Productive Resistance?

In any productivity system, you have a certain level of added friction and resistance that is introduced by the system itself, i.e. you have to carry a planner, spend time writing/typing, recording, marking complete, etc.  All of these tasks would not exist if it weren’t for the system.  Daily and weekly reviews, etc. also often add several hours to your week of unproductive (directly unproductive) minutiae.  So why, in our pursuit of efficiency and effectiveness would we add a book of practices that simply add resistance?  Well, obviously we think the added resistance will be accompanied by a higher level of productivity.  We are willing to welcome the increased resistance in an effort to achieve improved results.  Compare it to giving up gas mileage on a car for increased speed and power.  It may require a bit more fuel to push through the resistance of a more powerful engine, wider tires, etc. but the increase in performance is worth it to us so we buy the car.

So the question is now raised… and I will illustrate with the car comparison:

A recent video on TED illuminates a point that a colleague and I have shared on multiple occasions, including a podcast called “My Business World”.  The new model of business productivity, often referred to as ROWE (results oriented work environment).  The concept is, essentially, to  allow employees to do whatever they want, as long as the work gets done.  Studies and experience are showing an increase in productivity and personal morale.  The intrinsic value of getting something done with the opportunity to control one’s schedule and action plans is a bigger motivator than increases in pay, bonuses or other direct reward/punishment models of the past.  It has been explored and compared to Tim Ferriss’ work with 4 hour work week here.  The big motivator appears to be the fact that people can define their “ideal” lifestyle today and not in waiting for the elusive day of retirement, all while working and being productive, contributing to the economy.

Dan (in the video) also speaks of variations of this that I find quite interesting and extremely valuable form an innovation standpoint.  Innovation is typically a matter of “captured chaotic response”, that is, in the course of living/working, we tend to stumble upon ideas, answers, problems, solutions, etc.  The process of capturing this chaos and ordering it for reproduction is innovation. Many companies, particularly in the tech industry, have implemented innovation strategies that offer a percentage of time or a day or week to work on anything you want.  Google is likely the most well known with their 80/20 rule, 20% of time is spent on any ideas outside of normal work.  This 20% has produced 50% or more of Google’s innovations as Dan tells it.  The natural chaos of individual human endeavor and thought creates substantially more innovation than the ordered workings of any company and that is seen in 80/20-like planning.

These are powerful aspects of the new motivating business model.  It is important to understand the trade-off in emphasis.  Instead of heavy focus and discipline regarding time, meetings, and such, a substantial focus and discipline must be placed on the results, and improvement of them (hence results-only work environment).  This is basically the only indicator of proper performance and further reward/punishment may exist around this metric alone.  Obviously if you are not getting the results required, you likely won’t stick around.

As a business or in defining your business, take a look at information regarding these new models and see if you can implement them for enhanced productivity and improved morale.  It may even be a cost saver as monetary reward is less necessary.  Any additional resources on these concepts? successes or failures?

A recent essay by Paul Graham found here illustrates two types of schedules that persons may run, particularly in tech-related businesses.  He defines two duties first of all, or “hats” as I would call them.  First, you have managers and second, technicians or “makers” as he calls them.  The manager will be your typical ‘business person’ with meetings running throughout the day, typically an hourly schedule.  The Maker, in a tech business, is the programmer who gets into the challenge, the task of programming, and once in the groove, is best left in the groove, not interrupted hourly for new activities.  Their schedule is often run in, say, two half-day blocks.  A meeting in the middle of a block often kills the entire block as a groove is difficult to obtain and even more difficult to maintain.  He says:

When you’re operating on the maker’s schedule, meetings are a disaster. A single meeting can blow a whole afternoon, by breaking it into two pieces each too small to do anything hard in. Plus you have to remember to go to the meeting. That’s no problem for someone on the manager’s schedule. There’s always something coming on the next hour; the only question is what. But when someone on the maker’s schedule has a meeting, they have to think about it.

This is not simply with programmers but others that “make things” as Paul puts it, such as writers.  Anywhere that ‘groove’ exists in making something.  While the management can be effective with hourly shifts, the maker is not typically so.

Each type of schedule works fine by itself. Problems arise when they meet. Since most powerful people operate on the manager’s schedule, they’re in a position to make everyone resonate at their frequency if they want to. But the smarter ones restrain themselves, if they know that some of the people working for them need long chunks of time to work in.

Which brings us to Paul’s purpose for the essay:

Till recently we weren’t clear in our own minds about the source of the problem. We just took it for granted that we had to either blow our schedules or offend people. But now that I’ve realized what’s going on, perhaps there’s a third option: to write something explaining the two types of schedule. Maybe eventually, if the conflict between the manager’s schedule and the maker’s schedule starts to be more widely understood, it will become less of a problem.

So which are you, a manager or a maker? Would it be a good idea to switch schedule styles for more productivity? For most, a good assessment is recommended.  See how those in your company work and think about better ways to work in light of these differing hats.  Get a grasp on this, read the essay.  Some are following Paul’s methods of late night work such as Sam at Leveraging Ideas here.