The following is part 7 of my 8 part series on entrepreneurs and their attempts at work-life balance.
No matter what, work lives and personal lives will collide.
I use the word “collide” because it’s rarely a simple intersection. I imagine two tangles of Christmas lights – already separate messes on their own – coming together and creating a big bright ball of complication. Only with time and persistence will anyone turn that ball into a beautiful decoration.
Look at the entrepreneurs: Jeremy Wright does his work from his bedroom. Steve Pavlina’s son took his first steps when he was “at work”. The Burke’s manage their business from their sailboat. Angie has to live in a nerdy world filled with video games and blogs.
These individuals have learned how to make sure the collision functions like a Venn diagram. On the outside we have the elements of work and life that must remain separate. For example, Jeremy might have to kick his family out of the house (to go to the park) for a day so he can focus. In the middle there will be the elements of life that just seem to work together in harmony. For the Burke’s, their business is on their boat. If business is going well, Jeremy will invite his family to travel with him on a business trip.
Focus on what you’re passionate about or your odds of failure increase.
As mentioned in the introduction, Chris Pearson was an entrepreneur selling products on eBay. But, he noted he had no passion for it. Chris’ business soon failed. Many people will settle for money. They often say they’re “happy” but in reality they’re “content” (Pavlina, 2006). You won’t live your life to its full potential if you’re not living passionately. Anyone can tell you the results of doing anything without passion are typically dismal. If I weren’t as interested in this paper as I am then I wouldn’t have put in the same amount of time researching and writing as I have.
Decide what you’re doing or else outside forces will decide for you.
Although I’ve had numerous conversations with Shivani I just now started to possibly understand why she hasn’t achieved balance. I think that the issue is the dichotomy in her professional life. On one hand, she loves her accounting job and the people she works with. On the other, she invests a lot of time and energy into being an entrepreneur and enjoys the numerous “options.” I submit that work-life balance is unattainable when one side is already out of balance. Angie may not have this problem because she says she’s “living the entrepreneurial lifestyle” regardless of her day-job.
On the other side, Jeremy has been very successful because he doesn’t let anyone else dictate his work nor his enjoyment. Obviously, the same can be said about the rest of the balanced entrepreneurs. In Jeremy’s case, he permits himself a break by scheduling a “fun” task after five “work” tasks. I can tell you that I’ve never worked in an environment where I was allowed to play Xbox after five hours of work. In fact, the more I worked and the better I did, the more that was expected of me. Jeremy says he lives with a lot less stress partly due to this concept. He’s no longer performing for someone else which means he no longer experiences that pressure to execute. He is the sole force dictating what he can do with his life. Obviously Steve practices what he preaches and has been demonstrating this for many years.
Series: Background, Steve Pavlina, Jeremy Wright, Rory and Sandra Burke, Angie Chang, Shivani Sopory, Conclusions, Final Thoughts
[tags]entrepreneurship, work, life, balance, passion[/tags]
Related posts:
- HDE Series: Final Thoughts The following is part 8 of my 8 part series...
- HDE Series: Shivani Sopory The following is part 6 of my 8 part series...
- HDE Series: Jeremy Wright The following is part 3 of my 8 part series...
- HDE Series: Angie Chang The following is part 5 of my 8 part series...
- HDE Series: Steve Pavlina The following is part 2 of my 8 part series...
One Response
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
Very interesting observations about methods and constraints on achieving “balance”.
I believe knowing yourself is fundametal to understanding what balance means. The balance point will not be the same for all personalities. And clearly there is a continum across several dimensions which define what is to be human.
On one dimension, Maslow’s (sp) hierarchy has to be “balanced”. Another dimension is being faithful to your values and norms (family, environment, culture conditions). And, acknowledging that one of the critical differentiations of being Homo Sapiens Spaiens (sp) is active engagement in being socially engaged with others.
An open question is “What time quanta do you require for being balanced?” Simple illustration - if you act exclusively in one mode for a minute, day, year, 1/3 of your life, then move to one of the others, on average, you are just as balanced. But, there is an enormous difference in how smoothly integrated you are as the time quanta varies.
Many of the differences in achieving balance you see in the people you are analyzing are because of differences in their choice of time-quanta. If your quanta is smaller than theirs, you see them as unbalanced. If its greater than theirs, you see them as balanced (more or less).
Another consideration; what does it mean to be dysfunctional? I believe your topic of work-life balance is exploring this more complex question. I assert that historic greatness (genius, country builder, conquerer, etc.) is achievevd by people who are not balanced. They are very one dimensional. They compete with others who are balanced and the momentum they achieve in their one dimension focus overcomes the “balanced” ones.
So, on a personal level, again, know yourself. If you are one-dimensional, and thirst for greatness, then do NOT become balanced. If you are not a savant, then work-life balance makes great sense in defining what a fulfilling live is for you. If your “self” is capable of passion in more than one dimension, you have to live a balanced life so to achieve your “highest and best use”.
This raises the final