Work-life balance: A perspective from Jack Nicklaus
wyounas.com
wyounas.com
Jack was by far the best golfer of his era, and he made many millions of dollars playing a game he loved, so he could easily afford things like having his family travel with him everywhere. For nearly all others caught up in the rat race with an unhealthy work-life balance, they can't say the same.
I'll just speak personally for myself, but I know some of my tendencies to over-commit to work are because I, just like Jack, want to be really great at what I do. But at the same time, I don't have anywhere near the same level of comparable talent in my field, so I have to work much longer at it, and I'm still rarely satisfied with the results.
It kind of reminds me of stuff I've read about Usain Bolt, that he's really chill and laid back. When you know you have the innate gifts to never lose, it's easier to feel that way.
That’s why it often bothers me when celebrity mothers talk about life balance in talk shows and get admired for it. This is much easier to achieve if you can afford nannies, cooks and cleaners.
In general, be wary of life advice from wealth people. Their advice often doesn’t apply to the average guy.
But at the very top echelons of sport, virtually all the difference in success comes down to innate talent. Why? Because at that level, basically all the competitors are putting in nearly the maximum about of time and practice necessary to succeed. We don't ever really try to deny this either - look at how sportscasters talk about people like Bolt, Nicklaus, Messi, Ronaldo, Biles, James, Phelps, etc. etc. Nobody denies they work really hard, but also nobody denies their innate gifts are otherworldly. I mean, I've seen loads of articles that talk about how Phelps is almost genetically constructed to have the perfect body for swimming.
And I don't begrudge any of these superstars for their success - on the contrary, they bring me lots of joy by sharing their insane talents with the world.
What I do begrudge is the messaging that we can all "be like Mike" if we just put our mind to it and work hard, and then we can have a nice work-life balance to boot. I'd much rather read articles about "average" people and how they learned to balance their desire for success with healthy relationships.
Right, the successful people have problems too, had to work hard to get where they are.
Often the only difference between successful and unsuccessful people is their success.
Having the same problems as successful people, without the success, doesn't really make for an easy life
You don’t need to overcommit to be great.
He prioritized family over money and success (he could have won more tournaments which bring more money and records). We can all do that
My point is not that Jack Nicklaus did anything wrong, it's just that the lessons learned from his life aren't really applicable to many other folks because he didn't have to choose between being the best and his relationships - very few other people have that option.
I feel pretty strongly about this point because I see it all the time in "feel good" articles and stories in the US. One of my favorite examples were all the "best lessons of business from Google" books that seemed to be all the rage in the 00s. Except that Google had discovered and eventually monopolized a giant, nearly endless profit producing machine that hardly any other companies have access to. So much of the tools of that success (e.g. hiring top talent, giving that talent lots of freedom, 20% time, loads of cushy benefits, yada yada) were only possible with their giant pit of cash. And I'm not saying other companies weren't immensely profitable yet still fucked things up, I'm just saying the primary keys to Google's success is the immense profitability of their business, not all the other things than can result from that.
Personally, I don't see any danger in more ordinary people taking that advice. Realistically, most of us won't be rich and famous no matter how hard we try, so why sacrifice so much trying to do so? Focus on something more realistic, like enjoying family or recreation.
Most people's job don't require them to travel every week. They see their family every day, but are still unable to manage a healthy work-life balance. Jack made a significant effort to work at it, it's rather obvious when you see his interviews and public appearances.
That is not easy, because your partner is very likely to get sick of following you all the time randomly and not having own stable life. Whether career or social network while being at home.
Same with kids, they actually like and need stable friendships.
The basic insight, that happiness comes from family, is a truism at this point.
My focus has always been my family and instead of flying them everywhere (that did happen once though: I had to do a client on-site and I said “either my family comes with me or I don’t go. There are many jobs but I only have one family”, and they flew us all in), I’ve consistently chosen remote jobs with no mandatory travel instead of the slightly better paying option with “relocation package”, or frequent traveling.
I’m aware I’m lucky as lots of people don’t have that choice, but I think in my industry (IT) a lot of people maximize for career progress when there’s plenty of good-paying family-friendly opportunities too.
In your case, you had to explicitly choose to take the path of family over maximizing career progression.
Jack Nicklaus didn't have to do that - he could easily have both. Honestly, I'd rather read stories about how people like you created a healthy work-life balance than more laudatory articles focusing on unattainable hero worship.
Golfers also have a huge built-in cost structure that team athletes don't. Coaches, caddy, doctors, are all paid for by the golfer. Team plane and team hotel? Nope, golfers pay their own travel expenses. Guaranteed contracts? Lol. If you don't perform, you don't get paid. Any injury -- major or minor -- that would sideline an MLB or NBA player (at full pay), means zero revenue for the golfer. It's no surprise that golfers seek out sponsors,.not just for the extra income but to provide some income stability and to offset all these enormous costs.
I love this thinking and wish it would take more of a precedent versus finding new ways to describe and justify why work should be the central meme of our societal-existence. I recognize that work has its place in our lives, but I also maintain a lot of mental well being by reminding myself that work is not the total sum of meaning in our lives.
That includes this seemingly in vogue reframing of work away from "work-life balance" to "work-life blend" of the last several years[1].
The last thing I want is to 'blend' work with life, because then all compartmentalization goes away, the already faint demarcation lines that exist between employer and employee grow even fainter, and boundaries become problematic to enforce.
The leadership and management class enjoy 'work-life-balance' and 'work-life-blend' in very different ways than the rank and file cadre and I wish there was as much writing about that as there was about how I should strive for "blending" my work life with my life life.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=work+li...
This is a lot like saying Larry Bird was the best shooter in the history of basketball. The game was different then, and far less competitive.
Unfortunately, this concept is unknowable until you experience it for yourself. That is why our civilization is in trouble; when people choose not to raise a family, they forego a natural and essential part of life, they have little understanding or empathy for those who do have children, and society becomes ever grimmer and coarser as a result.
Mr. Nicklaus could be a millionaire or a poor man and his words would ring just as true.
Actually, I am sure that they can't. I'm sure we've all observed plenty of people with kids who seem to lack all empathy.
We can all agree, though, that dysfunctional families do not contribute to said stability.
Screwed everyone's life to ensure better life for your kids, a masterstroke in India.
We don't need 16 billion people in the next century. But to the point of the article, my choice to not replicate is not a choice to avoid work life balance. That said, it does mean I may be able to take more risks because I don't have as many people depending on me. This is not a bad thing to have a mix of stability and risk-taking in society.
To me, all that says is that they lacked empathy before having a child, and continue to lack empathy for anyone but their child. And they're so shocked by their new experience of empathy for this person they've created, that they unempathetically claim that others must also create a person to experience the same shocking feeling of caring about more than just themselves.
Being child-free, my aim is to not leave the planet more burdened, so your children can have it a tad easier. Also, I will leave all my money to people who don't share my DNA.