before perfection" myself, many times. And there is another very familiar phrase, with a completely different meaning: "good is the enemy of great". So which is right? And how does the idea of being an artist in your work apply?
The answer, depends on context. Both phrases can be true, and both can be misapplied.
"Progress before Perfection" assumes the incremental value of the incremental improvement is not worth the wait. There is an implicit shortage of time, or deadline.
"Good is the Enemy of Great" (made famous by Jim Collins) considers effort, not time. When the resources are available to be great(er), but the cheaper, "good" route is chosen, the product is cheapened and can't be great. If I choose to be satisfied with a "B"-level effort in my training, I will never be an All-Star. My "good" effort is the enemy to my potential "greatness".
My exhortation to be an artist doesn't imply perfection. To be an artist in your work is to add just a little bit more than is required of the job: the piece of generosity All works of art are inherently generous: they did not have to be created. And sometimes, you must submit work you know could be even better if time or budget allowed...but given the constraints, you still show up, give your best possible effort, and still produce your best possible work.
I remember a U2 concert, when Bono was very sick with the flu. He couldn't produce his usual quality of vocals. But he didn't cancel because he couldn't deliver perfection. He still showed up. He gave his best effort. Even though the crowd knew his results weren't his best, the appreciated how much he was giving towards them and they joined in every song, and as he said "carried him through the show."
Compare that to the many infamous stories of musicians that performed poorly because they were sick and wasted with drugs and alcohol. Or the petulant lead singer that didn't show up, or showed up hours late, or walked off the stage early, because the conditions weren't right.
What's the difference? Generosity. Bono showed up and gave the best he had to give, despite the conditions. The product was flawed, but he endeared himself to the fans. The other rock stars weren't giving, they were selfish. "I am great, therefore I am owed these rights and conditions".
During game 5 of the 1997 NBA FinalsMichael Jordan had the flu and still showed up. Michael played many terrific basketball games in his career, but that's the first game I think of when I consider his greatness. https://youtu.be/YIzrYcgfOH4
It's not about their getting their expectations to align with yours. It's not about trying to change the constraints so you can deliver perfection. It's not about them. It's about me. It's personal. "Is this the very best I can give under these conditions?"