There is a fascinating difference I’ve noticed in how groups of people identify themselves. The difference exists between excellence and greatness. The choice that a group makes to emphasize one or the other is a major driver of the behaviour and values of the group, even more so than its purpose.
Excellence is what Steve Jobs means when he talks about his step father finishing the back of a wood cabinet, even though the customer won’t ever see it. There is something quietly respectable about excellence. It is a matter of inherent quality that speaks for itself. To look inward on quality.
Greatness is what imperial nations like China, the United States or professional athletes seek. To be great is to be recognized as superior and above the status quo by a force outside of yourself, such as by winning a war, championship or other peer recognized achievement. To look outward on quality.
A work can be excellent if it posesses the inherent quality of excellence. You could be the best person on earth at throwing footballs, and only throw them back and forth with your kids. A work cannot be great without the recognition of peers, competition or contest. One can toil excellently, but not toil greatly.
One can be great without being excellent, as conquest doesn’t necessarily require any specific inherent quality. For example, you could cheat, break rules, undermine your competition or otherwise act unfairly. To do so is not excellent, but it can lead to greatness all the same. The differences are fundamental.
I’m fascinated by the contrast between countries like Japan or Germany compared with China or the United States. While Japan and Germany were once were expansionist warrior cultures that emphasized greatness, they have more recently emphasized excellence, even over greatness. There is an inherent quality to their culture, way of being, physical and digital existence in the world that is the focus.
By comparison, China and the United States use greatness as a proxy for excellence. The biggest company must have the best products by virtue of their market position. The consensus becomes the determinant of quality, and the goal is to expand the pool of respecting peers. I think this may be what drives how expansionist a group becomes over time more than any other factor.
This said, startups are a world I know better than geopolitics. Certainly, there are excellence focused founders and there are greatness focused founders. Some want recognition, peer respect, YC admittance, Forbes list inclusion whether they admit it or not. Others want to build something with a passionate obsession, whether they are recognized for it or not. The difference can confuse people around the founder, whether employees or investors. Excellence is less legible than greatness.
I think it comes down to whether you make your soul or the world’s opinion your ultimate determinant of quality. If it’s your soul, you’re going to focus on excellence. If it’s the world’s opinion, it’s greatness. There is a place for both of them. Some of the external greatness focus driven by Christianity lead to the enlightenment. A monk can be excellent at meditating, but it doesn’t do all that much for others.
I’ve found it can be compromising to seek greatness at the expense of excellence. Enshittification is real. What is possible excellence wise on a small scale becomes difficult or impossible to maintain on a large one. The best sushi in the world comes from a restaurant with only 10 seats. You can absolutely produce more sushi in less time, but it won’t be as excellent. In that sense, excellence can be a path to greatness, but it’s not clear that greatness can be a path to excellence - the relationship only works one way.
The jury is still out on this one for me about how to keep these forces in balance. I am a fan of toiling in obscurity and emerging with something excellent to share. But I can’t imagine enjoying a work purely for my own enjoyment. I am still social and still want to be recognized by my peers when the work is done. I’ve made the mistake in the past of trying not to let others influence me. A better evolution of that for me has been to let others that I care about and that care about me influence me a lot more.
I find to do work that is high quality and that I cannot imagine what ways in which I could improve it can be immensely satisfying. But to be recognized for the impact you’re having by your peers is satisfying too. I think emphasizing greatness too much at the expense of quality can impact your ability to realize peer recognition. Which may be why people often attribute focus to the greatest athletes and performers. We are attributing excellence to the performance, and greatness to the outcome. That might be the key.