Performance. Skills. Salary. Excellence.
Some people get paid to do what they’re great at doing, some don’t. Getting paid doesn’t mean the best performance. The thing can be whatever: singing, speaking, teaching, blogging, marketing, managing, etc. Here’s the random thing I’m thinking about this Saturday.
How does excellence in performace stack up against one’s skills and paid status? I drew up this diagram to illustrate– those who are gifted (by an act of God or some other metaphysical explanation of your worldview) will always perform better than the best paid professional. This means the gifted have an innate advantage to performance greatness. No amount of money can buy that.
Most professionals will do better than an amateur, because they’re getting more time to hone their skills and performance. The unpaid amateur doesn’t get as much time to get better at what they love to do.
Some are passionate about doing something, but don’t get paid for it- reasons vary. In an ideal world, people should get paid for their passion and skills; in a market-driven economy, money is more a factor of market conditions. Some amateurs are no good at what they do but they sure love doing it. No point bursting their bubble.
What other corollaries or insights do you get from this chart?