An essay on mediocrity

Gareth van Onselen

20 May 2012]

“The general tendency of things throughout the world is to render mediocrity the ascendant power
among mankind.” [John Stuart Mill]

Introduction
There is a disease coursing through our veins and it is mediocrity. Fuelled by apathy, legitimised by nationalism
and fostered by indifference, it is a unifying threat which lurks below the surface of every institution and,
increasingly, manifests in the thinking that constitutes the public mind.

Mediocrity is a disease because it infects society in the same fashion as sickness ails a person, and because its
effects are debilitating and damaging. If it is identified and countered, its symptoms can be reduced or suppressed
but, like a virus, it can never be eliminated. If ignored, its spread can be extensive and the result acute; worse
still, if denied, its influence can be all-encompassing. And mediocrity’s power resides primarily in two such
consequences: it self-replicates, generating and reinforcing the very environment in which it thrives; and, the
more it comes to dominate public thought, the harder mediocrity becomes to recognise.

This contradiction is now at its peak: today, mediocrity’s presence is palpable and it manifests everywhere, and
yet it is never properly identified nor its effects properly articulated. It is a sickness that evades diagnosis.

Indeed, so well-entrenched is the problem that, for many people, it is no longer possible to imagine a world
outside mediocrity’s illusionary borders. It constitutes a very real threat to the form and structure of society, and
the principles and values that underpin any democratic state. And, if we are to counter it, it needs to be recognised
for what it is and then we need to act to end its influence.

The purpose of this essay is to understand mediocrity, its nature and its consequences.

That purpose too holds within it something of a contradiction; for mediocrity is not a coherent principle, in the
sense that it may be advocated by an individual or practically applied to a situation. Certainly it cannot be aspired
to. Rather, it is the result of inaction or incompetence.
Thus, its influence is insidious and, once established, it has the ability to cover one’s perception like a veil, giving
the adequate the appearance of the outstanding or reducing the exceptional to a dull distraction. And, in doing
so, it reinforces its own effect: a vicious circle of lowering expectations and the denigration of the distinguished.

So, while mediocrity’s consequences are plain to see, its influence is more subtle, yet highly infectious. This has
implications for any account of it: when mediocrity is full blown, its effects are readily identifiable and its
symptoms can be described in detail, but its genetic make-up is more complex to map. And, as it is by nature
both invasive and pervasive, it is a contagion that remains particularly difficult to define.

It is for this reason that this essay is written generically and not anchored in current affairs. It is designed to
elevate the implied above the obvious, as a full and proper understanding of the problem requires, first and
foremost, an appreciation of its form.

Only by understanding how mediocrity warps our perception can we understand its true nature and only from
there is any practical application worthwhile.

How mediocrity is not an ideal

Any ideal is ultimately unattainable. It is a goal towards which one constantly strives; the driving force behind
progress. Excellence is such an ideal, because it is always possible to improve on even the truly brilliant. But
mediocrity stands in stark contrast to this: it is a practical consequence, a finite point on an infinite spectrum.
This has implications for its nature, as it occupies the ambiguous world between two extremes and so, in turn, is
ambiguous itself – neither an outright failure nor a triumphant success, but often alluded to by both as an
acceptable outcome.

And mediocrity is not ignorant of its own worth. It is self aware. It constantly suggests to those that would judge
it that it occupies a position on that spectrum far closer to excellence than any objective consideration would
grant it.

This point is critical when one is dealing with values and principles – the cornerstones of democratic philosophy.
Each principle or value is underpinned by an ideal and as one moves from the theoretical to the practical so one
should constantly aim to hold any outcome up against the ideal which underpins its undertaking. One should
relentlessly ask the question: what more can be done to move this particular outcome closer to the ideal that
underlies it. Mediocrity circumvents this process by replacing the relevant ideal with the concept of the
‘acceptable’. That is, it constantly tries to reshape excellence in its own image. As such, mediocrity acts to
change ones’ values, distorting any ability to evaluate excellence – for one is no longer striving to move towards
the unattainable but in search of the real and the practical. And so the fear that defines the pursuit of the possible
is replaced by the warm embrace of compromise and continuity.

This emotional appeal is one of mediocrity’s greatest strengths: while the pursuit of an ideal involves risk and,
in turn, the possibility of loss, mediocrity offers assurance and the comfort of knowing. In this way it seduces
those with bold aspirations to let go of their dreams; indeed, not to dream at all.

Mediocrity’s character
To understand mediocrity’s true disposition, one must be able to recognise its defining traits. They are as follows:
apathy; indifference; doubt; pervasiveness; insecurity; superficiality; vagueness; fear; timidity; denial;
compromise; laziness; inertia; arbitrariness; obstinacy; moral indignation; pettiness; jealously; stubbornness and
neediness.

At first glance mediocrity is calm. But that calm exterior can belie panic. Mediocrity panics when placed under
pressure; for it knows it is being dishonest. But rather than engage with any immediate expectation of it, and the
work and effort that necessitates, it will simply detach. In abandoning responsibility in this way it is able to stay
calm. And that suits it – it is ostensibly calm because it does not want anyone to know it is panicking, a vicious
circle borne of a deeper understanding that it is out of its depth.

It is ironic that below the surface mediocrity should feel something so intense as panic – any emotion that raises
one’s heartbeat is normally too much for mediocrity’s fragile metabolism. One will never see mediocrity appear
to be under stress, apprehensive, anxious or exhausted. To the casual observer mediocrity is mono-emotional,
and there is nothing more disconcerting than its smile – feigning to assure, but assuring only doubt.

How mediocrity promotes the average

Consider this: the word mediocre is the chief beneficiary of its own influence. A great many dictionaries cite
mediocrity as an antonym for excellence. Yet there is a common understanding, one which is gaining strength,
that to be mediocre is to fall between two worlds – excellence and failure – and that this is no bad thing. In other
words, to be mediocre is an indictment but there is room to decline further still, and its relative position to
excellence means, to the mediocre, that position is always justifiable.

I believe there is a stronger case to be made: that while the difference between mediocrity and failure is relative
it is not substantive, as both fall short of expectation; but the difference between mediocrity and excellence is
substantive and thus the same cannot be said in the other direction.
One might well ask: how has it come to pass that the word mediocre has risen through the ranks, closing the gap
between itself and excellence in the order of things? The answer is that it has reaped its own reward. Simply put,
it has become acceptable to be mediocre.

“Mediocrity is excellent to the eyes of mediocre people” wrote the French essayist Joseph Joubert. Perhaps
mediocrity has some way to go before it usurps excellence itself but certainly it is fair to say that, in the public
mind, it enjoys equal billing with the adequate, the average and the acceptable, as opposed to their opposites.
And that is a direct result of its influence. Through mediocrity’s eyes, the glass is always half-full.

How mediocrity prefers the general to the specific

To be specific, that is, to describe accurately something in detail, is an onerous task. It requires one to be prepared
not only for disappointment (because the details of most things reveal them to be less than perfect – inconsistent
and, often, random) but dedicated to understanding the subject at hand fully and rigorous in applying that
understanding. Being vague or general allows one to gloss over inconsistency and to give randomness and
ambiguity the appearance of order, structure and uniformity. Naturally then, the former lends itself to
commitment and expertise – two defining characteristics of excellence – while the latter lends itself to
mediocrity, which enjoys nothing more than ignoring the particular in favour of the general.

It is easy, then, to understand why mediocrity is a moraliser: because there is no subject more prone to shades of
grey than human nature. That fact is too much for mediocrity. Humankind’s diversity, its inconsistency, the
wonderful richness of its difference is something mediocrity is unable to understand, let alone appreciate. If
anything, it is repulsed by it.

And so mediocrity is a shallow soul. It finds refuge in insincere moral platitudes – such things as
‘appropriateness’ and ‘respectfulness’, ‘politeness’ and ‘civility’ – and it is by nature deferential and obsequious,
and places much emphasis on status. These are the things that help it to cope; to bypass proper interrogation and
to avoid the possibility of a deeper understanding or greater appreciation of the world around it. And it advocates
them vociferously. One begins to see how mediocrity lends itself to nationalism, which has a proclivity for
moralising.

How mediocrity resents excellence

Mediocrity is a confused society, even its own members refute their status; but it is also a cruel society which,
because its reach is now so far and wide, often tempts those forged in excellence to seek its approval. That is a
mistake, because mediocrity will never endorse excellence, just as compromise will never understand principle.
If anything, it resents excellence and seeks it out with the purpose of diluting or ending its influence entirely.
The greatest judge of excellence is excellence itself. The ability properly to distinguish the one from the other
will tell you to which society you belong and, if you are wise as well as excellent, where you should look for
approval.

Why does mediocrity resent excellence with such intensity? In many respects these two protagonists are mutually
exclusive, so perhaps its animosity is understandable; but that is also to detract from mediocrity’s cunning.
Mediocrity lurks within excellence, waiting for an opportunity to manifest. Yet the opposite does not hold true.
And here excellence is its own worst enemy, for such is its appetite for progress that what is excellent today will
undoubtedly be mediocre tomorrow. Mediocrity, on the other hand, is trapped in time. What is mediocre today
will not past muster tomorrow. And so it seeks to extend the bubble in which is thrives, so as to engulf as much
possible, slowing down time and making society forget the world that lives outside its reach, as it moves to
banish excellence from its sight.

There is another source for that resentment. And it is deeply ironic. Mediocrity’s curse is that it is self aware.
Inherent in the idea of resentment is the requirement that one understands what it is that one dislikes. Mediocrity
understands full well what excellence is and the chasm that separates the two. And mediocrity resents it. It resents
it because it knows that its own nature is apathetic, that the abyss between it and excellence will never be crossed
and that even to contemplate doing so would require mediocrity to leave its comfort zone and venture out into
the unknown. And with a glance in excellence’s direction mediocrity articulates all these constraints in an instant,
and then it acts to remove the threat from its view.

How mediocrity is insidious and pervasive

The Sorites paradox poses the following question: if one has a single grain of sand and to it one adds another
and another, and so on and so forth, at what point do you have a heap of sand? Basic logic dictates that if you
have a single grain of sand, you do not have a heap. By the same logic, if you have two grains of sand, you do
not have a heap; nor do three grains constitute a heap; nor four. Yet, at some point, if you keep adding a single
grain of sand at a time, you will indeed have a heap. And the question then becomes, at what point does your
initial premise – that a single grain of sand does not constitute a heap – become false?

The paradox is also known as the ‘little-by-little argument’ and it describes very well the nature of mediocrity
and how it subtly strengthens its grip around society’s throat. It does so little-by-little.

A mediocre outcome does not comprise a threat. It can be easily excused or explained away; certainly that is
mediocrity’s own intent. Rather it is that attitude – one fostered and encouraged by mediocrity itself – that
manufactures an environment in which mediocrity multiplies. Put another way: it is not the mediocre outcome
which is problematic – failure is an inherent risk in any endeavour – but the attitude that accompanies it. It is
that attitude which determines whether or not that outcome will proliferate or be isolated. And as an attitude,
mediocrity has many guises: apathy, indifference, idleness, denial – each of which insidiously infects public
thought and serves as the source for mediocrity’s strength and growth.

It becomes apparent, then, how mediocrity is pervasive, because it is rare for any attitudinal change to be marked
or dramatic; more likely it is subtle and takes shape over time. Mediocrity is nothing more than a nudge in a
certain direction. As such it can be easily resisted but, if ignored, sooner or later you will find yourself standing
within its domain, unable to account for how you got there.

How mediocrity elevates process and compromise over outcomes

An outcome requires effort to achieve. So it is by nature mediocrity’s enemy. And mediocrity will act to prevent
its achievement or reduce its impact. It does this by shifting emphasis away from the outcome and towards the
process designed to achieve it. This trend is bolstered by mediocrity’s great love of bureaucracy. Indeed, when
mediocrity is firmly established in an organisation, the nature of any given process is elevated even to the point
where the outcome is no longer relevant at all. The form of that process, its structure, its composition, its
timelines, its parameters, its procedural correctness become all-important and every effort is poured into ensuring
that these requirements are all indulged and fully interrogated.

Here mediocrity is the enemy of legitimate decisions. Under the pretence that it speaks on behalf of the majority,
mediocrity allows one voice of dissent to be used as a pseudo-moral veto, negating any democratic outcome by
elevating discontent above consensus.

In this way mediocrity reverses best practice: instead of the outcome determining the process needed to achieve
it, the outcome is warped to comply with the process. Mediocrity takes all that is noble about compromise and
turns it in on itself, bringing its ability to dilute excellence to the fore and emphasising form over substance. In
doing so it drains resources and redirects effort to those things that detract from progress and stifle development.

There are key phrases and words which mediocrity relies on to shore up its cause – all distorted for the purpose
of interrogating process and redirecting one’s focus away from outcomes: ‘inclusive’ (as in, was the process
inclusive?), ‘fair’ (was it fair?), ‘consultation’ (was everyone consulted?) and ‘thorough’ (was it thorough
enough?) among many others. Any outcome is held hostage to such questions. To those who would strive for
excellence, these are watchwords, to be approached with caution; to those caught in mediocrity’s embrace, they
are weasel words, used to mask one’s true intent. Significantly, each one of them is subjective and, as such,
opens the door to debate and a discussion with no readily identifiable end. Everything is negotiable. All of this
works in mediocrity’s favour – it is enervating, ensuring that time and effort are consumed on those things which
detract from the hard decisions which necessitate any outcome.

How mediocrity hollows language

Mediocrity’s relationship with language swings violently between antagonism and celebration. There is no
greater source of satisfaction for the mediocre than being able to manipulate language to reduce expectation and
numb the anxiety that accompanies the prospect of application or exertion. When it is antagonistic, it will fight
or deny the meaning of words; when it is celebratory, it relishes in its own contrived interpretation of key words
and phrases. Always its purpose it to reduce expectation, lower the bar and ease the workload. And once again,
if mediocrity is firmly entrenched in a society, the latter of these two emotional states has some serious
consequences for the nature of public discourse and the language that defines it. Mediocrity eats away at the
meaning of words, leaving behind a hollow shell. The more pronounced the problem, the more acute the effect.

The first to fall are those words related to principles and values – ideas like ‘accountability’ and ‘transparency’,
‘good governance’ and ‘tolerance’. Special attention is given to ‘excellence’. Each of these words is steadily
denuded of its connotations and denotation, until it is nothing more than an empty reference to an idea which no
one can define, but everyone is willing to debate. A mediocre society will spend much time pondering the nature
of accountability and what constitutes good governance, but precious little time actually holding people to
account or practising good governance.

There are some words that are immune to mediocrity’s influence, but only because they are themselves
ambiguous by nature: ‘adequate’, ‘average’, ‘sufficient’, ‘satisfactory’, ‘appropriate’, and ‘acceptable’. It is no
surprise, then, that because of their ambiguity mediocrity has claimed these words as its own, and uses them
under the pretence that all is well and real progress, just around the next corner.

Because mediocrity has such an affinity for vagueness and generalisation, it is also a good friend of the cliché.
Most clichés do not hold up to close examination, but they do serve another purpose: to the uneducated they are
an allusion to wisdom, and so mediocrity uses them to impress those who can only be impressed and bolster its
own sense of self worth.

How mediocrity focuses on the existent at the expense of the possible

The downside of reducing expectation and celebrating the lowest common denominator is that it is not possible
to celebrate that purpose itself. Even mediocrity knows its own limits, and for it to expressly state its intent would
be to reveal itself for what it really is. So instead it concerns itself with defining what is already plain to see. This
focus on the existent has the effect of diverting attention away from the possible; for, if the parameters of a
debate are predefined, it is impossible to analyse any matter within its broader context: its own nature determines
its strengths and weaknesses. And if the subject is intrinsically mediocre, within that limited frame of reference,
even its best attributes are hard to cherish. Not so for mediocrity. It presents each attribute as a grand achievement
by reference to those things below it, simultaneously enforcing an artificial amnesia about the possibilities that
might exist above it.

How mediocrity undermines accountability

Mediocrity detests having to explain its own actions and thus accountability is a principle for which it reserves
exceptional hostility. In order to properly account for one’s actions, it is necessary not only to explain what
happened, but why. Mediocrity has no problem with the what. Indeed, it enjoys nothing more than initiating an
in-depth discussion about the exact nature of those things right before its eyes; but beyond that it is not willing
to look. And that is the very place where a person’s intent can be found. This refusal to engage in any discussion
about motive is perfectly understandable; after all, mediocrity’s motive is self-serving and its intent callous. One
can always tell someone drunk on mediocrity, they are unable to talk about abstract concepts and obsess about
describing the practical world around them. Asking mediocrity to account for its inability to predict failure or to
plan ahead, even for its unwillingness to change the status quo, is thus a futile exercise. In its most virulent form,
mediocrity’s deliberate short-sightedness advances past denial and the excuse becomes reality: intent is
outsourced entirely to someone else; there is only action, and who can be held to account for doing nothing more
than what they were told?

This last point is important because it has implications for personal responsibility. The last thing mediocrity
wants is responsibility, and when it is thrust upon it, it froths and bubbles – a violent allergic reaction, akin to
salt being poured on a snail. It will look anywhere but in the mirror, and blame and misdirection are the tools it
trades in when it is put under pressure.

How mediocrity distorts reason

Mediocrity is fickle, fluctuating between anger and apathy. When it is angry the cause is resentment – it
recognises excellence and understands it will never be able to achieve it, and this is the source of intense distress.
But that is a truth mediocrity can never express and so the anger swells within it. It never manifests in rage,
rather passive aggression. And one can almost taste the bitterness.

When mediocrity is apathetic the cause is fear. On the horizon it recognises excellence and the thought of the
arduous journey necessary to meet up with it in the far distance is simply too much to bear. And so it shuts down
and retreats, arguing that the undertaking is simply too difficult or dangerous to merit any serious consideration;
and besides, what’s wrong with where it is?
And this is to mediocrity’s own detriment; for, in being able to recognise excellence, it reveals some small
amount of appreciation for it. With regard to lazy writers, the famed literary critic Cyril Connolly puts it like
this: “Sloth in writers is always a symptom of an acute inner conflict, especially that laziness which renders them
incapable of doing the thing which they are most looking forward to.” So mediocrity is able to experience some
small regret, and it has only its own fear to blame.

The common consequence of both these moods is the damage inflicted on reason. If it is angry, mediocrity’s
judgment is warped by malice and, if it is apathetic, its façade of reasonableness is designed to mask the way in
which it manipulates logic in justifying its failure to act. And so it is that mediocrity often renders rational thought
redundant. Its own emotional state means it is simply unable to appreciate the power that resides in a carefully
reasoned argument.

How mediocrity is intuitive

Excellence is counter-intuitive. Not entirely, but substantially. Perhaps Aristotle put it best when he said
excellence “is not an act but a habit”. Nevertheless, it does involve risk, the possibility of failure and a venture
into the unknown. All of these things require one’s intellect to override an emotional pull in the other direction.
For mediocrity, however, there is no such choice. Intuitively it chooses the path of least emotional resistance,
bypassing hard decisions by avoiding them in the first place.

Mediocrity is unthinking. Its business is not to stimulate thought but to soothe away anxiety. Mistakenly it thinks
the best way to do this is to pretend conflict doesn’t exist. So mediocrity never actually calms its inner fears but
denies them, as it does the need for introspection or self appraisal. This stands in stark contrast to excellence,
which is self-calibrating: it gratefully assimilates any shortcoming as knowledge necessary to reset its own
processes and advance forward.

How mediocrity complements nationalism

Stripped of its rhetoric nationalism has its core the pursuit of sameness. It is founded on the notion of what one
might call ‘negative equality’: “We must all be alike,” writes the author Ray Bradbury, “Not everyone born free
and equal, as the Constitution says, but everyone made equal”. This sentiment captures brilliantly the emotional
drive that belies those whose purpose it is to promote mediocrity over excellence or, at the very least, those who
see independence, difference and competition – the essence of excellence – as a threat, to be stifled or stamped
out. “Then all are happy,” Bradbury continues, “for there are no mountains to make them cower, to judge
themselves against”. And so it is that the similarity between these two ideas – nationalism and mediocrity – is
revealed.
As Bradbury suggests, the desire to enforce continuity is borne of a misunderstanding: for those who resent
difference, equality is not an ideal towards which a society should constantly strive, but a practical condition
defined by the lowest common denominator, to which everyone should be made to adhere. This misconception
is the very motivation behind both nationalist thought and the mediocre impulse.

And so it is that nationalism and mediocrity have found common ground in a single purpose: the creation of an
environment in which difference is outlawed as the enemy and uniformity celebrated as the desired outcome.
That great essayist William Hazlitt once put it like this: “The way to get on in the world is to be neither more
nor less wise, neither better nor worse than your neighbours.” The consequences of that, however, are profound
because difference is a catalyst for excellence. If it is suppressed, the possibility of change or progress is reduced
and public thought stagnates.

Nationalism revels in this. For the nationalist the status quo is has no reference in time, it is the past, the present
and the future. And therein lies the fuel, and rationale, for any culture which embraces sameness over difference
and mediocrity over excellence.

How mediocrity is unapologetic

Because excellence realises that any error or poor outcome on its part stands in the way of progress it is able to
apologise. It does so because, in the first place, it has the ability to identify an error in judgment (indeed, it cannot
ignore it) and, in the second place, because it wants to improve. Mediocrity, however, cannot apologise. It cannot
because, on both counts, its nature is intrinsically different to that of excellence: not only does it not possess the
ability to identify mistakes, but it has absolutely no desire to apologise for them.

The first of these two points concerns its aptitude – mediocrity lacks the requisite skills, knowledge and expertise
to recognise properly any shortcoming; the second concerns its obstinate nature – mediocrity is unwilling to
apologise because it understands that it is unable to improve and so any defeat is not a stepping stone, as it is for
excellence, but a ceiling. That is, it represents a point beyond which mediocrity cannot pass. And so it refuses to
recognise it; for to do so would be to reveal its own limits.

Thus, should a situation arise in which excellence is obliged to apologise to mediocrity, the scene is set for much
resentment and animosity. Instead of that apology being received as an appropriate response to the desire to
develop or advance, mediocrity will turn it into an indictment – an opportunity to berate excellence, to blame
and moralise. Excellence knows this and it is a bitter pill to swallow. It makes sense, then, that when excellence
is bolstered by maturity and the perspective inherent to it, even in error it rises above mediocrity and holds the
high ground. Mediocrity is ageless, it lurks in perpetual adolescence.
But mediocrity’s duplicity does not stop with moral indignation. In an act of complete self indulgence,
mediocrity will not hesitate for a moment to bask in excellence’s success, or to claim its’ victories as its own.
Despite every effort to sabotage it, regardless of a stubborn refusal to celebrate it and notwithstanding a deep-
seated resentment toward championing it, mediocrity will seamlessly appropriate any excellent outcome as if
that achievement was its very intention from the beginning.

How mediocrity creates a false sense of comfort

Mediocrity denies its own existence. One might ask how this assertion fairly sits next to the contention that
mediocrity it is self aware. The answer is obvious: its denial is a consequence of it being self aware.

More often than not mediocrity’s fear – and the resentment that accompanies it – is a powerful reaction to a
subliminal awareness, a suggestion at the very edge of its consciousness that it is inadequate. But it is there none-
the-less and the implications for mediocrity’s behaviour, profound. On a day-to-day basis, however, mediocrity
drifts through the world seemingly oblivious to its own nature and, were one to confront it, any acknowledgment
of its form or character would amount to nothing more than a superficial smile and a nod, only for it to revert to
type the very next morning. To meet head-on its own deficiencies would be for mediocrity to relinquish its
purpose; like a wildfire realising its authority is determined by the very things it destroys and willingly sacrificing
its ambition. So instead it embraces denial, happy to pretend it doesn’t exist and easily offended when it sees its
own shadow.

Mediocrity constantly strives to extend this false sense of comfort to the world around it. But even that world is
no bigger than its imagination. And it has no imagination; for imagination is aspirational and mediocrity cannot
dream. For mediocrity, the world is restricted to only those things right before its eyes. As a general rule, the
further something is from mediocrity, the less likely it is to give it its attention; and those things out of sight get
no attention at all.

How mediocrity is blindly optimistic or pessimistic

For mediocrity there is no difference between optimism and pessimism: both are useful excuses to explain away
failure. And the more optimistic or pessimistic mediocrity is, the bigger the failure it is able to explain. In this
sense it uses both as a distraction, not only from its own intent but from its particular role in any endeavour. It
employs exaggeration and hyperbole to achieve its ends and is willing even to resort to emotional blackmail, if
raw enthusiasm does not serve its purpose.

When it is blindly optimistic, it plays on political correctness and constantly suggests that even a bold
undertaking is not bold enough. When it is blindly pessimistic, it plays on fear and uses bureaucracy as mirror
to deflect passion and commitment. Both those attitudes are then consistently applied, whether expressed at an
idea’s conception or its collapse.

If mediocrity is optimistic in response to failure, it is so because that is all it has to offer; if it is pessimistic, it is
so because, by default – as opposed to design – it managed to make the right judgment and is thus presented with
a rare opportunity to champion its own ignorance, which it does with glee.

How mediocrity is a gatekeeper

If mediocrity has a chance to prevent excellence from progressing it will leap at it. It will do so because a
necessary condition of excellence’s progress is mediocrity’s regression and because, being in a position of
power, it has the chance to bend excellence to its will; an opportunity to relish. But it is only a chance in
mediocrity’s eyes; a half-chance, an illogical jump, a distortion. Through objective eyes, there is no case for
anything other than opening the door to excellence; indeed, to help and develop its advancement.

To hide the fact that its reasoning is flawed and fuelled by self-interest, mediocrity acts to detract attention away
from the case that excellence presents and towards the manner in which it is presented: from the outcome to the
process. It will question the motives of those who advocate change, suggest they are not acting in good faith,
challenge their credentials, express doubt about their methods, their conclusions, their most basic assumptions.
The ad hominem attack is mediocrity’s calling card.

Excellence’s own nature does not help in such circumstances. It is blunt and direct and courtesy is not its concern.
Thus, in a society where political correctness – a neighbour and good friend of mediocrity – is also well
entrenched, these two allies, the inoffensive and the incompetent, will work together to keep excellence shut out
and the possibility of change at bay.

How mediocrity prevents benchmarking

In going about its business excellence sets benchmarks which, in turn, become the target beyond which those in
pursuit of excellence will then sets their sights. So while excellence’s final destination is not known, one can see
where it has been; and those points are necessary markers against which progress is measured.

Mediocrity works in the other direction. It exists in a realm far below excellence and so its position is of little
relevance to those with higher aspirations; but to those devoid of drive or ambition its position is of critical
importance. It is a marker of a different sort entirely: one that allows the mediocre to gauge just how much is
enough to carry on undetected.

In this way, mediocrity has the opposite effect to excellence – it lowers standards. Because if one’s purpose is
simply to achieve the bare minimum and if the judge of that achievement is mediocrity itself, then it will happily
endorse any outcome that is average, or even just below average, because both are there or thereabouts. And so
the bar is lowered; and lowered again. And, in time, what was average becomes quite an accomplishment, and
excellence’s own reputation diminished in turn. This too, has consequences for expectation.

How mediocrity reduces expectation

By its very existence mediocrity has achieved a large part of its objective. As excellence is a relative concept –
in the sense that it can be improved upon – it requires a benchmark against which it can be measured; and
mediocrity happily obliges. In doing so it once again acts to reverse best practice. Excellence should never gauge
its worth against what is acceptable. Its inherent value sets it apart from the common and the average. Rather it
should aspire to what has not yet been achieved. It should constantly aim to raise the bar, to fuel expectation and
to drive progress. The moment it stops doing this, the instant excellence relaxes and suggests it has run its course,
mediocrity has its foot in the door. From there it systematically draws excellence towards it, until the two are
indistinguishable. And it does this over and over again, until society has forgotten what excellence looks like.

Obviously this has implications for expectation. If the average is acceptable – worse still, if the average is
supposedly excellent – society’s expectations are lowered. And, instead of celebrating any development as an
indication of what might follow, it is championed as yet another shining example of what has already been
achieved. If aspiration is the fuel that drives inspiration, satisfaction is the drug that mediocrity uses to blur our
vision and dilute our dreams.

How mediocrity wins out through intimidation

To be mediocre is easy. To counter mediocrity, however, often requires immense effort and dedication. And so
mediocrity stands a very good chance of winning out over excellence, simply by presenting its credentials and
all that overcoming them requires. Daunted, excellence does the maths

How mediocrity can never be eliminated

Mediocrity cannot ever be destroyed. What can be addressed is one’s attitude toward it. It is true that, where that
attitude is borne of mediocrity itself, this might appear something of a contradiction but in practice the two are
easily distinguishable. And the differentiation is important, for the one is a consequence of the other and, if the
source can be extinguished, its effects will be quelled in turn.
The case is sometimes made that a mediocre attitude is the consequence of a poor outcome (an excuse which
serves the interests of the mediocre themselves, for it suggests they are a victim of something over which they
have no control). But this is wrong. A mediocre outcome can easily be the unintended result of an endeavour
undertaken in the pursuit of excellence. It happens all the time. An endeavour pursued under the influence of
mediocrity’s spell, however, will only ever be mediocre itself; if not, worse. It is one’s attitude to mediocrity
that determines its strength and, if it is to be countered, it is to this cause that one must pay particular attention.

It is worth saying something about the nature of excellence here, because it serves to illuminate not only the
difference between it and mediocrity, but the nature of mediocrity itself. Excellence is resilient, it is determined,
it feeds on aspiration and hope and its strength lies in a powerful instinct which relentlessly drives it not only to
compete with brilliance, but to surpass it. Starved of hope and aspiration though, it will waste away. Excellence
needs excellence in order to survive. But this is not true of mediocrity. It can survive anywhere. Feeding off
insecurity and fear and able to regenerate at a speed excellence simply cannot match. Even when mediocrity is
weak and frail, it needs only the smallest amount of sustenance to regenerate and infect those around it.

In order to suppress mediocrity’s influence, then, one has to be permanently vigilant and ruthlessly focused on
starving it of those things that would give it life.

Conclusion

“Democracy shouldn’t aim to reduce people and their achievements to a common denominator;
it should aim to raise them, ambitiously and dramatically, as close as possible to an ideal.” [A.C.
Grayling]

“The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity.” [James Fenimore Cooper]

I have tried in this essay to set out the nature of mediocrity, in order that it may be more easily identified and its
influence countered.

If we are to begin to move away from a culture of mediocrity and towards a society that champions and cherishes
excellence, we need to ask some simple questions: Do we aspire to something excellent, or do we aim only to
achieve that which is easily within our reach? Can we properly recognise excellence? Have our expectations
been lowered to the point where the average is acceptable? And these questions should be asked not only of
ourselves but of those who would represent us in government.
To make this move is to overcome a massive inertia. It requires absolute commitment and a relentless drive to
lift expectations, to demand excellence from others, to deliver excellence ourselves and to measure our
performance against the highest standards. A failure to do so runs the risk of cultivating a society with collective
amnesia, no longer able to recognise excellence or to appreciate its worth.

Expelling this enemy that has crept into our house and made itself comfortable requires a monumental effort but
it is by no means a lost cause. To suggest as much would be to grant mediocrity the victory it so dearly desires.

Each of us has a duty in this regard and the potential reward is great. For to be outstanding, to strive for excellence
and to celebrate it, is a feeling many of us have forgotten and it is a wondrous thing: a glorious feeling defined
by pride, a fulfilment enriched by a sense of accomplishment and the joy of knowing that one has risen above
the usual and reserved a special place among the exceptional.

That alone is something worth fighting for.

Gareth van Onselen

September 2009

Source: https://inside-politics.org/2012/05/21/an-essay-on-mediocrity/

What to Do About Mediocrity on Your Team

The toughest test of a manager is not how they deal with poor performance — it’s how they
address mediocrity.

I’ve been struck over the years watching executives opine in public about the need for
“accountability” and “high performance,” then complain helplessly in private about one or two
middling members of their own team. You have no moral authority to ask other managers to hold
people accountable if you’re not doing so yourself. Are you sure you’re doing enough to push for
high performance? What do you do when someone’s work is good but not great? How many
employees do you have whose performance isn’t bad enough for termination, but whom you’d
pass on if you could get a do-over on hiring them?

Unfortunately, if you’re hoping for a silver bullet to address a mediocre performer, I have little to
offer. Chronic mediocrity is a symptom of ineffective leadership, not anemic personnel.

But mediocrity is not destiny. In fact, I’ve even seen examples of government bureaucracies in
tragically broken countries that dramatically turned around their performance in a matter of
months. They do it through four leadership practices that lead to performance excellence. Each is
a prerequisite for the next.

1. Show the consequences of mediocrity. Your first job as a leader is to ensure everyone is
clear about what they are doing and why they are doing it. Mediocrity is typically evidence of
disconnection between someone’s work and the consequences of their mediocrity.

A telecommunications IT manager who managed 3,000 software engineers began setting new
performance standards by having them manage customer calls for a full shift using the shoddy
software they were creating. Those who had these experiences returned and shared stories with
their colleagues about the misery they were authoring. In a matter of weeks, the sleepy team had
a new alertness about their work — what they were doingand why it mattered. They were no
longer about cranking out code; they were about giving reliable tools to the people they served.

Find ways to connect people with the experiences, feelings, and impact of good and bad
performance. Keep the human connection alive by telling stories that illustrate work well done
— or not. And avoid impersonal/bureaucratic language when talking about performance; frame
your work in human terms every time you can.

2. Use concrete measures as influence. Mediocrity often hides behind a fig leaf of absent,
fuzzy, or excessive measures. In contrast, meaningful measures make poor performance
painfully apparent.

Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, the president of Liberia, dramatically boosted the efficacy of her massive
government bureaucracy when she published meaningful, measurable goals because now there
was a context within which to hold public servants accountable. At the beginning of her most
recent term, she and her cabinet committed publicly to, among other things:

 Put 6,000 young people to work on road maintenance and beach cleanup projects.
 Open 150 km of feeder roads, linking 30 communities in two counties.
 Open 150 new sanitation facilities.
 Open 75 community wells in three counties.

The goals connected clearly and meaningfully to the work her leaders were doing and why they
were doing it. But had she stopped at creating warm and fuzzy shared aspirations and neglected
to translate it to a minimum number of meaningfully measurable goals, her influence would have
been limited.

3. Establish peer accountability. Mediocrity is also often a sign of strong supervision. That
may sound counterintuitive, so stay with me here. My colleagues and I have found that:

 On the weakest teams, there is no accountability.

 On mediocre teams, bosses are the source of accountability.
 On high performing teams, peers manage the vast majority of performance problems with one
another.
On top performing teams, peers immediately and respectfully confront one another when
problems arise. There is no way for even the strongest supervisor to see and address every
performance gap. And the harder you try to do it, the more you’ll enable mediocrity.

Once you’ve helped the team connect deeply with what they do and why, and established
meaningful measures, you need to build a culture of peer accountability – where everyone can
challenge anyone if it is in the best interest of serving the shared mission. Regular weekly
reviews can give opportunities for mutual feedback and establish peer-accountability as a norm.

I watched a group of female entrepreneurs in Bangladesh ask each other difficult questions about
the emotionally uncomfortable steps each needed to take to expand their small businesses. More
seasoned leaders taught and modeled skills for speaking up. Norms were strong because new
members were quickly challenged if they weren’t challenging their peers. In this supportive and
demanding culture, these women were able to expand their businesses.

4. Speak up. High performance is a norm that needs to be defended regularly and vigilantly.
There will inevitably be times you will be asked to make personal sacrifices to defend that norm.
What you do in these moments is a sign to the team of your commitment to high performance —
and, therefore, your worthiness to demand it of them. Here are three common moments:

 There’s an elephant in the room. As a boss, it’s your job to address these, especially when
no one else is. If a corporate initiative is an utter but un-discussable failure, your team
will watch whether you have the integrity to point out the emperor’s lack of clothes.
 Your boss is failing to keep commitments your team needs in order to get their work
done. All eyes will be on you to see how you handle it.
 A chronic poor performer is a clear impediment. How you handle this situation will let
your team know whether your highest value is keeping the peace or pursuing your
mission. If you shrink from or delay in addressing this issue, you don’t just lose that
person’s contribution — you send a message to everyone else about your values.

When you ask a group to step up to high performance, you are inviting them to a place of stress
— one where they must stretch, where failure is possible, where interpersonal conflicts must be
addressed. Rather than step into this uncomfortable place, some will watch for hypocrisy in you
in order to excuse their retreat to safety. How you handle these crucial moments will either
amplify or eliminate your influence.

Individual performance problems are far easier to address if you’ve done the work of
establishing a norm of excellence. These four simple but important practices can rapidly and
profoundly shift a group’s expectations in a way that leads to both better results and a
substantially more rewarding work experience for everyone.

Filipinos need to end their love affair with mediocrity and ‘pwede
na yan’ mentality
July 9, 2014 - by Ilda
My views are not very popular with Filipinos. I guess it’s partly my fault because I like
posting topics that some might consider taboo and boring. But it’s not like I discuss
religion or make fun of other people’s religious beliefs. Granted, I like talking about
Philippine politics and society in general but I really think it’s time majority of Filipinos
stopped pretending that things are going to be okay as long as we all maintain a
“positive” outlook and be “hopeful”. Sadly, there is nothing to hope for if there is hardly
anything being done to fix the country’s problems that keep coming up year after year.
Flooding, anyone?

Unfortunately, most Filipinos would rather see the bright side of things probably
because the reality tends to put them in a bad mood. They hold on to the old notion —
the cliché of always seeing the glass half-full. They think people who highlight what is
wrong with Filipino culture are being “negative”. Well, think again. Filipinos can try and
pretend things are okay only until the next disaster strikes the country. That’s when
people realize again that the country does not have the resources to save its citizens
and has to seek help from overseas.

The problem is, it’s been three decades since former President Ferdinand Marcos dubbed “the
dictator” was ousted from power, and yet the Philippines has remained backward in a lot of
ways. The fact that most Filipinos still can’t be vocal about their views on important issues
plaguing the nation is proof that 30 years after democracy was supposedly “restored”, majority
of us are still afraid to speak out. It seems Filipinos are afraid of retribution from the powerful if
they spoke out against political corruption and cronyism.

Filipinos in general just don’t like talking about what they consider to be unpleasant
things. It seems they can’t handle the truth. As James Fallows puts it in his seminal
article A Damaged Culture:

The Filipino ethic of delicadeza, their equivalent of saving face, encourages

people to raise unpleasant topics indirectly, or, better still, not to raise them at
all.
I just can’t get over the fact that it’s been 30 years since James Fallows wrote that
observation about us but not much has changed. Most Filipinos to this day still frown
upon those who criticize Filipino public servants and our own shortfalls. It could be
because a lot of Filipinos treat their public servants like celebrities despite their
incompetence. A classic example of this is the incumbent President Benigno Simeon
“BS” Aquino who is still revered by many despite proof that he is also one of the most
corrupt public official in the land. He is revered for the single reason that he is the son of
so-called “heroes” Cory and Ninoy Aquino. It’s so bizarre especially since the Edsa
“People Power” revolution’s only real legacy is the continued disregard for the rule of
law.

Over at the Inquirer, someone by the name of Billy A. Chan wrote an article that hits the
right notes — that is, if you are into empty platitudes. If you are, you will surely like his
piece titled, I love this country. Apparently, if you believe Chan, just saying “I love this
country and everything about it” will make life easier for the average Filipino.

I noticed that Chan’s article is short on specifics. He is of the belief that “there will be so
much change if we love instead of hate.” It’s not clear how he expects change to
happen just by “loving” but it is clear that he is very good at tuning out the bad bits about
the Philippines.

Let’s start from the beginning. Chan wrote: “I love that there are still public servants who
are sincere and genuine in fulfilling their duties as elected officials.” If I may ask, which
elected public servant was he talking about? I wish he named at least one so we could
look up his track record and see for ourselves if this “sincere and genuine” elected
public servant really exists.

Chan also made a big deal of people who bother to go to the polls “just to cast their
votes for the candidates they think they deserve.” Hmm…Let me see, a non-performing
senator won the 2010 Presidential Election and the one who came second and almost
won again was convicted plunderer former President and now Mayor Joseph Estrada.
Obviously, a lot of those who do go to the polls don’t choose wisely. I do commend
those who refuse to sell their votes, indeed. Unfortunately, there seems to be more
voters who do sell their votes compared to those who don’t.

I don’t know how old Chan is but he gave this impression that typhoon Yolanda was the first
devastating typhoon that ever struck the Philippines:

I love how this country produced thousands of leaders after Typhoon

“Yolanda/Haiyan” devastated parts of the Visayas. I love how Filipinos have
realized the importance of mangroves along coastlines, which saved
hundreds of lives from the deadly storm surges unleashed by Yolanda. I love
how natural calamities make Filipinos aware of the extreme effects of climate
change and push them to implement measures to protect themselves and the
environment.
The country gets visited by at least 20 typhoons every year. Yolanda may have been the
strongest in recent times, but the country’s other devastating typhoon Sendong in 2011 or the
ones before that should have made Filipinos “realize the importance of mangroves along
coastlines” already. Obviously, the previous disasters have not pushed Filipinos enough to
“implement measures to protect themselves and the environment”. It remains to be seen if
Filipinos did learn from Yolanda and are more prepared for the next typhoon.
Chan claims to love how “we are still a proud and strong race.” First of all, somebody ought to
tell him that the concept of race has already been debunked. Instead of referring to us as a
Filipino “race”, he should use Filipino ethnicity. Researchers have agreed that races do not exist
and that the concept of race “was socially constructed, arising from the colonization of the New
World and the importation of slaves, mainly from western Africa”. Second, we don’t need to be a
proud people just to get respect. Rather, we need to be more humble and stoic while working
hard to build our country from the ground up especially since there’s still so much work to be
done before we can be truly independent.

One can be forgiven for thinking that Chan may have been smoking something illegal
when he wrote the article. He just loves everything that rational folks absolutely hate
having to put up with. He loves riding in the cramped trains, loves standing on the bus,
he loves to endure endless traffic, making detours and seeing the roads that are under
repair. He is even willing to to pay more for the experience. What a guy! No wonder our
public servants do not feel the need to improve the appalling conditions in the country.

A lot of Filipinos don’t realize that Chan’s over-enthusiasm for mediocrity is part of the
reason things don’t improve in the Philippines. It’s the pwede na yan or “that’ll do”
mentality at work. Is he expecting Filipinos to just accept the cramped conditions on
public transport? I almost fainted when I rode the MRT in the middle of the day. That
wasn’t even peak hour.

Will people like Chan frown on those who demand that the Department of
Transportation and Communications do something to ease the congestion and
overcrowding on trains? Is it too much to ask for an upgrade on the facilities and
infrastructure on public transport? I don’t think so. Chan also does not see things from a
business point of view. The economy suffers huge productivity losses and inefficiency
as a result of traffic congestion. Only when Filipinos stop accepting mediocrity will things
improve.
Chan also commended “brilliant” Filipinos who stay in the country. While I do agree that
brain drain is cause for concern for the country, Filipinos who choose to leave the
country for lack of better opportunity and recognition in their homeland should not be
treated as outcasts or regarded as “unpatriotic”. He can even ask former PAGASA
employees why they left.

Migration is not a phenomenon unique to Filipinos. Some folks are just wired to seek
adventure elsewhere for a sea change or tree change. In fact, those who choose to live
in another country can share the knowledge they learn from their adopted country with
their compatriots. Filipinos in the Philippines just have to be more open to suggestions
from people who have been exposed to progressive thinking.

Likewise, Filipinos who choose to stay in the Philippines do not have a monopoly on
patriotism. They just have their own reasons for staying. Some just prefer to stay
because of all the perks of living among family and friends and having cheap servants.
Not all of them share their “skills and talent”. I know some who don’t even work and are
just slacking off.

Chan also painted such a rosy picture of the overseas foreign workers’ (OFWs) plight.
I love it when mothers and fathers who need to work abroad take pains to
explain to their children the reasons for their temporary absence. I love it
when these parents, the country’s modern-day heroes, come home for good
to resume family life, having saved enough for themselves and their loved
ones.
Unfortunately, not all families whose loved ones had to go abroad for work have a
happy ending. Some of the kids who were left behind by their OFW parents grow up
without a mother or father figure to look up to. Their parents weren’t there on important
events and milestones. When they come back, they are often estranged from the very
people they financially supported from thousands of miles away.

A lot of these OFWs do not earn a lot from their jobs as domestic workers and fail to
save money. Years after toiling abroad, they don’t even have a job they can come back
to. This is a result of the government’s bad economic policies since the 1970s that
made the country too dependent on OFW remittances to stimulate the economy. This is
something that Chan needs to highlight if he truly wants “change”. Writing his
representative in congress to do something about the plight of the OFWs is more
productive than mouthing off “I love” platitudes.

Filipinos can’t just say, “they love everything about the Philippines” and expect things to
improve. It won’t happen unless they do something about it. Demanding for change
from their elected public servants is a good first step instead.

And Filipinos who express their “hate” of our culture of mediocrity don’t necessarily hate
the Philippines. They just want the best for the country.

Mediocrity eating Filipinos

alive
The problem with modern Filipino society is this: We are too happy, too
simpleminded, too content (with how things are, about the status quo), thus we have
become shallow. This is clearly demonstrated by the sort of entertainment we make
for ourselves—I mean the shows and films we make for the masses.
It’s like we have been exposed to so much scarcity that we’ve learned to adapt to and
be okay with it; like we’ve learned to survive in lack; like we’ve somehow found a
way to just live with it and be happy and laugh despite how things are.
We’ve adapted, we’ve learned to be content, so we settle for anything. And we’ve
been on this contentment for so long that we don’t even think about it anymore. It’s
the norm. Filipinos smile. Filipinos are a happy people. Filipinos are simple people.
Far too simple for greatness. We’ve forgotten that we’re a Third World country
thought of as a joke and used as a punch line, and that we need to change some things
around here.
Our political system is clearly very problematic. Our elections are more like
popularity contests and whoever has the most catchy jingle wins. We don’t even hear
about economic reform plans or about plans for national growth in most of the ads,
because no one is actually interested in such things anyway.
And the TV and movie or entertainment industry is even more depressing. Movie after
movie and show after show of very worn-out themes, poorly written plots and cheap
endings that just squeeze out what life there is. And the moment we hear criticism, we
get insulted, we demand an apology, we get enraged.
Honestly, I think the entertainment industry needs good, honest critics who would tell
it exactly what it needs to hear. The industry needs a wake-up call; it has a ginormous
privilege, and this it is using very poorly.
Nevertheless, we are content. No one is complaining. It’s as if society has been
injected with a very strong dose of intellectual anesthesia—we can’t feel mediocrity
eating us alive.
Mar 3, 2011

Is mediocrity really the goal and standard for majority of

Filipinos?
Dear Filipino,

Someone (with a PhD from Harvard and who was a Summa Cum Laude at his local Manila
university) told me that he believes that part of the dynamics in terms of explaining why the
Philippines is where it is today -- i.e., near or at the bottom rung of the Asian economies even after
25 years since the end of Marcos rule -- is that the majority of Filipinos (both the elite and
the masa) do not subscribe to the pursuit of excellence (or a higher challenge) as a goal or as a
standard to live for or to die for. In short, mediocrity (or Pwede Na Basta't Maka Sulong) is the
day-to-day mode of Filipino life.

My question is: Is this observation accurate and correct? If it is, what is the explanation? Is it
cultural? Is it an effect of colonialism? And if so, were the Spaniards a stickler for mediocrity
themselves?

Johnny V. from Stanford

Dear Johnny,

Yes, let’s blame everything on the Spaniards! After all, most former Spanish colonies are practically in the
same rut we are in. Heck, you can even argue that Spain is in worse shape than most of its former
colonies including the Philippines – what with its 20% unemployment rate right now and near bankrupt
banks.

But on second thought, let’s not do that. The Spaniards have been gone a long time and it’s time to take
ownership of our state of affairs. But in investigating your main question, I will steer clear of the
discussion of culture also because many experts have already done that in the past and, frankly, I’m tired
of hearing those experts pontificate about our culture.

So, let’s talk about you instead. ;-)

Actually, I think the question could not have come from a more appropriate questioner. Why do I think so?
Because Stanford, regularly ranked today as the “dream college” by both parents and students, has
become synonymous with excellence in higher education. In fact, according to the Times Higher
Education (THE) World University Rankings, in 2010, Stanford is ranked among the top 5 in the world in
the fields of engineering & technology, life sciences, health sciences, physical sciences, social sciences,
and arts & humanities. This achievement is truly remarkable because no other university placed in the top
5 across all these broad disciplines. (And what these rankings always overlook is the fact that Stanford is
also an incredible powerhouse in collegiate athletics!)

It is even more remarkable that Stanford made it this big despite its relative youth when compared to
Harvard, Oxford or Cambridge – its present “peers”. In fact, after its founding by the railroad tycoon and
politician Leland Stanford and his wife Jane in 1891, the fledgling university almost went under because
of problems involving its finances following the death of Leland in 1893.

However, determined to keep the university in operation, Jane personally took charge of administrative
and financial matters at the university from 1893 to 1905, and she ran it like a housewife would a
household because that was the only way she really knew how to run anything. She’s said to have paid
salaries out of her own funds, even pawning her jewelry just to keep the university going.

It is common knowledge, though, that what really brought Stanford to its current perch is Silicon Valley,
one of the biggest engines of the US economy, and that Silicon Valley, in turn, is what it is today because
of Stanford. You cannot divorce the success of one from the other and you definitely cannot understand
the rise of one without understanding the rise of the other.

But what was the original tie that bound the two together?

The answer, according to Professor Stephen B. Adams of Salisbury University who wrote about the topic
in an Oxford Journal, is a sense of mission and regional solidarity. He explains thusly:

From the early years of Stanford University, the university's leaders saw its mission as service to the
West and shaped the school accordingly. At the same time, the perceived exploitation of the West at the
hands of eastern interests fueled booster‐like attempts to build self‐sufficient indigenous local industry.
Thus, regionalism helped align Stanford's interests with those of the area's high‐tech firms for the first fifty
years of Silicon Valley's development.

We know now that this sense of mission and regionalism would give rise to the likes of Hewlett Packard,
Intel, Cisco, Apple, Oracle, Yahoo, Google and thousands of other less well-known but equally excellent
and cutting-edge companies, staffed by the best and the brightest who were attracted by the lure not only
of wealth and glory but also the exciting prospect and pressure of competing, co-creating and/or
cooperating with like-minded souls who are in pursuit of excellence.

Now, distilling the lessons from the success of Stanford and Silicon Valley, I humbly submit to you here
that the key ingredients to enable a group of people to achieve excellence are (1) a sense of mission by
those in leadership roles; (2) a “regionalistic” environment which produces a sense of solidarity; and (3)
peer pressure of the positive kind. Take away any one of these ingredients and you’ll likely get mediocrity
at best (or outright failure at worst).

Personally, I think many Filipinos subscribe to the pursuit of excellence in their own individual fields, and I
don’t think I need to detain you any further here by giving you specific examples. Suffice it to say that the
“someone” you mentioned appears to be one of them; otherwise, he wouldn’t have bothered getting his
PhD from Harvard. (In fact, like him, many Filipinos leave the Philippines not just to earn a better living but
also to seek the best in their respective fields, advance as globally as possible professionally and thereby
pursue world-class excellence in their craft.)

But then, you are probably thinking that if enough Filipinos are pursuing excellence individually, then the
country should not be where it is today. To a certain extent that may be true, but I don’t buy that line of
thinking completely. And, here, I’ll point to India as my counter-example.

You see, India has a lot of excellent and super-successful individuals who have thrived particularly well in
countries like the US and the UK. But despite significant personal achievements of these expat Indians
and the considerable economic progress of the country, India still has a significant portion of its
population mired in extreme poverty. Why? I’ll give you three reasons: (1) Because the elite Brahmin
class does not really exhibit a true sense of mission to help members of their lowest class, the Dalits or
the untouchables; (2) because India’s still pervasive and rigid caste system produces a low-trust culture
and therefore a weak sense of solidarity among its people; and (3) because there is not enough peer
pressure among the powerful and rich Indians to do the right thing.

Case in point: India’s richest person, Mukesh Ambani, just built the most expensive, most ostentatious
personal residence in the world. According to Forbes, it is a billion-dollar, 60-story palatial building in
Mumbai, which, depressingly enough, is actually home to the largest population of slum dwellers in India.
It’s weird saying this because I might come across as just envious (and to a certain extent, I am), but I
honestly almost feel sorry for this Ambani guy – for obviously, he has some demons he’s dealing with.

Do you get my drift here?

In any case, I think your question actually involves generalities. In other words, you’re really asking
whether Filipinos, as a group, are pursuing or are capable of pursuing something large-scale, something
grander for themselves: i.e., an excellent and advanced economy undergirding an equitable and just
society. In other words, something like what the Singaporeans or the Koreans or the Taiwanese have, to
a large extent, achieved.

So, applying the Stanford/Silicon Valley model of success I discussed above, I have to ask: Do Filipinos
in power generally have a sense of mission?

Well, by its very definition, the word “mission” -- which is often seen as a companion word to “vision” – is
suffused with idealism and therefore connotes lofty ideals and aspirations which transcend one’s selfish
interests. And I doubt, honestly, whether the past and present leaders of the country (with the exception
of a handful) had or have them, or even if they did or do, that they took or are taking them seriously
enough.

The in-your-face corruption, the giving and accepting of bribes, the brazen system of patronage and vote-
buying, the unbelievable violence – all these belie a sense of mission among the people at the top of the
public pyramid. And when even the country’s privately wealthy make their money not really through
invention and production of high value-added goods and services but through sale of imported consumer
products to a local populace getting subsidies in the form of remittances from their OFW relatives, through
passive collection of rents, through relentless milking of precious and limited land which inevitably leads
to its eventual destruction and depletion, or through their connections to the people in power, you also
realize that the country’s elite are just, mission-wise at least, as bankrupt.
(I remember a “game” I once played with a friend who belonged to one of the country’s most prominent
families and who is very knowledgeable about the Philippine society’s elite. Highly self-aware of the
nature of his own family’s membership in the group, he said to me: “Name any rich family in the
Philippines and I will tell you how they arrived at their wealth through their connection to, help or blessing
of a former or present President.” Not that there are no families who made their wealth more impressively,
but during our exchange, I failed to stump my friend.)

But surely, we cannot lay the blame solely on the feet of the elite. We all have our fair share in everything
wrong with the Philippines, of course, and we rightfully cannot get a free pass especially because there’s
more than enough blame to go around. So what about the rest of us, the masses?

Sadly, the Filipino masses (where, for the sake of expediency, I would lump the middle class) have been
fickle, feeble and feckless too. Collectively, we, too, seem to have no sense of mission. For instance, we
kicked out the Marcoses from power but we allowed them back in without asking them to commensurately
pay for their sins first. We elevated Cory to the presidency (and near-sainthood) but we did practically
nothing to support her administration. We are supposedly educated but we put up with – and actually
enrich! – the likes of Willie Revillame who bring out and institutionalize the worst in us, not to mention
elect his ilk to positions of power. (Quite honestly, that last example is not just being mediocre – it is
macabre!)

As for having a regionalistic environment which produces a sense of solidarity, with over 7,000 islands
and dozens of languages, Filipinos are supposedly already “regionalistic”, so there has to be a checkmark
here in our favor, right?

Unfortunately, it appears to many from outside, or even to many among us, that our regionalism does not
quite extend beyond the superficial. Indeed, Filipino solidarity is often seen as merely skin-deep, quite
myopic and frail, if not totally non-existent. Why? Because the sense of mission, as discussed above, is
also merely skin-deep, quite myopic and frail, if not totally non-existent!

The regionalistic environment referred to by Prof. Adams is the ethos which says, “We, in this region, are
in this mission together.” It’s the “us against the world” mentality which fuels a spirit of solid camaraderie
and unity strong enough to overcome self-doubt, systemic problems and external attacks. Here, I am
reminded of how ordinary South Koreans rallied to save their country from complete collapse during the
Asian currency crisis of 1997 by lining up in droves to donate their own personal gold -- their family
heirlooms and trinkets and jewelry – in order to refill their emptied national treasury and repay the
country’s loans to the International Monetary Fund. To say it was remarkable is to understate things:
According to Michael Breen of Korea Times, even “couples handed over wedding rings” and “old ladies
contributed treasured possessions” such that “the international price of gold dropped to the lowest in 18
years”!

When people are lining up in droves, driven by a conviction that they’re doing something noble for the
greater good, you’ll get an atmosphere that produces peer pressure. And as already mentioned above, of
course, I’m talking of pressure of the positive kind: the kind which puts the onus on the skeptics, the
doubters, the apathetic, and even the selfish, to put on a public face at least and for once do the right
thing in a crisis situation.

But even in a non-crisis situation, positive pressure inspires the intrinsically driven, the ambitious, and the
idealistic to sustain their efforts to achieve even more – for themselves and for the larger group to which
they belong. This positive pressure does not repel others; to the contrary, it attracts the right and the
bright people, thereby enhancing the elements which further benefit the group.

In his work on how nations achieve competitive advantage, Michael E. Porter of Harvard Business School
introduced the concept of clusters which, like in Silicon Valley and Hollywood, are critical masses or
“groups of interconnected firms, suppliers, related industries and specialised institutions in particular fields
that are present in particular locations.”
According to Porter’s Cluster Theory, clusters enjoy unusual competitive success in a particular field
because they affect competition: “first, by increasing the productivity of companies based in the area;
second, by driving the direction and pace of innovation; and third, by stimulating the formation of new
businesses within the cluster.” In other words, Porter is just basically saying, in management consulting
lingo of course, that success is infectious, that success begets success.

I mention Porter at this juncture because this infectious dynamic is what’s needed in the Philippines right
now. Indeed, the Philippines really needs to achieve a critical mass of sorts, a cluster of like-minded
institutions and souls who will pressure each other positively to create a spirit and atmosphere of genuine
desire for reform and succeed socio-politically and economically. If it can’t, the country will continue to be
stuck in the morass of mediocrity.

So I guess, that last sentence answers your question: We are not pursuing excellence as a group. In
most economic development studies, we are mediocre -- i.e., stuck in the middle of the pack, or worse
(however, to say we are at the bottom is also overstating things and quite erroneous). [Edit
03/07/11.] And I'm sure you didn't need me to answer this for you -- your Harvard PhD buddy already
concluded so.

But if you haven’t noticed, one thing about many Filipinos – including this Filipino despite his decision to
immigrate to the US – is that they will not give up on the Philippines. And because these Filipinos will not
give up on the country, the country will not run out of chances to get better either.

And here, I offer as an example the experience of the Naguenos as a group.

Naga, as late as 1988, was a poor, sleepy, third-class city in the poverty-stricken region of Bicol until an
enlightened young mayor, Jesse Robredo, took over the reins of the lcal government. As soon as he did,
change was almost instantaneous and the pace of progress thereafter was furious, so much so that just a
decade later, in 1999, Asiaweek dubbed Naga as one of Asia’s Best Cities and its Most Improved. Today,
Naga is the country’s most awarded city and is the model of good governance, having won around 150
relevant international awards. It has also been attracting new residents, investors and tourists alike.

How did Robredo do it? You bet! By leading with a sense of mission and by promoting regional solidarity!

Specifically, he instituted transparency in city affairs and finances, among others. Then, he rallied, cajoled
and convinced many others in the community to join him in his ambitious mission to lift the city by its own
bootstraps. In the process, he got, among others, the local Rotary Club to feed the poor children and
expectant mothers; the local schools and universities to participate in more aggressive community
building not just traditional education; and even the Catholic Church to sell land to the city at below-
market rates for squatter housing. He also reached out to the leaders of surrounding towns and
municipalities to push for the development of "Metro Naga" and discuss ways to share burdens and
resources to improve everyone's lot. Most impressively, believing citizens have to have a direct stake in
government affairs, he also shepherded the passage of an Empowerment Ordinance to allow non-
government groups to form a People's Council which chooses representatives to the city government's
committees.

By all accounts, Robredo and the people who rallied around him were so successful that officials from
other cities, perhaps feeling the “peer pressure,” started trooping to Naga to learn the city’s model of
governance, which led to the establishment of the Naga City Governance Institute (NCGI). At the
launching of NCGI in 2009, World Bank country director Bert Hofman was effusive in his praise,
remarking that the city “is one of the shining lights of good governance in the country today.”

If you visit the website of Naga (http://www.naga.gov.ph/) today, you’ll appreciate why Hofman said that.
Despite the small size and limited budget of the city, its website, I think, can hold its own, in terms of
aesthetics and substance, against the websites of much bigger, much richer cities all over the world. The
website, which captures the welcoming, progressive and hopeful zeitgeist of the city, is inviting the
Internet surfer to see/meet/ invest/live/experience/study in the city – the city that “SMILES to the World.”
The challenge for P-Noy and the people around him is how they can ignite the spark which will replicate
on a national level what Naga has accomplished on a city/regional level. It will be difficult, sure, but man --
God knows how much many people like myself are just dying for that to happen!

Culture of mediocrity
Last April 12, students in a public high school in my part of Metro Manila
received their final report cards. Of 75 students in one sophomore class, only
10 passed. The passing average is 70 – up from 65 during the second grading
period. Throughout the high school, about three-fourths of the student
population flunked.

All is not lost for the flunkers. Those who failed no more than three of the five
main subjects can take summer classes, although they must pay about P250
per subject. Those who flunked only one can go on to the next level this
coming school year, but will have to take the subject they failed all over again
as a back subject.

The biggest casualties were in mathematics. One math teacher tried to help
students by asking amounts ranging from P24 to over a P100, depending on
the grade that needed to be pulled up. You may laugh at the piddling amount,
but that’s a lot for a family that worries about having three square meals a
day. The students and their parents complained to school authorities; the
teacher got a reprimand instead of money but didn’t get kicked out. The low
math grades remained, contributing to the high casualty count.

The situation must be similar in other public high schools nationwide.

Under the new public high school curriculum initiated by Raul Roco when he was
secretary of education, the weighted average is based on grades in the five subjects:
math, science, Filipino, English and Makabayan. The last is a combination of seven
subjects: social studies or araling panlipunan, technology and livelihood education or
TLE, values education, and MAPEH or music, physical education and health.

Students used to survive the school year by excelling in the Makabayan subjects,
letting their grades in PE and social studies make up for the ratings they lacked in
science and math.

Amid reports of the rapid deterioration of Filipinos’ grasp of math and the sciences,
the Department of Education (DepEd) revised the curriculum, forcing a new emphasis
on these subjects as well as English.

Thus the unusually high number of flunkers this school year, and the funereal
atmosphere in many public schools this summer. Now students who keep lagging
behind will have to take a fifth year in high school.

Making students take another year of high school could help – if there is an
improvement in the quality of teaching. Free public education starts in first grade.
There is no kindergarten and no seventh grade. Students may like that, but consider
what their counterparts in expensive private schools undergo: kiddie or play school at
three, prep school at four, kindergarten at five, and then on to grade one. In between
there are summer classes to develop special skills. Certain schools still require grade
seven, with only the best students allowed to leapfrog from sixth grade to first year
high school.

By first grade these privileged students can read newspapers, although they can barely
understand what they’re reading. By fourth grade they are studying geometry and
algebra and reading juvenile novels.

A student in a public high school, who helped bring up a girl educated in exclusive
private schools, told me she knew more about mathematics than her teacher. In her
school, math and science are taught in Taglish, but she said the English is often so
atrocious that she and some of her classmates often wished the subjects were taught
simply in pure Filipino to make comprehension easier.

Her classmates laugh at the English taught by their teacher, who speaks the language
with a heavy regional accent. The teacher responds with a sneer.
***
A teacher in Amadeo town in Cavite told me that her students in a public high school
understood lessons taught in English but were simply unable to communicate their
ideas in a foreign language. A good English teacher might help, but they are all
working in private schools that can afford to pay teachers well.

Even if the students get the best English teacher, she said, they will need practice in
using the language at home or with their peers – something you normally can’t expect
among those too poor to afford private school education.

DepEd had promised at least one textbook per student, the teacher recalled. In her
school, there is such a dearth of government-issued textbooks that teachers have to
bring home the few that are available to make sure they don’t get stolen. The
textbooks can probably be photocopied or stenciled, but you also need money for
that.

Of their textbooks, only the one for English lessons is up to date. The ones for math
and science are from the early 1990s.

Students in their school should count their blessings: they have several computers. A
class of 50 takes turns at 30 computers, the teacher told me.
***
In the public school in my part of Metro Manila, the computers are reserved only for
teachers’ use. Not even senior high school students are taught how to use computers.

Textbooks can’t be brought home either; it’s first come first served, when there’s any
available.

I saw a citation for a student in the top 10 of the class – a brief statement – and
grimaced at the grammatical errors in English of the class adviser.

And this is a school in Metro Manila, supposedly the nation’s premier region, in one
of the better-run cities. What is public education like in third-class cities, in rural
areas?
***
When three-fourths of our public high school students can’t achieve a minimum
weighted average of 70, it’s a national catastrophe.

Education used to be seen as a family’s way out of poverty. The poor would pick the
brightest child in the household and invest in his education. Less promising children
stopped schooling at third grade and simply helped the parents farm small plots of
land, or were sent to the cities to work as maids to finance the lucky child’s
education.

These days education is no longer a guarantee of redemption from poverty. Free

education is becoming associated with mediocrity. From high school, those who can
afford it often end up in diploma mills, where students can get a passing grade even
without attending class the entire semester. I know people who brag that they can get
a valid diploma in any course without a sweat in some schools in Manila’s University
Belt.
This growing culture of mediocrity shows in the quality of our work force and in
national productivity. Soon there will be hell to pay for this negligence.