Everyone’s seen the spy movie where the spy knows that it is 37 steps from the front door down the hallway, turn left at the hall with the painting of the old man, 14 more steps, through the door on the right, using the passcode ‘61728’, and that he has 67 seconds to do all this and get back out before one of the two guards comes around the corner.
Much more impressive than the spy movie where the spy knows that he goes inside, turns left, and then goes through the door with the passcode ‘617..something’. Oh and don’t get caught, there might be a guard.
Which spy do you have more faith in? The first, because that spy clearly has a better plan — it’s got more detail. He’s able to be specific about the instructions. You could probably step in for the first spy and pull off the first caper, but not the second.
Specifics are how high performers are able to perform — this isn’t some wobbly idea based on a bad spy movie.
A motorcycle rider does not just follow the track, turning when he sees the corner. He knows the course — he can be specific.
A good motorcycle rider knows that there’s a straightaway, followed by a left and a right, then another bit of straightaway, etc.
A great motorcycle rider knows that there’s a long hard straight, and when he comes up to the ‘250’ marker, to be on the outside right, hard on the brakes down to 65, revs at 4500, through the chicane.
Specifics are good because they can be proven right or wrong, unlike vague statements which can be twisted moment-to-moment.
6 thoughts on “On Specifics”