Do you REALLY need to get yet more things done?
Maybe today’s fashion for increasing personal productivity isn’t all it’s cracked up to be
Increasing your personal productivity is the subject matter of a slew of books, magazine articles, and more than a few successful blogs. It’s fashionable, popular, and, most of all, highly profitable for the authors and writers of software. But does that make it right?
I believe that more cookery books are published each year that any other genre, followed closely by diet books — surely one of the great symbiotic relationships of all time. You stuff yourself, then diet, then fall off the diet and stuff yourself because you feel guilty. Oh hell . . . back to the diet.
Maybe it’s the same with recipes for getting yet more things done: you overload your time and brain with impossible expectations, hype yourself up on the latest fad for coping with the overload, then crash and burn — swearing that, next time, you really will to find a way to crack the whole, messy problem of doing more in your waking hours than those hours were ever designed to hold.
From where I stand, this looks to be almost the ultimate in self-inflicted madness: people stuck in a have-it-all, instant-gratification society demanding techniques for organizing the lives they are systematically filling with the effort to have yet more, every minute of every day.
Don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against helping others to be more organized or better able to juggle life’s necessary demands. But I am starting to wonder how many of those demands are really necessary; and whether the cure isn’t in danger of becoming more onerous that the disease.
Our gas-guzzling lives
Our addiction to getting things done is not unlike that other addiction: the one to huge SUVs and trucks. Both the trucks and the productivity software and ideas are undeniably flashy and pack a lot of horsepower under the hood, but neither are good for us in the long run, nor strictly necessary.
Using an SUV, or a truck the size of a semi, to go to the mall, as many people seem to do where I live, must empty your pocket-book even more quickly than it sucks up gasoline. Filling your every moment with constant activity, however carefully and expensively organized, is going to suck you dry of energy just as quickly, then leave you as exhausted as a worked-out oilfield.
And if huge, gas-guzzling autos threaten to destroy our physical environment through global warming, what are people’s huge, energy-guzzling lives doing to the mental and social fabric of our world? What are they doing to our organizations, where it’s become commonplace to expect highly-trained professionals to work harder, for longer hours, than we would judge humane for laboratory rats?
Whatever happened to “working smart?”
Why are we now so devoted to getting more and more things done in less and less time? Not so long ago, we were all urged to “work smarter, not harder.” Whatever happened to that idea?
As a natural skeptic, I suspect part of the emphasis on constant busyness is simple: it makes some people a good deal of money. It’s just that those people aren’t often the ones doing all the extra work. They’re being smarter while you’re working harder.
I also suspect it’s far easier to write a book about how to aspire to a four-hour week than it is to do what the book recommends — once you’ve had the book idea, of course. That’s really smart. The rest is the age-old business of selling snake-oil.
In America at least, my long-time bugbear, the Puritan Work Ethic, is a major contributor to today’s fashion for finding still better ways to work more.
According to the work ethic mythology, work is a GOOD THING IN ITSELF. Hard work is what makes you into some kind of hero (most often an exhausted, burned-out one), so more of it is bound to be better than less. There’s a nasty suspicion in the Puritan mind that people who appear to do things easily are probably up to something immoral, because they AREN’T TRYING HARD ENOUGH; and their achievements, however impressive, are really NOT WORTH MUCH.
If effort is what gives work its value, then whatever is gained with most effort will be most valuable.
A sideways look at personal productivity
This Calvinistic belief that effort is what gives value is, of course, total nonsense. If it were true, a crook who spent months of hard effort organizing a complex robbery would be commended; and a doctor who had a moment of insight that cured a sick child would be given a stiff dressing-down for laziness.
What gives value to anything, work or play, is the importance and worth of the outcome, not how much effort and organization went into it. In a world that was truly progressing towards a better state, there would only be one kind of productivity that was valued: the productivity that comes from finding ways to get worthwhile results with less effort than before.
That, of course, is what productivity actually is. Doing more by working longer hours and focusing your efforts more closely isn’t increasing your productivity; it’s only the result of working harder. To be more productive means to do more with less effort, not more with more effort. And if the only way you get more done is by wasting less time in a muddle about what to do, that’s a trick you can only play a single time.
NOT getting some things done is what we truly need
What’s wrong with today’s fashion for a thousand ways to up your personal productivity? Too much of it is about filling every moment with activity. It’s about doing when you would be better employed thinking. It’s about focusing on getting results when you should be focused on whether you need those particular results at all.
We’re creating a world of hard-driving ants, not a civilization where people find ways to increase their time enjoying life through becoming cleverer at doing only what has to be done — then doing it with the minimum effort.
What rational being would devote one minute more to work than is essential — let alone find ways to pack more and more into every waking moment?
Look around you at the world of nature. Which animals spend most time at the “work” of finding food? The answer, of course, is those that eat the least nutritious things in terms of their bulk. Cows and other herbivores must spend hours grazing because they need prodigious amounts of grass, which has little energy value. Lions and tigers, in contrast, spend most of their time sleeping and lazing about, because their meat-based diet is extremely high in energy per pound of dead gazelle.
Here’s the choice then: do you want to emulate a cow or a tiger?
Is your life based on gathering lots of low-energy, readily available input of the kind that never runs away? If so, any help you can get with packing more activity into 24 hours is well worth it. Or are you aiming for the kind of life that feeds on highly energy-rich inputs — even if you have to devote a good deal of intelligence, skill, and speed to catch them — so you can spend the rest of the time enjoying yourself in the sun?
The day that someone comes up with a good technique for getting much less done, with much less effort, while still meeting life’s needs, you can bet I’ll be there at the front of the line to get my copy.
WRITER'S BIOGRAPHY
Adrian
After graduating from Cambridge University, Adrian's career spanned local and national government, a series of corporate executive positions, and a partnership in a global consulting and business services firm, from which he retired as CEO of their US consulting arm. He runs two blogs: Slow Leadership and Slower Living and has published two books on the practice of leadership. His latest project is These Intersting Times.
ARTICLES BY THIS WRITER »
Tags: 
Get your own Avatars at 
Loading ...
Comments
Niamh says on February 21st, 2008 at 9:35 am
What an amazing article, I’m bowled over by how good it was. Absolutely fantastic, thanks.
Kaitlin says on February 21st, 2008 at 11:06 am
This is a great article! I agree completely!
-kaitlin
Iris says on February 21st, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Yes, yes, yes. A productive and rewarding life is a non-hassled one. This can only be achieved in having moments, even hours (occasionally days and weeks) unscheduled so all the hassle can fall away and true productivity can be implemented. A tough balance, but the only way to truly being productive.
Ben Overmyer says on February 21st, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Interestingly, I find I get more done to a better standard when I don’t schedule my days to the minute.
Very nice article.
Derek says on February 21st, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I’m having trouble with your reference to “The 4 Hour Work Week” by Timothy Ferriss. Are you against the book?
What I interpreted your meaning to be is that it was a good idea to write a book about aspiring to a shortened work week but that the selling of it was to hock an improbability of life-style, at best.
I believe his principles are very much in parallel with your article and would love any clarification you could give.
True, following Mr. Ferriss’ advice may be harder than it sounds on paper. But, I would claim, it aligns itself with Lifehack in that the percentage of people that actually “use” it effectively is surprisingly small.
Thanks for reading this and hope to hear a response!
Adrian Savage says on February 21st, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Derek,
I’m not “against” anyone publishing a book of good ideas — just a little dismayed by the hype that goes with an impossible claim (for most people anyway) of working only a handful of hours each week.
I recognize the marketing involved, but don’t much like the approach.
Adrian
Derek says on February 21st, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Thanks Adrian,
I appreciate the fast response. (Half expected it to come “slower” though, haha)
It’s funny. Within 10 minutes of my last post, my workaholic supervisor told me he didn’t believe in vacations. When I asked him whether he’d like to go camping or on a cruise he said, “Camping. No, I can take my laptop on a cruise and do work…a cruise.”
Amazing.
I would agree with your point of view on the marketing of the book. It IS impossible for everyone to work 4 hours a week, but an individual can.
And without trying to blow too much more smoke up Tim Ferriss’ butt, convincingly selling the idea of “choice” in designing your life (whether you get free yourself from the 9-5 or not) is worth the price of the text alone.
Thanks, once again.
Travors says on February 22nd, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Did you read the four-hour week?
I’m assuming by your subtle jab at it that you didn’t and funnily enough your article pretty much sums up the whole point of the book: It’s not about cramming every second with work, it’s about working smarter and lightening your load.
Adrian Savage says on February 22nd, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Ah, Travors. What you call my “subtle jab” wasn’t aimed at the message in the book, only the marketing hype surrounding it, which detracted from the message — at least in my view.
Adrian
Andy Wood says on February 23rd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Part of the issue of “doing more,” it seems to me, is this codependent “need” we have to both please every human in our lives and perform on a Super Bowl level out of fear of losing whatever we have to “them” (whoever “them” is). The result is a hoarde of people who have given their lives away to the urgent, or to please people they don’t even like or need.
Hence, the GTD “industry.” Much of it appeals to the need to get back part of our lives we’ve given away.
ydkm says on February 23rd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
The point is well taken. But the problem is culture-wide, and many of the forces are beyond individual control. Many strive for ever greater efficiency to cope with increasing job demands. Lots of us would like to ease up, but have to consider the impact on our careers in a survival-of-the-most-productive environment.
ydkm
Adrian Savage says on February 23rd, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Andy, you make a good point.
However, I’m not convinced you can win back time given away by packing ever more activity “efficiently” into what time is left. What’s given is gone; those who took it are already greedy for more. Somewhere, you have to say “no,” or become little more than a slave.
It’s also likely that you have to be content with “good enough” instead of perfection. Both are tough choices to make, especially in our society, in which (often needless) competition is the current fashion.
The point “ydkm” makes is well made too. So long as people can be persuaded to believe that easing up will ruin their careers, of course they won’t do it.
But is that true? Or is it just more propaganda based on another fashionable assumption: that progress itself requires belief in the survival-of-the-most-productive? Of course, packing more into the same time isn’t being more productive; it’s just working harder — and it’s subject quite quickly to the law of diminishing returns.
As for being beyond individual control, that too seems to me to be questionable. You may not be able to control society’s norms, or what others believe, but you are (or ought to be) able to make your own choices.
There is always an alternative, however much you don’t like it — or what it might cost. Society and other people may well be beyond any individual’s control, but change has to begin somewhere. If not in your life, then where?
Adrian
Adrian
ydkm says on February 24th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Good discussion.
If my work and my purpose are distinct, so that I work solely to earn a living, then any work that accomplishes that will do. Separation of purpose from work encourages me to work as little as possible, so that I can have time for what truly interests me. I seek maximum effectiveness in the minimal necessary tasks, and decline additional demands on my time. I think Ferris’s book assumes a good bit of this perspective.
If my work and my purpose are deeply intertwined, it becomes much more difficult to quantify, and I’m much more fearful of degrading my career. Adrian is correct about the law of diminishing returns. Eventually, even my purpose is eroded by unreasonable career demands. But the fusion of purpose/career makes the consequences of miscalculating the balance much more serious.
Adrian Savage says on February 24th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I agree, “ydkm.”
When purpose and career are closely linked (or even identical), the choices become harder and more critical. That’s why those for whom this intertwining is true often push themselves as hard, or harder, than any outsider.
Yet even they will eventually find increasing problems, as work demands degrade the rest of their lives. Obsession is a risky course to follow, however much it is self-chosen.
For most people, of course, work and life purpose are only very loosely linked. In many cases, they are not linked at all, beyond work being a means to gain the financial wherewithal to pursue purpose in some other way.
For these people, becoming more productive by working harder only makes sense so long as the extra earnings (if there are any) are needed elsewhere in their lives — and they still have enough time left to use them as they would wish.
Adrian
Mike says on February 29th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Good article. I appreciate another person applying a critical eye to this tidal wave of interest in productivity and GTD. Thanks again for the insight.
Mike … http://www.zendonut.com
Adrian Savage says on February 29th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Thanks, Mike. I’m glad you liked it.
Duane says on March 7th, 2008 at 1:28 am
I love your article it has really found a home in my thoughts, it’s funny too because I an aspiring web developer and was just struggling with how I was going learn all I need to know about programming as quick as possible while keeping informed with the latest trends and blogs. I am not sure who said this but I am reminded of it by reading your article: “it doesn’t matter how slow you go just don’t stop”. The truth is as you suggest in your article, people should spend more time enjoying life and those who are precious in it. Thanks for the clarity.
Adrian Savage says on March 7th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Thanks, Duane. I’m glad that you found it useful.