Smartphone manufacturers say that it’s best to charge cell phones up to a maximum of 80%. Not charging beyond 80% would ensure a longer battery life of the cell phone, the manufacturers say.
Liquid petroleum gas suppliers fill cooking gas cylinders up to a maximum of 80% of design capacity. They say the remaining 20% capacity allows for any untoward pressure build-ups which would risk the integrity of the cooking gas cylinder.
Internet service providers (ISPs) are mandated to provide at least 80% of their advertised speed at 80% service reliability.
80% also “usually falls into the ‘Good’ or ‘Above Average’ category” for students in some schools.
There’s also an 80/20 Rule which is a:
Why the fixation with 80%?
The 80% standard has its origins in Pareto’s Law which states that 80% of consequences (output) come from 20% of causes (input).
Pareto’s Law guides us in finding those few root causes that bring about most results. Statistics has proven that a few things can be behind much of what occurs.
For example:
- 10% of the Earth’s population is said to own 75% of the world’s total wealth.
- People wear 20% of their clothes 80% of the time.
- A small percentage of criminals (about 20%) are responsible for the vast majority of crimes (roughly 80%).
But as the 80/20 principle helps us identify causes, it wasn’t intended to be a standard for performance.
Saying that I shouldn’t charge my devices beyond 80% of battery capacity or that my Internet Service Provider (ISP) doesn’t need to be more than 80% reliable 80% of the time gives me the impression I won’t be assured of 100% of my money’s worth in my purchases or subscriptions.
And why should I be satisfied with an 80% fill-rate in the cooking gas cylinders I buy? I understand the intent to mitigate risk but why not just peg the capacity of the cylinder at whatever kilos or cubic metres of gas that would be considered safe? The 80% should be the 100%. Let the debate over what’s the safest filled gas cylinder be between the so-called experts; in the meantime, telling customers that they won’t get 100% of the cooking gas they deserve because of risk is just plain silly.
And telling people to work on 20% of tasks to generate 80% of their output and say that it is “good enough” is just wrong. Perfectionism shouldn’t be seen as a sin but as a virtue. People should strive for 100%. Of course, how the ‘100%’ is set should be clarified.
Performance is about achieving goals. We either meet them or we don’t. When we say we’re good enough to meet 8 out of 10 goals, it’s not only imperfect but also incomplete; we did not finish what we started out to do.
Self-proclaimed experts may argue that the 80/20 Rule applies more to the quality of work. That if individuals met 80% of their tasks’ quality or performance standards, then they did ‘good.’
But did they, really?
I wouldn’t want a vendor to sell me products that are 80% passing in specifications. And I wouldn’t want a contractor turning over a project that met 80% of the agreed scope. I definitely would complain if a restaurant served me 80% of the food I ordered from the menu.
There shouldn’t be an 80/20 Rule in performance. There should be a 100% Rule. Do your job to meet 100% of what was agreed and expected. Nothing less without any need beyond one’s call of duty.
Use the 80/20 concept from economist Vilfredo Pareto as a problem-solving guide to seeking those few causes behind most consequences. But don’t generalise it to how one does things. But if you still insist on the 80/20 Rule, then tell me what ‘80%’ I should do and I’ll gladly classify the tasks falling under the ‘20%’ as ‘Not Worth Doing.’
We don’t have time for silly rules which undermine what we set out to achieve.
Ellery's Essays 