An Asymmetric Life
Everyone has their own combination of strengths, limits, opportunities and risks.
There was no fair deal. One person talks easily and copes badly with uncertainty. Another learns fast and decides slowly. One has money and little time, another time and poor access to education.
A useful strategy doesn’t try to make every score average. It uses the asymmetry.
A strength can offset a weakness: good organisation offsets forgetfulness, writing offsets difficulty with speaking off the cuff, a network of contacts offsets a shortage of your own experience, caution offsets slow decisions, and technical skill offsets weak self-presentation.
An opportunity can reduce a risk. A cash reserve makes it possible to change jobs. A flexible schedule makes it possible to study. Good relationships make it possible to ask for help before the crisis.
Compensation, though, shouldn’t conceal a dangerous defect. A person with an excellent memory still needs a calendar if the price of a missed deadline is high. Charisma is no substitute for competence where a mistake can do damage.
There is no requirement to be the best overall. No such scoreboard exists.
It is enough to assemble a working structure out of what you actually have, and not design a life for a person with someone else’s set of parts.
Asymmetry is visible in hiring. One candidate speaks excellently and can do rather little; another can do a lot and says nothing at the interview. The second is usually advised to learn to speak — which he won’t manage in a month. What he can do is arrive with a finished analysis of the company’s problem, ask for a work sample instead of an interview, or come recommended by someone who has already said everything necessary for him. That isn’t bending the rules; it is using the set of parts he has.
Such a structure has one dangerous spot: compensation shouldn’t cover a defect where a mistake is expensive. A good recommendation gets you through the interview, but not through the first quarter, if there is nothing behind it.