In his book Essentialism, Greg McKeown begins with a story about a corporate executive.
It is story that is likely familiar to many who been somewhat successful at their position: willing to try to what he was asked and being successful at what he was given, he continued to volunteer and amass work until he was busy to the point of being able to no longer be essential or effective. He asked a mentor what he should do; his mentor suggested to stay on in his job, but instead of leaving and being a business consultant, act like a business consultant.
And so, he tried the experiment.
He tentatively started saying no to things he did not know if he could actually accomplish or complete When no-one pushed back on that, he expanded his experiment to begin asking the question "Is this the most important thing I could be doing right now?" If the answer was no, he would decline the request.
He started letting others jump in on e-mail threads, not attending meetings where he could make no contribution. He started making space for his work - and his work became working one project at a time, allowing him to make thorough plans and anticipate and remove obstacles. He began making actual progress in his projects. He began to find time to go home and spend time with his family again. And his performance ratings went up to and then beyond where they had been.
McKeown notes "...in this example is the basic value proposition of Essentialism: only give yourself permission to stop trying to do it all, to say yes to everyone, can you make your highest contribution towards the things that really matter."
The Essentialist, says McKeown, lives by the motto of the German Designer Dieter Rams of the German corporation Braun: Wenige aber besser (Less but better). Like the Rams' design of the record player that took it from a wood cabinet behemoth piece of furniture to a plastic cover over the turntable (I owned some of these), the essentialist is in pursuit of better. It is not about getting more things done, he suggests, but rather getting the right things done; "It is about making the wisest possible investment of your time and energy in order to operate at our highest point of contribution by doing only what is essential."
The Essentialist lives by design, accepting that life involves trade-offs and decision that are difficult; that design means that the Essentialist lives by choice: "The Essentialist deliberately distinguishes the vital few from the trivial many, eliminates the non-essentials, and then removes obstacles so the essential things have clear, smooth passage. In other words, Essentialism is a disciplined, systematic approach for determining where our highest point of contribution lies, then making the execution of the those things effortless."
---
Thoughts and Applications:
What strikes me most in reading this example is that I am precisely familiar with it, as likely are a lot of people. We slowly get pulled into other things that are beyond our ability to influence or control because we are "in that department" or "we would like to have your voice in the room (although it is never called on)" or "this is a critical initiative". Too, we are often inclined to help people when asked for help, often even at the cost of our own ability to do our work, because that is how we are raised as a people.
And to be clear, the application goes far beyond that of the workplace. It strikes me that the idea of having to make to make choices (and accepting that this is so) is one I have attempted to disprove all my life. I am one of those people that really does think I can do and be far more that is physically or temporally possible; as a result, I often lose the chance I do have to become better at something because I want to become okay at a lot of things.
McKeown uses the term "Life by design". I like the idea of "life by design", but my application to this point has been "design in too much". Clearly, that is not a winning philosophy.
Seems the key word is discipline TB, having that ability to say "No" is crucial and not being critical of yourself for not satisfying everyone who wants of piece of your effort. Good luck with your application, young Grasshopper..........:)
ReplyDeleteNylon12 - That is it in a nutshell. And while, at least at the moment, I am not in the position to say "No" all the time, I can be in a position to suggest someone else more skilled or more knowledgeable - in other words, at least be strategic.
DeleteI think the principle is sound but the reality is that things don't work like the example, at least from my work experience. Not showing up to meetings in which I couldn't contribute ensures that my absence gets noticed and I'm labels as a non-team player or assigned work in my absence and reviews go down, not up. One employer I worked for went so far to install some software in which you could see every person's schedule while scheduling your meeting to ensure they would be able to make it and they couldn't offer an excuse of being busy. What that was going strong, I found myself being in four hours of meetings a day where my contribution was little if any.
ReplyDeleteEd, there some element of "being in a position to say no to meetings", but there is also the human tendency at every company I have ever been at to have too many people at meetings, especially people that just "want to be in the know" as opposed to providing information or executing action items. I have made the practice of being in some meeting where I do need to know; where there are others that I am there for a breathing body only and cannot add anything, I am trying to step back a little.
DeleteIt is a process. But if I do not do it, no one will do it for me.
Yes, although I was an employee owner, one of only 50, I was a grunt worker and not in upper management. With the exception of being drug into handfuls of meetings daily, I loved my job and it allowed me to retire very early compared to peers working elsewhere. I would make the same choices again if given it.
DeleteIt seems like all upper management ever does is meet. That is a shame from my perspective, because that denies them the ability to see how things are going "on the ground".
DeleteI really should go and clean up my shop. But a cup of coffee first. Woody
ReplyDeleteWoody - Always coffee first.
DeleteBrings back memories of an MRPII implementation project at one company where I worked. One of the recommended reading list was The Goal, a novel by Goldratt and Cox, about optimising business processes. One question kept recurring - is this action going to take you in the direction of your objectives or not? If not, why are you doing it?
ReplyDeleteWill - I have read that too! I actually found it was one of the best "business" novels in that genre in that 1) It had an engaging story; and 2) It had an actual applicable point.
DeleteOddly this reminds me of Robert Heinlein's Time Enough for Love quote about learning to Say NO.
ReplyDelete"So learn to say No—and to be rude about it when necessary. Otherwise you will not have time to carry out your duty, or to do your own work, and certainly no time for love and happiness. The termites will nibble away your life and leave none of it for you.”
DeleteNot quite sure about the rude aspect in actual practice for most of us, but yes - very similar.
I wonder if even the ability to distinguish between essential and non-essential activities requires skill and discernment. In the introductory example, the business man understood exactly what a business consultant was and does. I'm guessing that was key to his success. If his understanding was off, his struggle would likely have continued.
ReplyDeleteNot being in the workforce any more, I'm contemplating how I can apply this to my own life. I tend to think in terms of priorities but for an exercise, I'll start asking myself "is it essential?" That may help whittle down my to-do list in the first place.
Leigh, I think it probably does require skill and discernment - because we have to know at some level what we are doing to know whether or not it is truly essential.
DeleteBut I do think that it has a lot more application than just business (which sadly, I suspect this book is often read for). For example, I would argue you and Dan have already figured out a great many things that are essentials; that is why you have the life you do and practice what your practice. At the moment, as I walk through this activity for myself, I am finding a different set of essentials than what I would have thought even six months ago. Likely they will be different for every person.
Which is fine, of course - after all, if one of the points of Essentialism is to find a place where there a great need and we can make a great impact, there are literally thousands of places where each of us in our own way can do so.
TB, what does it say that I wish we owned one of the stereo cabinets that hub and I each each grew up with. And the LPs we used to own. We have reaquired a little plastic-lidded stereo and speakers. It serves its purpose, but it is ugly.
ReplyDeleteEssentialism, like mininalism, sounds virtuous, but the description here strikes me as perhaps... somewhat selfish? The world needs all kinds of people. I greatly respect the highly disciplined, studious, focussed at all costs on a singular goal people when it comes to many jobs. But what a dismal place it would be without, say... the whimsy that comes from the mind of a dreamer. The humor that spills forth from the person whose mind is often distracted by the absurd and ironic. And, at any moment, any of us can be thrust into life circumstances that require us to become (perhaps temporarily) experts on a topic so we can traverse certain difficulties, only to have that information fade when we don't need it anymore. The challenges of life for many people would make essentialism, as described here, seem an impossible luxury.
Sorry. I won't go on. I'm not meaning to be argumentative. This is the second post of yours recently that has sparked thoughts that make me think I have a blog post's worth that I should write down over there! lol
I'm going to add an ammendment. The experiment that McKeown describes sounds a bit selfish, but if true good comes from it, I guess I can give the experiment some slack.
DeleteThe second part of the quote you pulled from his book is where my mind went to dismal. This part strikes me as too utilitarian to be sustainable. Please tell me he speaks of having a passion or love, or calling for "our highest point of contribution". I realize having an opinion about an excerpt out of context of his whole message is possibly pointless on my part.
Becki - I, too, am of an age that I owned one of these plastic lidded record players - and had the records to match! (Sadly, long gone now, especially as vinyl is now back in vogue).
DeleteOne of the dangers in writing "about" someone else's work is that the message is distilled and interpreted through a third party - in this case of course, myself. And there is always the risk that one gets the message wrong (I suppose a bit in my defense, this is the fourth or fifth time I have read the book, so I have a general sense that I am on track).
I think that McKeown might respond to your comment by suggesting that there is indeed a certain embedded "selfishness" in Essentialism - but it is the selfishness of protecting one's self. I suppose that I can identify with this in that I have seen in almost every job I have the tendency of people to fill my time to meet their goals and agendas if I clearly do not specify my own. They are not wrong or pushy about it of course; they are just trying to execute their own jobs. But I can help people do their work all day and not be one inch closer to accomplishing my own. Add to that our societal struggle to separate ourselves from our jobs in general, and I think a case can be made that in some cases it is as much self-preservation and even self care as it is selfishness.
I also suspect that McKeown would suggest that there has to be some room for flex - after all, life is uncertain. And he certainly does not argue against dreamers (in fact, he would probably say if dreaming is Essential to your purpose, do that). What he does argue for is the constant spreading of ourselves and our efforts so thinly that we never make advancement or contribution in anything.
As to the experiment - I can see the point, although it would be hard to do in certain positions. On the other hand, I can equally see a case where if I am constantly not hitting my goals yet constantly engaged in "work" or "tasks", I need to be able to do something to demonstrate where the issue lies. Even stepping away from a single meeting or project can be a start.
"Highest point of contribution". McKeown is somewhat reticent here about what that might be. He seems to indicate that these are the sorts of things of great impact, although never really says it as such. And in his preamble for choosing, he clearly states we should ask the question "What are we passionate about?" At this point, I might differ slightly from what he might think in that I think "the greatest contribution" can be rather widely defined and equally as small a thing as it could be as large a thing. A parent setting aside a career to raise a family, someone working to preserve a dying craft or art, saving rabbits - these could also be considered one's greatest contribution although the impact is "small".
And keep asking questions! They help refine my thinking.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply, TB. I kind of regretted my critical sounding comment. Definitely good food for thought in the post and in your reply. I'm looking forward to reading your other articles on the topic. And seeing if I can put some thoughts together for my own posts that you are inspiring. Not me writing posts on this topic, but you're definitely recharging my gray matter in several different directions.
DeleteBecki, if it helps I did not consider your comment particular critical. It is an observation, and it allowed me to clarify things. Those are always good things.
DeleteBecki, if it helps I did not consider your comment particular critical. It is an observation, and it allowed me to clarify things. Those are always good things.
Delete