While I think Nicklaus' mindset is commendable, I also think there is a real danger trying to think his lessons are widely applicable.
Jack was by far the best golfer of his era, and he made many millions of dollars playing a game he loved, so he could easily afford things like having his family travel with him everywhere. For nearly all others caught up in the rat race with an unhealthy work-life balance, they can't say the same.
I'll just speak personally for myself, but I know some of my tendencies to over-commit to work are because I, just like Jack, want to be really great at what I do. But at the same time, I don't have anywhere near the same level of comparable talent in my field, so I have to work much longer at it, and I'm still rarely satisfied with the results.
It kind of reminds me of stuff I've read about Usain Bolt, that he's really chill and laid back. When you know you have the innate gifts to never lose, it's easier to feel that way.
It must be nice to be able to focus on the one thing you are really good at, and make enough money with it so you can spend money to get help at all the other aspects of life.
That’s why it often bothers me when celebrity mothers talk about life balance in talk shows and get admired for it. This is much easier to achieve if you can afford nannies, cooks and cleaners.
In general, be wary of life advice from wealth people. Their advice often doesn’t apply to the average guy.
While I agree it's a little easier for a famous millionaire to say it, I think you're missing the point, which is that "success" is subjective and everybody decides for themselves what's important. It's only a rat-race if you choose it. Nicklaus wasn't saying, "I have economic success, so now I focus on my other priorities," but instead, "My family is my priority, and I make economic success fit around them."
Personally, I don't see any danger in more ordinary people taking that advice. Realistically, most of us won't be rich and famous no matter how hard we try, so why sacrifice so much trying to do so? Focus on something more realistic, like enjoying family or recreation.
Some people don't need to overcommmit to be great. I, for instance, could go through a similar golf itinerary as Jack and would only be an average golfer, as I am not a gifted golfer.
I could perhaps dedicate every waking second to golf and perhaps become pro, but still probably not. Jack had a once in a generation talent to go along with his commitment to work life balance.
A lot of people feel the need to overcommit in the chase to try to become an all time great at a thing. While overcomitting they miss out on many other things in life and have poor relationships along the way. Often not realizing the lack in quality of the relationships until they regret it.
What you are saying exactly proves my point: "A lot of people feel the need to overcommit in the chase to try to become an all time great at a thing." Jack Nicklaus was the all time great at a thing, and could still have a nice work life balance.
My point is not that Jack Nicklaus did anything wrong, it's just that the lessons learned from his life aren't really applicable to many other folks because he didn't have to choose between being the best and his relationships - very few other people have that option.
I feel pretty strongly about this point because I see it all the time in "feel good" articles and stories in the US. One of my favorite examples were all the "best lessons of business from Google" books that seemed to be all the rage in the 00s. Except that Google had discovered and eventually monopolized a giant, nearly endless profit producing machine that hardly any other companies have access to. So much of the tools of that success (e.g. hiring top talent, giving that talent lots of freedom, 20% time, loads of cushy benefits, yada yada) were only possible with their giant pit of cash. And I'm not saying other companies weren't immensely profitable yet still fucked things up, I'm just saying the primary keys to Google's success is the immense profitability of their business, not all the other things than can result from that.
> he could easily afford things like having his family travel with him everywhere
Most people's job don't require them to travel every week. They see their family every day, but are still unable to manage a healthy work-life balance. Jack made a significant effort to work at it, it's rather obvious when you see his interviews and public appearances.
> he could easily afford things like having his family travel with him everywhere
That is not easy, because your partner is very likely to get sick of following you all the time randomly and not having own stable life. Whether career or social network while being at home.
Same with kids, they actually like and need stable friendships.
Your views are ones that are unfortunately too common in society, the common theme being ‘the successful guy has it easy, if he had my problems…’. The successful probably worked harder than you, made smarter/luckier choices than you, and had to overcome many of the same problems as you. Society needs to stop excusing their own problems as if the successful don’t have them too.
What you've written is a total, 100% mischaracterization of my opinion. I don't think Nicklaus "had it easy", nor do I think there probably weren't lots of things he had to overcome.
But at the very top echelons of sport, virtually all the difference in success comes down to innate talent. Why? Because at that level, basically all the competitors are putting in nearly the maximum about of time and practice necessary to succeed. We don't ever really try to deny this either - look at how sportscasters talk about people like Bolt, Nicklaus, Messi, Ronaldo, Biles, James, Phelps, etc. etc. Nobody denies they work really hard, but also nobody denies their innate gifts are otherworldly. I mean, I've seen loads of articles that talk about how Phelps is almost genetically constructed to have the perfect body for swimming.
And I don't begrudge any of these superstars for their success - on the contrary, they bring me lots of joy by sharing their insane talents with the world.
What I do begrudge is the messaging that we can all "be like Mike" if we just put our mind to it and work hard, and then we can have a nice work-life balance to boot. I'd much rather read articles about "average" people and how they learned to balance their desire for success with healthy relationships.
Must be nice to be extremely wealthy and the greatest ever at a game you've always loved. Unlimited money to fly your kids around to wherever you are "working", huge flexibility of schedule when you're not playing the game, huge relief of stress by doing what you love.
The basic insight, that happiness comes from family, is a truism at this point.
It may be a truism but a lot of people still pursue happiness in their job.
My focus has always been my family and instead of flying them everywhere (that did happen once though: I had to do a client on-site and I said “either my family comes with me or I don’t go. There are many jobs but I only have one family”, and they flew us all in), I’ve consistently chosen remote jobs with no mandatory travel instead of the slightly better paying option with “relocation package”, or frequent traveling.
I’m aware I’m lucky as lots of people don’t have that choice, but I think in my industry (IT) a lot of people maximize for career progress when there’s plenty of good-paying family-friendly opportunities too.
I agree with everything you've written, but that is also exactly why I think Jack Nicklaus is a poor example for most people.
In your case, you had to explicitly choose to take the path of family over maximizing career progression.
Jack Nicklaus didn't have to do that - he could easily have both. Honestly, I'd rather read stories about how people like you created a healthy work-life balance than more laudatory articles focusing on unattainable hero worship.
I think people are vastly over-estimating how much prize money Jack Nicklaus was winning. His grand total from winning his first 5 Masters -- an unprecedented feat -- was $120,000. Golf in his era wasn't even close to the sport today where #112 on the money list is a over a million bucks.
Golfers also have a huge built-in cost structure that team athletes don't. Coaches, caddy, doctors, are all paid for by the golfer. Team plane and team hotel? Nope, golfers pay their own travel expenses. Guaranteed contracts? Lol. If you don't perform, you don't get paid. Any injury -- major or minor -- that would sideline an MLB or NBA player (at full pay), means zero revenue for the golfer. It's no surprise that golfers seek out sponsors,.not just for the extra income but to provide some income stability and to offset all these enormous costs.
Work serves an important purpose in our life. It not only helps us create value, but also helps us learn from people and experiences. So yes, work is important, but not most important. It deserves our attention, but not the whole of it. Our family, not our work, comes first.
I love this thinking and wish it would take more of a precedent versus finding new ways to describe and justify why work should be the central meme of our societal-existence. I recognize that work has its place in our lives, but I also maintain a lot of mental well being by reminding myself that work is not the total sum of meaning in our lives.
That includes this seemingly in vogue reframing of work away from "work-life balance" to "work-life blend" of the last several years[1].
The last thing I want is to 'blend' work with life, because then all compartmentalization goes away, the already faint demarcation lines that exist between employer and employee grow even fainter, and boundaries become problematic to enforce.
The leadership and management class enjoy 'work-life-balance' and 'work-life-blend' in very different ways than the rank and file cadre and I wish there was as much writing about that as there was about how I should strive for "blending" my work life with my life life.
>It includes David’s interview with Jack Nicklaus, who is one of the greatest golfers of all time. I recently learned that even Tiger Woods is behind Jack Nicklaus in terms of major titles won.
This is a lot like saying Larry Bird was the best shooter in the history of basketball. The game was different then, and far less competitive.
These responses just make me sad. Family is, by far, the most important and redeeming thing in my life. We have one child, an amazing and talented and beautiful girl, who along with my wife is worth more to me than all the money in the world. You could offer me $50 billion in exchange, and I would turn it down.
Unfortunately, this concept is unknowable until you experience it for yourself. That is why our civilization is in trouble; when people choose not to raise a family, they forego a natural and essential part of life, they have little understanding or empathy for those who do have children, and society becomes ever grimmer and coarser as a result.
Mr. Nicklaus could be a millionaire or a poor man and his words would ring just as true.
Being a parent does not magically make you a more empathetic person, nor does it teach you “unknowable” things. Perhaps you lacked empathy before having a child, but it is unfair and just plain wrong to project that onto all childless people.
There are some parents like the parent comment, who claim that having a child is some essential ingredient for learning empathy.
To me, all that says is that they lacked empathy before having a child, and continue to lack empathy for anyone but their child. And they're so shocked by their new experience of empathy for this person they've created, that they unempathetically claim that others must also create a person to experience the same shocking feeling of caring about more than just themselves.
I'm fine for empathy for people who have children. I'm not fine with people who challenge my decision to be without children as "forgo[ing] a natural and essential part of life" and being responsible for society "becom[ing] ever grimmer and coarser..."
We don't need 16 billion people in the next century. But to the point of the article, my choice to not replicate is not a choice to avoid work life balance. That said, it does mean I may be able to take more risks because I don't have as many people depending on me. This is not a bad thing to have a mix of stability and risk-taking in society.
I 100% agree that society should support and encourage all ways of life, but I have to disagree so hard on characterizing the responsibility of raising a family as "risk-free". :)
I'm not sure that civilization's problems (especially given our massive overpopulation problems) can be ascribed to a general lack of "empathy" on the part of people who don't have children.
Actually, I am sure that they can't. I'm sure we've all observed plenty of people with kids who seem to lack all empathy.
My general point was that a family centric society is safer, more stable, and more functional than a post-family society. More boring, perhaps, but when you're raising children, boring and predictable are advantages.
We can all agree, though, that dysfunctional families do not contribute to said stability.
As someone who comes from India which is a country with lots of corruption when these people are caught red-handed often they say they did it for their kids.
Screwed everyone's life to ensure better life for your kids, a masterstroke in India.
I disagree completely. Being child-free is about others and their children.
Being child-free, my aim is to not leave the planet more burdened, so your children can have it a tad easier. Also, I will leave all my money to people who don't share my DNA.
Jack was by far the best golfer of his era, and he made many millions of dollars playing a game he loved, so he could easily afford things like having his family travel with him everywhere. For nearly all others caught up in the rat race with an unhealthy work-life balance, they can't say the same.
I'll just speak personally for myself, but I know some of my tendencies to over-commit to work are because I, just like Jack, want to be really great at what I do. But at the same time, I don't have anywhere near the same level of comparable talent in my field, so I have to work much longer at it, and I'm still rarely satisfied with the results.
It kind of reminds me of stuff I've read about Usain Bolt, that he's really chill and laid back. When you know you have the innate gifts to never lose, it's easier to feel that way.