Advertising
Advertising

You Only Need 5 Hours A Week To Be Successful (With This Learning Approach)

You Only Need 5 Hours A Week To Be Successful (With This Learning Approach)

We have all heard of, and probably some of us have tried to apply, the famous “10,000-hour rule” by Malcolm Gladwell, which states that spending 10,000 hours working on any skill can help us master it. As promising and as reasonable as it sounds, for most of us this seems way too far fetching and time-consuming to even try, especially with the rapid developments and changes happening daily in any business or profession. Studying the lives and habits of successful leaders and entrepreneurs, Michael Simmons of Empact has found a new, slightly altered approach that is less time-consuming, but just as effective as the “10,000-hour rule”. Simmons called it simply the “5-hour rule” [1].

Why it works

Realizing the downsides and misconceptions about the 10,000-hour rule, Simmons was able to find a pattern among the famous visionaries that included deliberate practice or learning for five hours a week or an hour a day. For most of us, the mere idea of having to spend the 10,000 hours on learning or practicing seems overwhelming. The 5-hour approach, on the other hand, gives results simply because it creates a habit of constant work on developing and improving skills, without the work-hard-till-you-burn-out mindset. Each of us can set aside one hour a day to work on improving ourselves, in any way we want to.

Advertising

Many entrepreneurs today tend to neglect all aspects of their life that don’t belong to their work. In this way, they harm their close relationships and their health. That is why the 5-hour rule is so effective since it provides people with the opportunity to build new skills or improve new ones without having to sacrifice family, friendships, their love life, or their health.

Advertising

As Simmons suggests, we should look at deliberate learning as a form of exercise. As our bodies need a minimum dosage of exercise per day for all of our organs to perform well, so do our brains need to be stimulated with newer and bigger challenges on a daily basis to be able to generate new ideas.

Advertising

How to implement the 5-hour approach

1. Practice mindfulness

Some of the most successful people take the time each day to meditate, do yoga, or engage in any activity that helps their brain rest so that they can focus better on their daily challenges. Oprah Winfrey sets aside a couple of minutes every morning to start her day with meditation as it helps her be more mindful during the day. To become more aware, more productive and improve any skill, we should take a few minutes each day to prepare our mind for the new day, by simply quieting our thoughts and focusing on breathing.

2. Read

Another great practice we can learn from people like Oprah Winfrey, David Rubenstein, and Dan Gilbert, as Simons suggests[2], is reading. All of them spend at least one hour a day reading. Apart from it being a great relaxing activity as it helps us to quiet the noise of our thoughts, reading can also help us develop our skills and become experts.

3. Balance

As many highly successful people suggest, success doesn’t come from working harder, but working more productively. Instead of letting their work interfere with every other important part of their life, successful people have learned how to balance between being productive and enjoying quality time with their family. In this way, they are always in the present moment, and fully dedicated to each aspect of their life. Jayne-Anne Gadhia, CEO at Virgin Money, uses the first hour after she wakes up to answer emails and read the news so that she can enjoy in regular morning activities with her family, without being distracted by work.

Advertising

Reference

More by this author

Ana Erkic

Social Media Consultant, Online Marketing Strategist, Copywriter, CEO and Co-Founder of Growato

Every Time You Drink A Beer, Remember To Drink The Same Amount Of Water You’re Exceptionally Creative If You See The Correct Image (Only 1/100 People Can Do This!) If You Have These 6 Struggles, You’re Highly Intelligent Who Can Resist Avocado! It Is One of the Most Nutrient Fruit In The World! 15 Things To Stop Doing If You Want To Be Truly Happy

Trending in Productivity

1The Productivity Paradox: What Is It And How Can We Move Beyond It? 210 Best Time Management Books Recommended By Entrepreneurs 3What Is Procrastination (And the Complete Guide to Stop Procrastinating) 46 Simple Steps to Make Progress Towards Achieving Goals 5Secrets to Organizing Thoughts and Ideas (So You’ll Never Lose Ideas!)

Read Next

Advertising
Advertising

The Productivity Paradox: What Is It And How Can We Move Beyond It?

The Productivity Paradox: What Is It And How Can We Move Beyond It?

It’s a depressing adage we’ve all heard time and time again: An increase in technology does not necessarily translate to an increase in productivity.

Put another way by Robert Solow, a Nobel laureate in economics,

“You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.”

In other words, just because our computers are getting faster, that doesn’t mean that that we will have an equivalent leap in productivity. In fact, the opposite may be true!

New York Times writer Matt Richel wrote in an article for the paper back in 2008 that stated, “Statistical and anecdotal evidence mounts that the same technology tools that have led to improvements in productivity can be counterproductive if overused.”

There’s a strange paradox when it comes to productivity. Rather than an exponential curve, our productivity will eventually reach a plateau, even with advances in technology.

Advertising

So what does that mean for our personal levels of productivity? And what does this mean for our economy as a whole? Here’s what you should know about the productivity paradox, its causes, and what possible solutions we may have to combat it.

What is the productivity paradox?

There is a discrepancy between the investment in IT growth and the national level of productivity and productive output. The term “productivity paradox” became popularized after being used in the title of a 1993 paper by MIT’s Erik Brynjolfsson, a Professor of Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management, and the Director of the MIT Center for Digital Business.

In his paper, Brynjolfsson argued that while there doesn’t seem to be a direct, measurable correlation between improvements in IT and improvements in output, this might be more of a reflection on how productive output is measured and tracked.[1]

He wrote in his conclusion:

“Intangibles such as better responsiveness to customers and increased coordination with suppliers do not always increase the amount or even intrinsic quality of output, but they do help make sure it arrives at the right time, at the right place, with the right attributes for each customer.

Just as managers look beyond “productivity” for some of the benefits of IT, so must researchers be prepared to look beyond conventional productivity measurement techniques.”

How do we measure productivity anyway?

And this brings up a good point. How exactly is productivity measured?

In the case of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, productivity gain is measured as the percentage change in gross domestic product per hour of labor.

But other publications such as US Today, argue that this is not the best way to track productivity, and instead use something called Total Factor Productivity (TFP). According to US Today, TFP “examines revenue per employee after subtracting productivity improvements that result from increases in capital assets, under the assumption that an investment in modern plants, equipment and technology automatically improves productivity.”[2]

In other words, this method weighs productivity changes by how much improvement there is since the last time productivity stats were gathered.

But if we can’t even agree on the best way to track productivity, then how can we know for certain if we’ve entered the productivity paradox?

Possible causes of the productivity paradox

Brynjolfsson argued that there are four probable causes for the paradox:

Advertising

  • Mis-measurement – The gains are real but our current measures miss them.
  • Redistribution – There are private gains, but they come at the expense of other firms and individuals, leaving little net gain.
  • Time lags – The gains take a long time to show up.
  • Mismanagement – There are no gains because of the unusual difficulties in managing IT or information itself.

There seems to be some evidence to support the mis-measurement theory as shown above. Another promising candidate is the time lag, which is supported by the work of Paul David, an economist at Oxford University.

According to an article in The Economist, his research has shown that productivity growth did not accelerate until 40 years after the introduction of electric power in the early 1880s.[3] This was partly because it took until 1920 for at least half of American industrial machinery to be powered by electricity.”

Therefore, he argues, we won’t see major leaps in productivity until both the US and major global powers have all reached at least a 50% penetration rate for computer use. The US only hit that mark a decade ago, and many other countries are far behind that level of growth.

The paradox and the recession

The productivity paradox has another effect on the recession economy. According to Neil Irwin,[4]

“Sky-high productivity has meant that business output has barely declined, making it less necessary to hire back laid-off workers…businesses are producing only 3 percent fewer goods and services than they were at the end of 2007, yet Americans are working nearly 10 percent fewer hours because of a mix of layoffs and cutbacks in the workweek.”

This means that more and more companies are trying to do less with more, and that means squeezing two or three people’s worth of work from a single employee in some cases.

Advertising

According to Irwin, “workers, frightened for their job security, squeezed more productivity out of every hour [in 2010].”

Looking forward

A recent article on Slate puts it all into perspective with one succinct observation:

“Perhaps the Internet is just not as revolutionary as we think it is. Sure, people might derive endless pleasure from it—its tendency to improve people’s quality of life is undeniable. And sure, it might have revolutionized how we find, buy, and sell goods and services. But that still does not necessarily mean it is as transformative of an economy as, say, railroads were.”

Still, Brynjolfsson argues that mismeasurement of productivity can really skew the results of people studying the paradox, perhaps more than any other factor.

“Because you and I stopped buying CDs, the music industry has shrunk, according to revenues and GDP. But we’re not listening to less music. There’s more music consumed than before.

On paper, the way GDP is calculated, the music industry is disappearing, but in reality it’s not disappearing. It is disappearing in revenue. It is not disappearing in terms of what you should care about, which is music.”

Perhaps the paradox isn’t a death sentence for our productivity after all. Only time (and perhaps improved measuring techniques) will tell.

Featured photo credit: Pexels via pexels.com

Reference

Read Next