A friend of mine, who runs a Faith & Work Ministry and blogs, wrote about P.I.E. the other day. The acronym stands for "performance" and "image" and "exposure." It is a formula that really successful people use to manage their priorities. Unsuccessful-to-moderately-successful persons might think they should prioritize their efforts this way:
Performance = 60% (focus most time on being good at what you do)
Image = 30% (be realistic, people do judge a book by its cover)
Exposure = 10% (you've got to do a little bit of networking to get your name out)
But the very successful executive understands that the real balance of priorities is the opposite:
P = 10% I = 30% E = 60%
Two observations. First, my friend heard about P.I.E. at a conference, and the person who presented the formula brushed aside an emphasis on P by saying, "It's a given." In other words, the formula only works for people who are already excellent at their work. After achieving proficiency in their skills, they can put 10% of their efforts toward maintaining and improving their abilities. My own feeling is that the formula doesn't work for most people in the world, because for most people P isn't a given. I even question whether it is effective for those who allegedly already are skilled. As far as I know, most professional musicians still practice hours upon hours every single day. They already have tons of P. But they strive for more.
Also, it seems to me that P.I.E. works pretty much only if your goal is to move up the ladder. What if you're content just being excellent at something and don't feel compelled to strive for a bigger salary, more work hours, and greater influence? It seems possible that P.I.E. could be a distraction for some people who want to pursue a meaningful vocation without it being judged by American notions of career success.
I'm not entirely against the idea of P.I.E. I just feel like it's one of those formulas that isn't as tidy as one might wish.
Performance = 60% (focus most time on being good at what you do)
Image = 30% (be realistic, people do judge a book by its cover)
Exposure = 10% (you've got to do a little bit of networking to get your name out)
But the very successful executive understands that the real balance of priorities is the opposite:
P = 10% I = 30% E = 60%
Two observations. First, my friend heard about P.I.E. at a conference, and the person who presented the formula brushed aside an emphasis on P by saying, "It's a given." In other words, the formula only works for people who are already excellent at their work. After achieving proficiency in their skills, they can put 10% of their efforts toward maintaining and improving their abilities. My own feeling is that the formula doesn't work for most people in the world, because for most people P isn't a given. I even question whether it is effective for those who allegedly already are skilled. As far as I know, most professional musicians still practice hours upon hours every single day. They already have tons of P. But they strive for more.
Also, it seems to me that P.I.E. works pretty much only if your goal is to move up the ladder. What if you're content just being excellent at something and don't feel compelled to strive for a bigger salary, more work hours, and greater influence? It seems possible that P.I.E. could be a distraction for some people who want to pursue a meaningful vocation without it being judged by American notions of career success.
I'm not entirely against the idea of P.I.E. I just feel like it's one of those formulas that isn't as tidy as one might wish.
Recent Comments