[转] 专注做好一件事

sdccumcm

    “人们对机会的估值过高，这是我在下棋的时候学到的一点。你其实只需要一个好的选择就行，没必要同时去追求 A、B、C、D。”——Peter Thiel

　　是让你的选择尽可能开放，还是全心全意抓住一个选择，专心做好一件事情——可以说这两者之间的权衡，是我们生活中经常会碰到的。我们自打上学起，就一直被教育不要去做那些可能会断了某条路的决定。
, P/ d7 d- P- a　　这种让未来保持开放，让自己未来拥有更多选择和出路也是可以理解的。握在手中的成功机会越多，你的未来也就会越成功，不是吗？
　　不细想可能会觉得保持开放的确很好，但我认为事情并非看上去那么简单，原因如下：

9 b1 M6 p8 ~! y( ]+ b2 C4 ~
• 明星效应。很简单，在一个领域保持顶尖水平，比在一两个领域保持领先水平和五六个领域保持一般水准都要更有价值、并且收益更好。
• 有悖常识的真相：让未来更开放的方式，正是专注的去做好一件事情。这个世界上最成功的人，他们在某一领域获得成功之后，可通过经营杠杆进入任何他们想要涉足的领域。而这都得依赖于他们曾极致的专注在做好一件事情上。
  % X( X- ~  r+ V4 g% q

　　我时常会将这个权衡同创业公司连系起来思考。在创立一家公司时，创始人也会面临这个权衡，究竟是让未来更加多元，更开放，同时追求好几个选择，还是专注的做好其中一个。而通常，最好的创业公司都会选定一个，然后寻找一切方法让它成为现实。自然，也有很多创业公司他们并不清楚未来的路，他们相信手中握有的诸多好的选择中，总有一两个能行得通。
　　记住，在某一个水平上，你一次只能做好一件事情。能够拿到你最想去的学校和公司的 Offer，比拿到在你 Reference 排名中名列 2-5 位的 Offer 要好。而在一件事情上能够做到 99%，也比在 2 件事情上都能做到 90%，或者 3 件事情上做到 80% 要强很多。

5 T5 ]) I9 \) e6 R$ b, c2 K- z　　如果你可以在不失专注的情况下够获得一些机会，那就抓住它们。这里我并不是宣扬你得故意同机会保持距离。我要做的就是让人们开始重视专注，因为同 Peter Thiel 一样，我也认为人们普遍高估了机会的价值。
. j4 F% k  o" D& `2 C! g
$ p5 \- @6 `7 G" ~  |. ~+ C1 q) L/ x
2 S7 Z$ D8 z- B! K( P

Your best option is to be the best

“People overvalue optionality. It’s one thing I learned in chess. You just need to have one good option, instead of going for Option A or B or C or D.” - Peter Thiel
; L9 q6 h( O' k- c+ l2 i
0 {6 Z, c) _: j0 |

There’s a peculiar tradeoff we all must constantly make between keeping our options open and focusing very hard on one thing. From our earliest days in school we are told to make decisions that don’t close any doors, and this sentiment generally sticks with people for a long time.

America’s education system promotes liberal arts degrees for a huge part of the population, keeping us like generic stem cells until we are 22. Our international counterparts tend to begin differentiating at 18 when they graduate high school.
# ?- g* H8 Z; `  r
Professionally, the country’s top students seem to have an insatiable demand for banking and consulting jobs, which are valuable in large part because of the opportunities they lead to (industry, private equity, business school).

( u" F- Z6 }( I4 r4 e6 C- s2 M5 B8 lThe urge to not close any doors and keep one’s options open for as long as possible - to diversify - is understandable. If you give yourself lots of chances to succeed, you’ll be more likely to succeed, right?

- K7 L  {  B" _1 @+ V; Z/ W/ HAt first blush this makes sense, but I think there is good reason to avoid taking this approach.
# ?* _  H! t: s4 L; g# p$ D
First is the superstar effect, which says there are huge gains to be had as you approach the top of a field. In a highly differentiated world, it’s more valuable to have deep expertise in one or two areas than general proficiency in five or six.
2 L/ L6 R; A$ _6 WSecond is the counterintuitive truth that the best way to open lots of doors is to do one thing really well. The most successful people in the world have such strong operating leverage that they are able to get meaningfully involved in any endeavor they choose. They almost all got there by being extremely focused and good at one thing.

2 s( q& g6 ]4 G' |Naturally, the way I most often think about this tradeoff is with startups. When building a company, founders have a choice about how to handle the tradeoff between focus and optionality. Normally, the best startups look for one very good option and then find ways to make that happen. It’s surprising how often I hear founders say they aren’t sure what their business will look like yet, but they have lots of great options so something will probably work out.
1 l9 Z  u: k' s  _
  i+ O/ k1 N1 h; ]* pRemember that on some level you can only do one thing at a time; it’s better to get offers from your first choice job or school than your second through fifth choices. It’s also normally better to be in the 99th percentile in one thing than the 90th percentile in two or the 80th percentile in three.
! ~; `! P1 H0 c% y2 k8 f
If there are free options you can layer into your life without losing focus you should take them; I’m not saying you should intentionally pigeonhole yourself. Instead, I’m trying to be a tugging force toward focus since I think people typically overvalue optionality and end up on the wrong side of the optimal balance.
+ j; Y3 i! N3 f5 x
5 h: R6 r" H7 ~% f2 f
4 o. e: ^" a" P: E+ ?* F* f