July 2009
One reason programmers dislike meetings so much is that they're on a different type of schedule from other people. Meetings cost them more.
There are two types of schedule, which I'll call the manager's schedule and the maker's schedule. The manager's schedule is for bosses. It's embodied in the traditional appointment book, with each day cut into one hour intervals. You can block off several hours for a single task if you need to, but by default you change what you're doing every hour.
When you use time that way, it's merely a practical problem to meet with someone. Find an open slot in your schedule, book them, and you're done.
Most powerful people are on the manager's schedule. It's the schedule of command. But there's another way of using time that's common among people who make things, like programmers and writers. They generally prefer to use time in units of half a day at least. You can't write or program well in units of an hour. That's barely enough time to get started.
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.
For someone on the maker's schedule, having a meeting is like throwing an exception. It doesn't merely cause you to switch from one task to another; it changes the mode in which you work.
I find one meeting can sometimes affect a whole day. A meeting commonly blows at least half a day, by breaking up a morning or afternoon. But in addition there's sometimes a cascading effect. If I know the afternoon is going to be broken up, I'm slightly less likely to start something ambitious in the morning. I know this may sound oversensitive, but if you're a maker, think of your own case. Don't your spirits rise at the thought of having an entire day free to work, with no appointments at all? Well, that means your spirits are correspondingly depressed when you don't. And ambitious projects are by definition close to the limits of your capacity. A small decrease in morale is enough to kill them off.
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.
Our case is an unusual one. Nearly all investors, including all VCs I know, operate on the manager's schedule. But Y Combinator runs on the maker's schedule. Rtm and Trevor and I do because we always have, and Jessica does too, mostly, because she's gotten into sync with us.
I wouldn't be surprised if there start to be more companies like us. I suspect founders may increasingly be able to resist, or at least postpone, turning into managers, just as a few decades ago they started to be able to resist switching from jeans to suits.
How do we manage to advise so many startups on the maker's schedule? By using the classic device for simulating the manager's schedule within the maker's: office hours. Several times a week I set aside a chunk of time to meet founders we've funded. These chunks of time are at the end of my working day, and I wrote a signup program that ensures all the appointments within a given set of office hours are clustered at the end. Because they come at the end of my day these meetings are never an interruption. (Unless their working day ends at the same time as mine, the meeting presumably interrupts theirs, but since they made the appointment it must be worth it to them.) During busy periods, office hours sometimes get long enough that they compress the day, but they never interrupt it.
When we were working on our own startup, back in the 90s, I evolved another trick for partitioning the day. I used to program from dinner till about 3 am every day, because at night no one could interrupt me. Then I'd sleep till about 11 am, and come in and work until dinner on what I called "business stuff." I never thought of it in these terms, but in effect I had two workdays each day, one on the manager's schedule and one on the maker's.
When you're operating on the manager's schedule you can do something you'd never want to do on the maker's: you can have speculative meetings. You can meet someone just to get to know one another. If you have an empty slot in your schedule, why not? Maybe it will turn out you can help one another in some way.
Business people in Silicon Valley (and the whole world, for that matter) have speculative meetings all the time. They're effectively free if you're on the manager's schedule. They're so common that there's distinctive language for proposing them: saying that you want to "grab coffee," for example.
Speculative meetings are terribly costly if you're on the maker's schedule, though. Which puts us in something of a bind. Everyone assumes that, like other investors, we run on the manager's schedule. So they introduce us to someone they think we ought to meet, or send us an email proposing we grab coffee. At this point we have two options, neither of them good: we can meet with them, and lose half a day's work; or we can try to avoid meeting them, and probably offend them.
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.
Those of us on the maker's schedule are willing to compromise. We know we have to have some number of meetings. All we ask from those on the manager's schedule is that they understand the cost.
Thanks to Sam Altman, Trevor Blackwell, Paul Buchheit, Jessica Livingston, and Robert Morris for reading drafts of this.
http://www.paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html
Showing posts with label Time Management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Time Management. Show all posts
2/4/13
The Case for a 25-Hour Work Week (This Is Not a Joke)
One researcher says people should work less per week, but work more weeks total. Crazy or brilliant?
The 40-hour work week is an outdated model, according to Science Nordic's James W Vaupel, head of the new Danish Max Planck research center. Instead, he argues, we should only work 25 hours a week--but keep working until we’re octogenarians.
“We’re getting older and older here in Denmark. Kids who are ten years old today should be able to work until the age of 80. In return, they won’t need to work more than 25 hours per week when they become adults,” Vaupel told Science Nordic. “In the 20th century we had a redistribution of wealth. I believe that in this century, the great distribution will be in terms of working hours."
Vaupel is adamant that, in socio-economic terms, the important standard is the aggregate amount of work people do in their lifetimes, not at what point in their lives they do it.
Spreading out working hours over the full course of a person’s life, Vaupel argues, is both psychologically and physically beneficial at all stages of life.
A 25-hour work week will allow younger people to spend more time with their children, take better care of their health (which will help raise average life expectancy), and improve their over-all quality of life, while for the older population -- many of whom have more time on their hands than they know what to do with -- work can serve as both a psychological and physical outlet.
”There is strong evidence that elderly people who work part-time are healthier than those who don’t work at all and just sit at home,” Vaupel told Science Nordic.
Whatever you may think of this theory, there are certainly many who think (including Sheryl Sandberg) the status quo (the 40/50 hour work week) is not only detrimental to one's health, but actually not that productive.
http://www.inc.com/laura-entis/25-hour-work-week-an-argument-for-redistributing-working-hours.html
The 40-hour work week is an outdated model, according to Science Nordic's James W Vaupel, head of the new Danish Max Planck research center. Instead, he argues, we should only work 25 hours a week--but keep working until we’re octogenarians.
“We’re getting older and older here in Denmark. Kids who are ten years old today should be able to work until the age of 80. In return, they won’t need to work more than 25 hours per week when they become adults,” Vaupel told Science Nordic. “In the 20th century we had a redistribution of wealth. I believe that in this century, the great distribution will be in terms of working hours."
Vaupel is adamant that, in socio-economic terms, the important standard is the aggregate amount of work people do in their lifetimes, not at what point in their lives they do it.
Spreading out working hours over the full course of a person’s life, Vaupel argues, is both psychologically and physically beneficial at all stages of life.
A 25-hour work week will allow younger people to spend more time with their children, take better care of their health (which will help raise average life expectancy), and improve their over-all quality of life, while for the older population -- many of whom have more time on their hands than they know what to do with -- work can serve as both a psychological and physical outlet.
”There is strong evidence that elderly people who work part-time are healthier than those who don’t work at all and just sit at home,” Vaupel told Science Nordic.
Whatever you may think of this theory, there are certainly many who think (including Sheryl Sandberg) the status quo (the 40/50 hour work week) is not only detrimental to one's health, but actually not that productive.
http://www.inc.com/laura-entis/25-hour-work-week-an-argument-for-redistributing-working-hours.html
1/8/13
How to Allocate Your Time, and Your Effort
How does he find time to meet with 10 customers a week and make his yearly quota in the first quarter?, a salesman wonders about his top producing coworker. I can barely find time to have five appointments a week and get all my paperwork done correctly and turned in on time.
How does she manage to champion strategic initiatives, network with executives, and only work 40 hours a week?, a manager ponders about his colleague on the corporate fast track. After a day full of project meetings, the best I can do is reactively respond to e-mail at night instead of proactively developing my department.
Here's the secret: Your colleagues that zoom ahead of you with seemingly less effort have learned to recognize and excel in what really counts — and to aim for less than perfect in everything else.
Most likely the highest producing salesman on your team spends less than half the amount of time that you do on filling out paperwork. Yes, it may be sloppy, but no one really cares because he's skyrocketing the revenue numbers. The manager who has caught the eye of upper management may send e-mails with imperfect grammatical structure and decline invites to tactical meetings. But when a project or meeting really matters, she outshines everyone.
If you're shocked and feel like this seems completely unfair, I'm guessing that you probably performed very well in school where perfectionism is encouraged.
I know. I was a straight-A student from sixth grade through college graduation who did whatever it took to produce work at a level that would please my professors. Admittedly, this strategy paid off as a student. My perfect GPA signified an exceptional level of achievement, and I was fortunate that in my case, it was rewarded with scholarships and job offers.
The rules changed when I started my own business over seven years ago. I realized that doing A-work in everything limited my success. At that point I realized that I needed to focus more on my strengths. As Tom Rath wisely explains in his StrengthsFinder books, you can achieve more success by fully leveraging your strengths instead of constantly trying to shore up your weaknesses. Realizing the importance of purposely deciding where I will invest more time and energy to produce stellar quality work and where less-than-perfect execution has a bigger payoff has had a profound impact on my own approach to success and my ability to empower clients who feel overwhelmed.
As I talk with time coaching clients struggling with overwhelm whether they be professors, executives, or lawyers, a common theme comes up — they can't find time to do everything. And, they're right: no one has time for everything. Given the pace of work and the level of input in modern society, time management is dead. You can no longer fit everything in — no matter how efficient you become. (This conundrum is what inspired me to write a book on time investment).
In my time investment philosophy, I encourage individuals to see time as the limited resource it is and to allocate it in alignment with their personal definition of success. That leads to a number of practical ramifications:
When you approach a to-do item, you want to consider whether it is an investment, neutral, or optimize activity. Investment activities are areas where an increased amount of time and a higher quality of work can lead to an exponential payoff. For instance, strategic planning is an investment activity; so is spending time, device-free, with the people you love. Aim for A-level work in these areas. Neutral activities just need to get done adequately; more time doesn't necessarily mean a significantly larger payoff. An example might be attending project meetings or going to the gym. These things need to get done, but you can aim for B-level work. Optimize activities are those for which additional time spent leads to no added value and keeps you from doing other, more valuable activities. Aim for C-level work in these — the faster you get them done, the better. Most basic administrative paperwork and errands fit into this category.
The overall goal is to minimize the time spent on optimize activities so that you can maximize your time spent on investment activities. I've found that this technique allows you to overcome perfectionist tendencies and invest in more of what actually matters so you can increase your effectiveness personally and professionally.
On a tactical level, here are a few tips on how you can put the INO Technique into action:
How does she manage to champion strategic initiatives, network with executives, and only work 40 hours a week?, a manager ponders about his colleague on the corporate fast track. After a day full of project meetings, the best I can do is reactively respond to e-mail at night instead of proactively developing my department.
Here's the secret: Your colleagues that zoom ahead of you with seemingly less effort have learned to recognize and excel in what really counts — and to aim for less than perfect in everything else.
Most likely the highest producing salesman on your team spends less than half the amount of time that you do on filling out paperwork. Yes, it may be sloppy, but no one really cares because he's skyrocketing the revenue numbers. The manager who has caught the eye of upper management may send e-mails with imperfect grammatical structure and decline invites to tactical meetings. But when a project or meeting really matters, she outshines everyone.
If you're shocked and feel like this seems completely unfair, I'm guessing that you probably performed very well in school where perfectionism is encouraged.
I know. I was a straight-A student from sixth grade through college graduation who did whatever it took to produce work at a level that would please my professors. Admittedly, this strategy paid off as a student. My perfect GPA signified an exceptional level of achievement, and I was fortunate that in my case, it was rewarded with scholarships and job offers.
The rules changed when I started my own business over seven years ago. I realized that doing A-work in everything limited my success. At that point I realized that I needed to focus more on my strengths. As Tom Rath wisely explains in his StrengthsFinder books, you can achieve more success by fully leveraging your strengths instead of constantly trying to shore up your weaknesses. Realizing the importance of purposely deciding where I will invest more time and energy to produce stellar quality work and where less-than-perfect execution has a bigger payoff has had a profound impact on my own approach to success and my ability to empower clients who feel overwhelmed.
As I talk with time coaching clients struggling with overwhelm whether they be professors, executives, or lawyers, a common theme comes up — they can't find time to do everything. And, they're right: no one has time for everything. Given the pace of work and the level of input in modern society, time management is dead. You can no longer fit everything in — no matter how efficient you become. (This conundrum is what inspired me to write a book on time investment).
In my time investment philosophy, I encourage individuals to see time as the limited resource it is and to allocate it in alignment with their personal definition of success. That leads to a number of practical ramifications:
- Decide where you will not spend time: Given that you have a limited time budget, you will not have the ability to do everything you would like to do regardless of your efficiency. The moment you embrace that truth, you instantly reduce your stress and feelings of inadequacy. For example, professionally this could look like reducing your involvement in committees, and personally this could look like hiring someone else to do lawn maintenance or finish up a house project.
- Strategically allocate your time: Boundaries on how and when you invest time in work and in your personal life help to ensure that you have the proper investment in each category. As a time coach, I see one of the most compelling reasons for not working extremely long hours is that this investment of time resources leaves you with insufficient funds for activities like exercise, sleep, and relationships.
- Set up automatic time investment: Just like you set up automatic financial investment to mutual funds in your retirement account, your daily and weekly routines should make your time investment close to automatic. For example, at work you could have a recurring appointment with yourself two afternoons a week to move forward on key projects, and outside of work you could sign up for a fitness boot camp where you would feel bad if you didn't show up and sweat three times a week.
- Aim for a consistently balanced time budget: Given the ebbs and flows of life, you can't expect that you will have a constantly balanced time budget but you can aim for having a consistently balanced one. Over the course of a one- to two-week period, your time investment should reflect your priorities.
When you approach a to-do item, you want to consider whether it is an investment, neutral, or optimize activity. Investment activities are areas where an increased amount of time and a higher quality of work can lead to an exponential payoff. For instance, strategic planning is an investment activity; so is spending time, device-free, with the people you love. Aim for A-level work in these areas. Neutral activities just need to get done adequately; more time doesn't necessarily mean a significantly larger payoff. An example might be attending project meetings or going to the gym. These things need to get done, but you can aim for B-level work. Optimize activities are those for which additional time spent leads to no added value and keeps you from doing other, more valuable activities. Aim for C-level work in these — the faster you get them done, the better. Most basic administrative paperwork and errands fit into this category.
The overall goal is to minimize the time spent on optimize activities so that you can maximize your time spent on investment activities. I've found that this technique allows you to overcome perfectionist tendencies and invest in more of what actually matters so you can increase your effectiveness personally and professionally.
On a tactical level, here are a few tips on how you can put the INO Technique into action:
- At the start of each week, clearly define the most important investment activities and block out time on your calendar to complete them early in the week and early in your days. This will naturally force you to do everything else in the time that remains.
- When you look over your daily to-do list, put an "I," "N," or "O" beside each item and then allocate your time budget accordingly, such as four hours for the "I" activity, three hours for the "N" activities, and one hour for the "O" activities.
- If you start working on something and realize that it's taking longer than expected, ask yourself, "What's the value and/or opportunity cost in spending more time on this task?" If it's an I activity and the value is high, keep at it and take time away from your N and O activities. If it falls into the N category and there's little added value or the O category and spending more time keeps you from doing more important items, either get it done to the minimum level, delegate it, or stop and finish it later when you have more spare time.
- If you keep a time diary or mark the time you spent on your calendar, you can also look back over each week and determine if you allocated your time correctly to maximize the payoff on your time investment.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)