Performance over ability: the process or the result?
We are fascinated by what people can do, and even more so by their performances. That's why breaking a record is seen as extraordinary.
Society holds in high regard individuals who demonstrate exceptional ability — whether in business, sport, art, or any other field — and often elevates them to iconic status.
Performance, on the other hand, is the stunning result of putting that ability into action: breaking records, setting benchmarks, achieving measurable outcomes. It is, in many ways, the statistical expression of ability — while ability itself is the process.
This is precisely the question raised by events like the World Humanoid Robot Games in Beijing, and more broadly by the evolution of technology in the AI age: are we more impressed by the process or by the result? In other words, ability or performance?
I watched the footage from Beijing with that question in mind. This year's edition drew 2,056 robots from 666 teams — four times the field of the first Games in 2025. Robots ran the 100m, played 5-a-side football, danced in perfect formation. The results were, on their face, astonishing.
But look closer and the story gets more honest. Robots that clocked brilliant sprint times still needed a human to swap their battery, pick them up after a fall, or carry them off the field. The performance was real. The ability behind it — balance, recovery, endurance, judgment — was still borrowed from the humans standing just off camera. That, to me, is the whole question in miniature: a dazzling result resting on a process that isn't fully autonomous yet.
As a basketball fan, I admire Michael Jordan's ability — his jump shot, his fadeaway, his grace in the air. But I also admire LeBron James's performance: all-time leading scorer while ranking fifth in assists. So who do I enjoy watching more? Do I prefer art in motion or an astonishing machine?
Take tennis: I love Djokovic, but Federer has a more beautiful game. Yet Djokovic has 24 Grand Slams. The result is clear — it's a display of performance — but achieving that result requires a process in which ability plays a central role.
In our digital world, we seem to be moving toward a focus on results and performance over ability and process. This is the logic of technology — to confirm Deng Xiaoping's famous saying: "It doesn't matter if a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice." As a result, children use AI to do their homework. It doesn't matter what you do wrong, as long as you make money. It doesn't matter if your business causes environmental damage, as long as it's successful.
Performance and results are increasingly displayed as success, while the process and ability behind them are overlooked.
Ideally, we would have both: great ability and astonishing performance. But given our human nature, technology increasingly assists us in achieving both. Still, I take no pleasure in watching a robot break Usain Bolt's record. That record is a testament to how a human being can develop their ability to push boundaries. But a robot can always do it better.
What this means closer to home.
China's robot games aren't just spectacle — they're a visible layer of a much larger industrial strategy, backed by the same financing and EPC ecosystem behind the infrastructure and energy projects now being offered across Africa: roads, ports, hospitals, power plants. And that ecosystem hands African partners the exact same choice the robots on that track illustrate.
Take performance: the finished plant, the turnkey infrastructure, the fast, visible results — all delivered to Africa. But ability — the engineering knowledge, the maintenance capacity, the local skilled labor required to run and eventually replicate the system — are not delivered but stays behind with the partner who built it.
Society holds in high regard individuals who demonstrate exceptional ability — whether in business, sport, art, or any other field — and often elevates them to iconic status.
Performance, on the other hand, is the stunning result of putting that ability into action: breaking records, setting benchmarks, achieving measurable outcomes. It is, in many ways, the statistical expression of ability — while ability itself is the process.
This is precisely the question raised by events like the World Humanoid Robot Games in Beijing, and more broadly by the evolution of technology in the AI age: are we more impressed by the process or by the result? In other words, ability or performance?
I watched the footage from Beijing with that question in mind. This year's edition drew 2,056 robots from 666 teams — four times the field of the first Games in 2025. Robots ran the 100m, played 5-a-side football, danced in perfect formation. The results were, on their face, astonishing.
But look closer and the story gets more honest. Robots that clocked brilliant sprint times still needed a human to swap their battery, pick them up after a fall, or carry them off the field. The performance was real. The ability behind it — balance, recovery, endurance, judgment — was still borrowed from the humans standing just off camera. That, to me, is the whole question in miniature: a dazzling result resting on a process that isn't fully autonomous yet.
As a basketball fan, I admire Michael Jordan's ability — his jump shot, his fadeaway, his grace in the air. But I also admire LeBron James's performance: all-time leading scorer while ranking fifth in assists. So who do I enjoy watching more? Do I prefer art in motion or an astonishing machine?
Take tennis: I love Djokovic, but Federer has a more beautiful game. Yet Djokovic has 24 Grand Slams. The result is clear — it's a display of performance — but achieving that result requires a process in which ability plays a central role.
In our digital world, we seem to be moving toward a focus on results and performance over ability and process. This is the logic of technology — to confirm Deng Xiaoping's famous saying: "It doesn't matter if a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice." As a result, children use AI to do their homework. It doesn't matter what you do wrong, as long as you make money. It doesn't matter if your business causes environmental damage, as long as it's successful.
Performance and results are increasingly displayed as success, while the process and ability behind them are overlooked.
Ideally, we would have both: great ability and astonishing performance. But given our human nature, technology increasingly assists us in achieving both. Still, I take no pleasure in watching a robot break Usain Bolt's record. That record is a testament to how a human being can develop their ability to push boundaries. But a robot can always do it better.
What this means closer to home.
China's robot games aren't just spectacle — they're a visible layer of a much larger industrial strategy, backed by the same financing and EPC ecosystem behind the infrastructure and energy projects now being offered across Africa: roads, ports, hospitals, power plants. And that ecosystem hands African partners the exact same choice the robots on that track illustrate.
Take performance: the finished plant, the turnkey infrastructure, the fast, visible results — all delivered to Africa. But ability — the engineering knowledge, the maintenance capacity, the local skilled labor required to run and eventually replicate the system — are not delivered but stays behind with the partner who built it.
Alternatively, the mandate can be structured to insist on both: technology transfer, local training, and joint operation from day one.
The first path is faster and easier to sign.
The second is what actually builds capacity that outlasts the contract.
That's the version of "ability vs. performance" I think about most in my own work — not as a philosophical curiosity, but as a live negotiating question in every deal.
So I'd like your opinion: does the process still matter if technology can deliver outstanding results? In other words, performance over ability — is that the future we want?
That's the version of "ability vs. performance" I think about most in my own work — not as a philosophical curiosity, but as a live negotiating question in every deal.
So I'd like your opinion: does the process still matter if technology can deliver outstanding results? In other words, performance over ability — is that the future we want?
Marius C. Oula
Comments
Post a Comment