Risking the Usual to Escape the Ordinary
Created at: August 23, 2025
If you are not willing to risk the usual you will have to settle for the ordinary. — Jim Rohn
The Cost of Staying Comfortable
At the outset, Rohn frames a stark bargain: cling to familiar routines and you inherit familiar outcomes. The “usual” feels safe because it reduces uncertainty, yet that very safety caps what is possible. In practice, the ordinary is not a penalty imposed from outside but a predictable byproduct of repeating what already works. Thus the quote invites a reframing—comfort is not neutral; it is an active choice that trades potential breakthroughs for stability. Seen this way, the ordinary is not merely a baseline but the price we quietly pay for refusing to stretch.
Opportunity Cost and the Unseen Losses
From there, economics clarifies the hidden toll of caution. Frédéric Bastiat’s “That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen” (1850) shows how unseen alternatives carry real costs, later formalized as opportunity cost by Friedrich von Wieser (1914). Declining a stretch assignment, for example, preserves short-term comfort but sacrifices future capabilities, networks, and visibility—the invisible dividends of risk. By making these trade-offs explicit, Rohn’s message becomes practical: when you avoid the usual risks, you also forfeit the compounding returns that only novel challenges can release.
Historical Bets That Changed Trajectories
Consider how bold moves rewired entire fields. The Wright brothers’ 1903 flights at Kitty Hawk risked ridicule and failure, yet their persistence birthed powered aviation. A century later, Netflix’s 2007 pivot to streaming threatened its profitable DVD business but anticipated consumer behavior and reshaped entertainment. In both cases, leaders staked existing comfort on uncertain upside and, in doing so, escaped the gravitational pull of the ordinary. Their decisions illustrate Rohn’s principle in action: extraordinary outcomes often require wagering what is working for what could work better.
Why Our Brains Prefer the Ordinary
Psychologically, we are wired to resist Rohn’s challenge. Prospect Theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979) shows people are loss-averse, overweighting potential losses relative to gains. Consequently, the pain of a misstep looms larger than the promise of growth. Yet Carol Dweck’s Mindset (2006) demonstrates that a growth mindset reframes setbacks as data, not identity. When failure becomes feedback, risk becomes learning rather than threat. This cognitive shift nudges us from preserving the status quo toward experimenting beyond it, aligning our instincts with our ambitions.
Risk, But Make It Calculated
Even so, risk need not be reckless. Expected value thinking—asking whether the average payoff justifies the downside—helps separate smart bets from gambles. Gary Klein’s “premortem” method (HBR, 2007) further improves odds by imagining a future failure and working backward to preempt it. Likewise, Jeff Bezos’s “one-way vs. two-way door” rule (2015 letter) encourages boldness when decisions are reversible. Together these tools preserve the spirit of Rohn’s advice while managing exposure: take the leap, but pack a parachute and a plan.
Building a Habit of Boldness
Ultimately, courage scales through practice. Small, fast experiments—Eric Ries’s Lean Startup (2011)—and iterative loops like John Boyd’s OODA cycle (1970s) transform risk into a routine of observing, acting, and adjusting. You might negotiate a slightly larger scope, ship a rough prototype, or pitch an untested idea to a friendly audience. Each micro-bet expands your tolerance for uncertainty and compounds into capability. In this way, you stop settling by degrees, proving Rohn’s point daily: escaping the ordinary is less a single gamble than a disciplined rhythm of chosen stretch.