Photo courtesy of Joshua Hoffman Productivity 2.0: How the New Rules of Work Are Changing the Game
For years, books and articles and blogs on productivity have been showing us how to be more productive: crank out the tasks, multi-task, work faster, be organized.
In short, they’ve taught us to be a good part of a corporation that wants more out of us. But that’s old-school productivity, or Productivity 1.0.
Today let’s take a look at Productivity 2.0: a new set of rules have changed everything for the workers of the world. Don’t crank out tasks — learn to work with a deeper focus. Don’t plan and hold meetings and form committees — just launch the software or product or service and keep improving it. Don’t spend time organizing — you’ve got more important things to worry about.
A little while ago I talked about the New Rules of Working … and today we’ll look at how those new rules have changed the game for productivity. Now, these ideas aren’t actually new, but they’re being newly adopted by many, and will be adopted increasingly as workplaces change in the coming years.
Please note that, as always, your mileage may vary — these new rules of productivity won’t work for every single worker in every single office situation. Certain jobs have different requirements. But more and more, these trends are emerging and changing the way we look at productivity.
1. Don’t Crank - Work With Deeper Focus.
Old School: Crank It Out. The old school of productivity taught us how to crank out the tasks. Each task is a widget that needs to be cranked, and the more we crank out, the better. Speed is important, and cranking out more tasks is the ultimate criteria. How many tasks can you finish in a day?
Productivity 2.0: Deep Focus. The new worker isn’t as obsessed with speed. He allows himself to slow down and work at a more leisurely pace. He clears away distractions and allows himself to focus on the task at hand. He gets passionate about important and exciting tasks and gets into Flow. This allows for a new kind of productivity — one where quality matters, where amazing things are produced at an intense rate, where there is a passion and satisfaction in completing a task.
2. Minimize Out Meetings and Planning — Just Start.
Old School: Lots of planning is important. Hold numerous planning meetings, draw up specs or detailed timelines, make sure things are well planned out before committing resources. This, however, meant that things took time. That was fine when the world moved at a slower pace.
Productivity 2.0: Just Start. Forget all the detailed planning. Meetings are a waste of time, usually. Instead, figure out the minimum requirements to launch, get those done as quickly as possible, and launch in beta mode. Improve as you go along. Things don’t have to be perfect at launch. Google exemplifies this philosophy — did it wait until it had a better email program than Microsoft Outlook to launch Gmail? Heck no — it just launched to a small group of users and used their feedback to improve the service, expanding its group of users as it went along. Now it’s the best online email program. Same thing with Google Chrome — was it better than Firefox when it launched in beta? Nope (although it’s better than IE in my opinion) … but you can bet that it will continue to improve with all the feedback it gets. Edit: I changed the title of this point to reflect that some planning is necessary — “overplanning” is not.
3. Paperwork is out — automate with technology.
Old school: Crank through tons of paperwork. The old productive worker had tons of incoming papers, and lots of paperwork to fill out. And productivity methods taught him how to crank through that paperwork.
Productivity 2.0: Automate with technology. Many workers are learning to go paperless. And because everything is becoming digital, you can use technology to process it faster. People can fill out online forms instead of paperwork, and computers can pull the data in the forms into databases that can be manipulated in many ways. There’s no need for photocopying, scanning, faxing, filing, collating, hole punching, printing, or any of the many other office tasks that are associated with paper. People can buy something online and it can be produced and shipped to their door with no need for paperwork — it can all be automated. Many little tasks that used to be performed by humans can now be automated through computers.
4. Don’t multi-task — multi-project and single-task.
Old school: Multi-tasking is productive. Juggling tasks shows how productive you are, says old school productivity. I’ve written enough about multi-tasking for you to know where I stand on that.
Productivity 2.0: Multi-project and single-task. While I won’t go on once again about single-tasking — focusing on one task at a time to be more effective — I will say that multi-projecting has its uses. Let’s say you’re working on Task 1 of Project A — you should single-task while working on Task 1. But when it’s done, you might need to wait for a response from your boss before moving on to Task 2. In that case, while you’re waiting, you can work on Task 1 of Project B, single-tasking while doing that. When you’re done with that, you might need to hear back from a client before moving on to the next task of Project B — in which case you can either return to Project A if your boss responded, or move on to Project C. Single-task while working on any one task, but working on different projects to make your time more efficient can be a useful skill.
5. Produce less, not more.
Old school: Produce more. Again, the idea was to crank out as much as possible. Good managers tried to get as much productivity out of their workers as possible. Good workers produced more.
Productivity 2.0: Produce less. More isn’t necessarily better. The old thinking can lead to a big pile of crap. Instead, focus on quality, on innovation, on creativity. Focus on the important stuff. Let’s take a software engineer as an example: one engineer can write tons of code, knocking out one program after another. But a second engineer can focus on a really innovative program, and though he has produced much less code and fewer programs and has spent more time on a single program … his software can change the industry. It can win awards and recognition. It might even be the company’s main source of income if it catches on. Produce things that change the world, with a long-lasting impact.
6. Forget about organization — use technology.
Old School: Be organized. The productive worker of the past had drawers full of files, all organized thoroughly so that nothing would ever be lost. He had a Filofax full of contacts and appointments. He organized his computer files into folders and sub-folders and sub-sub-folders and on and one. It took a lot of time, but it was worth it.
Productivity 2.0: Tag, archive and search. With technology, that’s not necessary. Tag a file with a certain label, archive it, and find it later through its label or through search. This approach saves a lot of time, a lot of effort, and a lot of headaches. You can spend your time on more important tasks.
7. Out with hierarchies — in with freedom.
Old School: Hierarchy. The old way of thinking is that hierarchies are more efficient. After all, in a dictatorship, the trains run on time, no? Well, that’s not always true. Hierarchies require a lot of top-down decision-making, and a lot of up-and-down communication. The bottom level is often left powerless to act until the top level makes decisions, and the top level is often left without important information necessary to make those decisions, because they aren’t down at the bottom in the trenches. As a result, there’s a lot of inefficiency.
Productivity 2.0: Independence, freedom, and collaboration. Hierarchies are being flattened out. In fact, whole new forms of organization and collaboration are being created all the time. People more and more are working independently, either within a company or as freelancers and consultants. They take on jobs as they like, and collaborate with others at will. Workers are empowered to make decisions, communication is more efficient, and people with freedom are generally happier with their jobs and more passionate about the work they produce.
8. Work fewer hours, not more.
Old School: Work longer hours. Work long and hard! Be a top producer! Burn out by age 40! Working long hours earned you points with your boss, and there was a competition to see who worked the most and the hardest.
Productivity 2.0: Work fewer hours. With more freedom, workers are realizing that work isn’t everything, and that it’s more important to be happy, to produce important work, to have the freedom to be creative and innovative, to be passionate about your work … than to give everything you have for something you don’t care about. As a result, more people are working from home. More people have flexible working hours, working early and leaving early or coming in late and leaving late. More people take naps in the afternoon, when their productivity normally flags, and wake up refreshed and ready for a productive round 2. More people are setting limits to their working hours, and realizing that with those limits they actually make better use of the fewer hours they work.
—
If you liked this article, please share it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon or Digg. I’d appreciate it. :)
- Posted on 12 October 2008 in Productivity & Organization, Technology |
- Digg |
- Del.icio.us |
- Stumble |
Comments (105)
BC Doan Says:
October 12th, 2008, 20:32 pm
My favorite parts of this post are: just start, deep focus, and multi-projects, single task! I have to concentrate on “work fewer hours”.
Great post!
Stephen Says:
October 12th, 2008, 20:51 pm
Cool article. I really liked point 2 - Just Start. I know this one works for me just about every time. When I was studying university and had an asignment to do sometimes I would put it off because I couldn’t figure out how to start. But when I just started writing, be it with something that ended up in the middle or the end, then I would build up a head of steam and get the job done.
Ready, fire, aim!
Mike Tieden Says:
October 12th, 2008, 20:53 pm
Great article! The thinking is very similar to Tim Ferriss, author of the Four Hour Work Week. I would suggest reading it if you haven’t already. I am experimenting with some of these philosophies myself.
Thanks!
Mike Tieden
bugmenot Says:
October 12th, 2008, 21:02 pm
it’s “hierarchy”
Sid Savara Says:
October 12th, 2008, 21:05 pm
While I agree in general Leo, I think a more accurate sentiment is “don’t overplan.” In the past, I think broadly speaking it was much more expensive to test out a new idea, or a new product, so tons of research was done to ensure people weren’t launching loser products. It wasn’t 100% successful, but it was their way of managing risk.
That game has completely changed. How long does it take to see the results of a marketing campaign online and turn it off? Your consumers give you feedback immediately. Review tweets, blogs, comments on your own site if you allow them and you can instantly tweak your message based on what you hear.
I think some planning is important, as you stated, but the difference now is plan relative to the cost of failure or changing. In the past, changing was difficult. Now, with technology, changing is easy: or it better be, or your business is in even more trouble.
Maya Says:
October 12th, 2008, 21:05 pm
Great article, Leo. You have listed good pointers to “working smarter and not harder”.
On the flip side, I cannot help but wonder about how many more hours we work as a result of picking up a lot more projects as a result of our increased efficiency. And with work and home getting mixed up like never before we have to work much harder at life as well.
Leo Says:
October 12th, 2008, 21:09 pm
@Maya: You’re totally right — we have to make sure that these new rules are balanced with our personal life. That’s another post. :)
@Sid: You’re right too … some planning is always necessary. “Don’t overplan” is better — I was using a little hyperbole. :)
Success Professor - Danny Gamache Says:
October 12th, 2008, 21:15 pm
Leo,
Excellent article. I appreciate your creativity in coming up with topics. My favorite advice is to multi-project, single task. I’m working hard at getting better at this. I’m not too good at the “work less” idea, but part of that is because I have so many goals I’m working towards. I do probably work less to achieve the results I do than most people.
James Says:
October 12th, 2008, 21:33 pm
Thanks for articulating this into one concise manifesto-like article. Couldn’t agree more - good stuff!
David Finch Says:
October 12th, 2008, 21:37 pm
Great article Leo! However, the hardest part for me to embrace, even though I completely agree, is to just start. The words of any perfectionist are always, “I’m almost ready.” A perfectionist struggles with the concept of, “improve as you go.” Our fear of failure always delays the beta approach. Perhaps with a taste of success, improve as you go could become easier.
Quality, innovation and creativity… That’s where I’ll start.
Alistair Says:
October 12th, 2008, 21:39 pm
Very interesting post. Liked it. At my workplace some of what I see tho’ is a lot of enthusiasm and bandwagon jumping for things like this, at the same time as they drop headcounts and leave people so pressed for resources that they don’t have the freedom to adopt these principles. Cranking is still the name of the game as a result. Shame.
Don’t think I agree with the idea that Planning is out. I agree with ‘just start’ being a good approach a lot of the time - but in my limited experience that does involve some planning. Just a very minimalist plan. And more planning is done ‘just in time’ as sufficient information comes to hand. But I do agree with the point being made. But as an excuse to avoid planning - no. And that is how I fear it will be taken and deployed by some gung ho types out there.
There is a lot of evidence out there for things not being properly or well planned, just as there is for overplanning being used primarily as a procrastination tool, not as a tool to achieve results. Better planning is needed. And the idea of ‘just start’, to cut to the chase and get into doing something doesn’t, I think, mean ‘no planning required’. I am hoping it will encourage better/faster, ‘just in time’ style planning.
Despite all the above ‘disagreement’, great post. Lots of really good ideas. Things I’m trying to move toward myself, so really good to see someone put it into words.
Jayadeep Purushothaman Says:
October 12th, 2008, 21:45 pm
Couldn’t agree more on this - while at two big corporates, I had been getting performance feedback on why I am not putting my 150% effort, not able to multitask and manage time, not documenting things etc. Finally I quit and joining a startup. This will be a good article to share with my folks. Thanks Leo!
Jeff@MySuperChargedLife Says:
October 12th, 2008, 21:51 pm
I agree that the way we work to achieve success has changed. It is definitely more about creating impact. What are you contributing to your organization’s goals? This is how you should measure yourself. I like the idea of working with a deeper focus!
hippononymous Says:
October 12th, 2008, 21:55 pm
If this article were able to stand on its own, I might use it as an icebreaker with my old school boss. But in the part about multitasking you took the shortcut of preaching to the choir with “you know where I stand”… I really would like to open that discussion but can’t seem to find one single fully developed persuasive article (not book) on this topic that doesn’t entail chasing down credible sources or reading several other posts to piece together an argument supported with facts. I know from experience it’s true that multitasking is bullshit, but he’s not going to believe it from me and doesn’t have time for a whole book. I would be quite grateful for an article on the folly of multitasking which stands alone, is concise and provides well-researched sources!
Eric Hamm Says:
October 12th, 2008, 21:57 pm
Leo, I always love your technology focused posts. You like to work on the cutting edge and then share your findings with us. We appreciate it!
It’s funny, when I read, “6. Forget about organization — use technology.” my first thought was gmail’s search feature (which you preceded to pretty much point out.) But it just makes so much more sense. I’ll be working with a client on their Outlook and they’ll be fighting with their MASS of folders, trying to stay ‘organized’. I’m always thinking, “just move to gmail an be done with it.”
Just Dugg the post. Eric.
banji - Lesson In Life Says:
October 12th, 2008, 22:04 pm
It amazes me how something we believe so dearly a few years ago can be obsolete now. Thanks Leo for the inspiring article
I wonder what productivity 3.0 would be. Just like the string theory which combines general relativity and quantum physics, maybe productivity 3.0 will be the combination of the two version, or totally a brand new ideas
I will start working on this :)
Fit Bottomed GIrl Says:
October 12th, 2008, 22:04 pm
Is it rude of me to send this to my boss? ;)
Love the tips. I used to be a huge multi-tasker, but I’ve cut back on it considerably. Without attention and focus, nothing is worth doing.
Michael Lundin Says:
October 12th, 2008, 22:07 pm
Interesting article. Coming from the software development world, it’s interesting to note how the bullet points in this article echo a lot of what is being said as far as the more recently methodologies go. Take a look at Extreme Programming (http://www.extremeprogramming.org/) or Agile Development (http://agilemanifesto.org/) and many of the same points are being solidified in these ways of thinking, too.
Thanks,
Michael
Curious Says:
October 12th, 2008, 22:11 pm
I am curious: what are your sources for these rules and ideas, or are they just your own opinions? How do you know that they are being increasingly adopted in the workplace, or are you just hoping that they are?
Anand Dhillon Says:
October 12th, 2008, 22:32 pm
Excellent post Leo - it’s a great summary of some useful and often counterintuitive productivity principles.
My two favorites are single-tasking and deep focus. I have found that applying these principles has allowed me to get higher quality work done in less time and hence, working fewer hours.
Another principle I have found useful is focusing on your core strengths instead of trying to do everything yourself. In the past, a lot of focus was put on minimizing weaknesses (arguing that doing so will make people more well rounded). Today, there a shift towards maximizing strengths. You do what you are great at and partner with others who mitigate your weaknesses. This fits in well with the concept of deep focus. You focus on what you are best at and others focus on what they’re best at. Working together, you create synergy.
Rahul Says:
October 12th, 2008, 23:08 pm
I certainly agree with these. I have to admit that I’ve also been working on 1.0 points, but certainly am doing some of 2.0 and do want to follow and apply the 2.0 rules for myself as well as by subordinates as well.
Thanks again.
Btw, it seems like everything is going on 2.0 ;)
Leo Says:
October 12th, 2008, 23:26 pm
@hippononymous: I’ve written a lot of articles on single-tasking, but here’s a good starting point:
http://zenhabits.net/2007/02/how-not-to-multitask-work-simpler-and/
@Curious: I could write a whole separate article on how I’ve spotted these trends. I don’t have a specific source but rather have been observing these trends through magazine and newspaper articles, blog posts, working with many people online, and emerging software and productivity trends:
* The rise of blogging — millions of new bloggers each month, with a small percentage using blogging either as a full-time or part-time job. Bloggers that I work with use a number of these trends.
* The rise of freelancing, consulting, and web workers — see FreelanceSwitch.com, Anywired.com and WebWorkerDaily.com for examples of blogs that are coming up to fill this growing niche. It’s really a rapid-growth industry, and almost all of them are moving towards these trends — just read the posts and comments on these sites as an example. I’m a freelancer, web worker and consultant myself, and I work with many others in the same fields.
* A growing number of magazine and newspaper and blog articles talk about these trends — google “paperless”, “cloud computing”, “collaboration tools”, “multi-tasking” and other similar terms.
* Computer software companies are increasingly using these methods as well. I scan the magazines and blogs in this industry and you can see that there are lots of new startups that use these methods as ways of competing against larger software firms. Even the larger ones like Google are using them and even pioneering them.
* A large amount of new software coming out is filling these needs. Take a look at Google’s extremely popular suite of software, from Gmail to GDocs and Gcal and all the rest — they all use collaborative tools, search not file, automation and more. That’s because more and more people are using software for these types of needs — and therefore the new software coming out needs to meet these needs. Even Microsoft’s software is going this way — see their Microsoft Live software and their growing trend to use online, collaborative, cloud computing software.
* Many offices are moving to collaborative teams, telecommuting, and flexible schedules. Business magazines and blogs have been reporting about this for years.
* Books like 4 Hour Workweek by Timothy Ferriss (and others) are increasingly popular because people are looking to put their methods into use — and many people have already.
Again, it’s a constant monitoring of the software, business, freelancing, web worker, blogging, and other technology industries that have led me to these conclusions. And I don’t claim to be the first — they’ve been reported many times by others. I’ve just compiled them into a productivity post from a different perspective.
Ellen Says:
October 12th, 2008, 23:42 pm
I don’t know… I worked at my first tech startup in 1980 and think this is how we worked, minus some of the fancy technology. No money or time for long plans. Start in a garage (on your own money), create something worth selling, sell it, improve it, sell it, improve it….And no one expected people to work 80 hours. They expected me to get my job done, which I could do if I was effective. If you weren’t effective, you needed to go work for a big corp. We still started successful companies. ;) Re: #2 there’s obviously a middle ground. Jump in with no planning and crash and burn because you’ve got a solution looking for a problem. Do too much planning and never start and never get out the starting gate.
Leo Says:
October 13th, 2008, 0:16 am
Hi guys … thanks for the great feedback! A couple of you have noted that these have been developments in software for awhile, and that’s very true — in fact, some of these ideas have come from my observations of the software industry, among others.
Also, I edited the post to reflect some of your comments — I didn’t really mean that we should “toss out planning” completely. It should just be minimized — so we don’t “overplan” as one commenter said.
Jonathan Mead Says:
October 13th, 2008, 0:20 am
@ Leo: Embracing these now I think will put you miles ahead of everyone else.
I think another couple of things that are emerging are: transparency and individual freedom of expression.
Transparency more in how companies operate, spend and do business. The US government needs to go a little more in this direct, imo. =)
Secondly and more importantly is individual freedom of expression in the workplace. Life is stressful enough as it is. We don’t need to add nooses around our necks and us all wearing beige on top of that. Shorts and a tshirt should be embraced in the office, if that’s what you desire. It’s not about how “professional” you look, but how effective you are.
Jonathan Mead Says:
October 13th, 2008, 0:22 am
Okay, I just re-thought that and I don’t think that wearing shorts is necessarily more important than transparency.
I do think that we need to outlaw “hawaiian shirt Thursdays” though. Don’t get me started.
sarah hudson Says:
October 13th, 2008, 0:57 am
“More isn’t necessarily better. The old thinking can lead to a big pile of crap. Instead, focus on quality, on innovation, on creativity. Focus on the important stuff.” Kinda funny how you lay it out like that, but I think this is such a great point.
I’m a graphic designer and web developer and heard from a job recruiter that Google REQUIRES all of their employees to spend 20% of their work hours exploring and/or developing their personal ideas and projects. Unlike most companies who look down on giving into being distracted, Google encourages its employees to see where a new thought or idea can take them. And in case you didn’t know already, Fortune voted Google the #1 company to work for last year. #1!!!
It’s a perfectly clear example of the point you made in this blog, Leo! Instead of requiring your employees or even yourself to “crank out” as much as possible, take a time out once in a while (or say, 20% of the time…) to expand on a new idea, focus on quality, on innovation, on creativity.
Daniel Richard Says:
October 13th, 2008, 1:36 am
I see a lot of myself in the Productivity 2.0 traits that you have mentioned here. Is that good? :)
Leo Says:
October 13th, 2008, 2:41 am
@Daniel Richard: Yes, it’s good for you. But you don’t have to show off about it! ;)
Hot Alpha Female Says:
October 13th, 2008, 3:16 am
I think this is a great post and the “just start part” really resonates with me too.
I’m actually reading this book called “procrastinate later” and it touches on a lot of the topic that were covered here.
Usually if we are not starting something its because there are some real underlying reasons why we do not want to do it in the first place.
Like fear of rejection and fear of failure. So as much as we may want to start something, we can have all these things pulling us in another direction.
Therefore i think its essential that if you are not starting something that you discover the core reason why you are not, change the meaning and get some more leverage to start it NOW.
Thanks
Hot Alpha Female
Amino Says:
October 13th, 2008, 3:16 am
The part about working fewer hours is 100% true. I still get people asking me how I make my income with the hours I’m working.
It seems to me that the world has been on the multitasking wave for sometime now that they’re finding it hard to single task.
“What do you mean one task at a time?” is a general response from people I talk to about productivity. Excellent post Leo!
Agustí Says:
October 13th, 2008, 5:18 am
I came across your blog 3 days ago and I am already an addict. Great place to visit!
About this post: I spend 10 years in a credit processing unit. Is the sort of job where you get an amount of requests to analize and have to be productive in the old fashion: You get N files in the morning and have to have a decission made for each of by the evening. Technology has streamlined the processing, but just in the speed you receive and send information (so that you get more files per day and much more information to consider).
I am now retired and happy for this, but still wonder how this kind of jobs can take profit of ideas like these about productivity 2.0. I feel that a vast number of employees can not avoid being a cogwheel with the speed set from outside.
I think that most of the tips on productivity, streamlining and simplicity are difficult to apply to certain jobs, where you have very little control over the speed and load of the work. Still, I have seen people happy and sad doing exactly the same thing. I guess its just a matter of mental attitude.
Disclaimer-like: My official mail is Gmail. I only use hotmail for non-essential things :)
Martin Wildam Says:
October 13th, 2008, 5:50 am
I completely disagree with 2. - Just start.
Many projects would be less work in the long run with better planning and we already had several projects with dead ends and with the need of starting at zero because the problem was not well analyzed.
And hence I also partly disagree with 6. - Forget about organization.
Erin Says:
October 13th, 2008, 7:06 am
I like the spirit behind this post, but unfortunately I don’t think it’s necessarily right for all types of products. I work in the medical device industry, where we can’t really launch “beta” versions and be satisfied with improving it as we go along. The products need to be able to work without hurting anyone the first time they are launched, otherwise you could potentially hurt someone or worse. Also, since we need to complete regulatory submissions, I can’t just tag my files and search for them later. They need to be compiled in one place, usually with several files generated by others who have worked on the same product.
That said, technology has definitely helped to imporve the way that I work. Having electronic shared file locations helps greatly with storage of all support information for medical devices without killing 50 trees in the process.
Leo Says:
October 13th, 2008, 7:08 am
@Martin Wildam: I agree that some planning is necessary but too often there is analysis paralysis — too much planning can lead to inaction. Action (aimed appropriately) is better than inaction.
Doug Says:
October 13th, 2008, 7:35 am
This is a great article and I really enjoyed reading it.
I do feel, though, that this is only half the story. What if your boss/employer/company wants more paperwork, more meetings, more production etc.?
In order for productivity 2.0 to become embedded you need to have Boss 2.0.
I don’t mean this as a silly, flippant remark. As well as employees, bosses too need to embrace new ways of working. So I wonder what would be the characteristics of Boss 2.0?
Scott Says:
October 13th, 2008, 7:55 am
I agree with most of the points in this article. For example, I absolutely agree that quality is better than quantity when it comes to worker output, but some companies are risking everything through minimalist management.
My company is missing several senior managers since being taken over by another group. We are told that we don’t need to be managed, but we are suffering from a distinctive lack of strategy and direction now.
Knowing the new owners better know, I believe that they are just licking their lips at the $$ saved on high salaries. Are they really saving money, however, if the company goes bust?
Jo Says:
October 13th, 2008, 8:18 am
Bravo - value is no longer in repetition of low value add products.
We have seen with the banks that people don’t want cheap worthless and ultimately expensive service.
People want to be served by someone who knows his or her trade. And we would like to know they are served by people who know and exercise their trade.
I prefer to trust the judgment of a skilled person working with me than someone cranking out a script.
Do I go too far?
EscapeVelocity Says:
October 13th, 2008, 9:02 am
@Jonathan Mead–the nontransparency of shorts is very important.
nudgeme Says:
October 13th, 2008, 9:14 am
I loved this post as it’s a much nicer way to work than some of the traditional methods. I guess it can be embraced more easily by people who work for themselves rather than in a strict corporate environment (and in my experience, far too many of them still exist …). In the corporate world, productivity 2.0 would work hand in glove with the companies who have also adopted trust-based methods of working - again, still far too few of these (there’s a great book on some of the companies that ARE adopting trust strategies called the Stone Age Company, which you might find interesting Leo to see how far they are also embracing productivity 2.0. Great post thanks.
Kelly Says:
October 13th, 2008, 9:28 am
I have a fortune cookie slip taped to my monitor that reads, “You’ll accomplish more if you start now.” It was like getting a gentle kick in the pants. The cookie somehow knew I was a “planner” and get stuck there instead of “doing” so I wanted that message front and center. It’s so true. “Just do it” isn’t just for Nike ads.
Tabitha (From Single to Married) Says:
October 13th, 2008, 9:30 am
These are great and quite a change from the standard rules of work. Now if I can just get my boss to agree!
Stuart Glendinning Hall Says:
October 13th, 2008, 9:38 am
Great, this nicely describes my own approach; the challenge is to educate others, and this helps here too.
Behaviour b4 technology is my zen mantra for the last few days,
Thanks again.
Stuart
Mike King Says:
October 13th, 2008, 9:39 am
Great post Leo.
@Nudgeme: I think you can effectively implement pieces of these in any area of a coorporate environment. Just because it is a larger coorporate machine sometimes you are involved in, there is always room to put some of these into place.
I like your points about how there are some other initiatives doing well in many businesses. One of the traits in that I see that is common is having people engaged in their work. If that occurs, the methods and technologies in place will only aid that workgroup, regardless of whether they are old school thinking or 2.0 style. If people are passionate and engaged with their work, their productivity will sore! Those are what matter to me. I see both styles in my work having great success all the time!
Leo Says:
October 13th, 2008, 9:48 am
It’s true that Productivity 2.0 requires 2.0 Boss … and many bosses haven’t reached that point yet. However, I believe many are changing toward that direction, and what’s more, many workers are deciding to work for themselves and be their own bosses these days. There’s still a long way to go, but that seems to be the trend.
Noelle Says:
October 13th, 2008, 11:29 am
Oh, Leo, I was on the floor laughing as I read your post - because you have described the exact opposite of my office and my boss. He is a complete “Productivity 1.0″ disciple and I can only laugh through my tears at the way we are stuck in the Industrial Revolution, assembly-line methods we still adhere to (as a white-collar organization!). I read Zen Habits just to remind myself that there are better, saner ways to operate.
Joe Says:
October 13th, 2008, 11:31 am
You’re living in a dream world.
Work less hours, put out minimally planned Beta products?
The fact it works for Google (and it is erroneous to think that their ‘Beta’ products are what we would classically call Beta products) doesn’t mean you can universally apply that philosophy to every sector.
Pacemaker manufacturers?
Aeroplane control system code?
Yeah, let’s just “put those out there and see how they go”.
And there’s no such thing as a paperless office. Sorry.
nudgeme Says:
October 13th, 2008, 11:56 am
@Mike King - I totally agree Mike that people can incorporate productivity 2.0 into jobs in a corporate environment, it can just be harder to do so (as instanced by some of the other comments made here about people’s bosses eg @Noelle!). And you are so right that the more people are engaged in their work, the greater the productivity - but I think that many old school methods of working support this less than the 2.0 style. Indeed, without the trust element underpinning people who are passionate about their work, the more frustrated many often become.
@Leo - loved your expression productivity 2.0 requiring a “2.0 Boss”, yes, thankfully the trend does seem to be changing in a lot of areas, albeit there’s still a long way to go! I wonder what a job description would ask for in a 2.0 boss, could be interesting to put one together.
nosaj Says:
October 13th, 2008, 12:23 pm
@Doug - I agree that the corporate culture of your company must embrace the 2.0 spirit as well. some brands are already influenced by the same spirit so the midlevel or lower level managers are trying these new techniques. i’m seeing friends in the oldest industries - banking, consulting - having flexibility to work at home. at a web-startup these 2.0 management types are pretty much standard now.
Sarah Says:
October 13th, 2008, 12:23 pm
I found this very relevent to my work. I hope that these rules will carry over to most workplaces as they will help people be so much more productive instead of just faster.
nudgeme Says:
October 13th, 2008, 12:33 pm
@Doug - credit where credit’s due for coining the phrase 2.0 Boss as referenced in my comment to Leo! I’d missed your post in between comments.
Deborah Says:
October 13th, 2008, 12:34 pm
I rarely leave a comment here Leo, but I read your articles each time you post one. I get so much inspiration from your writing. My favorite part of this article, and just when I needed it, is this” … his software can change the industry. It can win awards and recognition. It might even be the company’s main source of income if it catches on. Produce things that change the world, with a long-lasting impact.”
Something I have been doing for one year now. Sometimes it gets difficult and just about the time it weighs you down someone like you comes along with a little energy booster! Thanks Leo
DanGTD Says:
October 13th, 2008, 14:03 pm
Great article.
I especially like #2, that’s in Steve Pavlina’s words, the “Ready Fire Aim” approach.
Duncan Hayworth Says:
October 13th, 2008, 14:26 pm
Ah multitasking, the concept I never understood because every time I tried it all of a sudden four hours were gone and none of the work.
I really liked this article because it shows that the “perfect” and “efficient” work environment does not exist. Everybody has his or hers own work pace and style and like you said if the company allows the work to be done in the way it suits you most it most likely will result in a better product.
Frankilus Says:
October 13th, 2008, 14:32 pm
Hey Leo,
This post really resonated with me. A colleague and myself have both made the commitment to strike a better work-life balance and I think this Productivity 2.0 concept really helps clarify some things we need to do.
In reading some of the comments, many people had good things to say. It is very challenging at times, for instance, to follow these steps in a Productivity 1.0 environment with people with productivity 1.0 belief systems. However, I do think that one should be courageous and confident enough to apply these techniques if they truly seek to change how they currently operate. I have chosen to do that and I will share this post with a colleague of mine.
I agree that the old ways of doing things are just that, old. I can only hope to change people’s perception so that they can see there is more to life than work, especially if it leads to a life of stress. I just watched an interesting lecture; The Biology of Belief, by Dr. Bruce Lipton after Dr. Wayne Dyer spoke about him at a lecture in New York. He talks about how it is our perception of the environment that dictates our behavior and genetic makeup; very interesting. Check it out and tell me what you think. My point is, we have to be very careful about why we do things, especially if it does not resonate internally. It can actually be destructive to us on a physical level and is now proven scientifically.
Thanks as always for your comments and creative postings. Hope you are doing well.
God bless.
Silke Says:
October 13th, 2008, 14:43 pm
I fully agree with some of your points, particularly the ones about having deeper focus and doing single-tasking. In addition though, I believe that a big prononent of new productivity thinking is having a higher understanding of your purposes and goals and how your projects and tasks fall into that. Only from that can one more easily focus on a deeper level. Otherwise, one could get lost in single things that don’t mean much to the whole.
Confident Nerd Says:
October 13th, 2008, 15:07 pm
I agree with the myth of multitasking. It kills a lot time due to constant doing this and that and never getting into the momentum mode for getting a single task done.
It’s better to focus, create momentum, finish the job, get a motivational boost and then hit the next task.
SteveJ Says:
October 13th, 2008, 15:26 pm
Leo - I don’t know how you do it, but you have the knack for stitching ideas together into one of those forehead-slapping articles that has me shouting at the screen ‘That’s it!’
I’ve been working hard on #4 (multi-project, single task) and #8 (balanced, flexible hours) for a while - but it turns out that this was only *tolerated* by ‘Boss 1.0′ Result? Commercial-crunch-driven downsizing and I’m out. ‘Colleagues 1.0′ are favored.
At the final meeting, Boss 1.0 noted that ‘I’d clearly got a life [and wasn't cranking 150% anymore]‘ and that ‘deep focus’ was interpreted as ‘inflexible.’ Shame that dind’t come up in earlier conversations with him.
It’s going to be tough to find a *real* Boss 2.0 (or something close) that I can work with. Probably need to look at small/medium enterprise for a future.
@Doug - you hit the nail right on the head - ‘Boss 2.0′ (or someone you can influence successfully) is needed. Else watch your back if the company feels the pinch…
Your Friendly Neighborhood Computer Guy Says:
October 13th, 2008, 15:54 pm
I just posted an article on my blog about how I realised that too much preperation can be a bad thing. This falls in line nicely with #2 on your list!
John Richards Says:
October 13th, 2008, 16:15 pm
Great post.
I work for IBM, where a very large percentage of the US workforce works from home. People are frequently shocked to hear that I’ve never met my boss in person, and wonder where I find the discipline to remain productive at home.
Simple. My Boss 2.0 measures results, not process. She couldn’t care less when I get the work done, just that I’m making things happen.
I pushed this concept when I was a newspaper editor a number of years back, and my boss thought I was nuts.
Aad 't Hart Says:
October 13th, 2008, 16:29 pm
Excellent stuff… I especially enjoyed the less planning and just do it part… My way of working, but not always very appreciated ;-)
Alistair Says:
October 13th, 2008, 16:36 pm
Leo says: “It’s true that Productivity 2.0 requires 2.0 Boss … and many bosses haven’t reached that point yet.”
So, so, true. But, maybe that means it is time to think about changing bosses, or becoming your own boss.
And as for comments about paperless. Well, no. But less paper, yes. I have to be so mobile these days compared to my past existence that I can’t afford to be carrying too much aside from the laptop. So an organiser and a notebook is becoming all I need. Still prefer paper, and big screens (ie the laptop) to small PDAs.
TheAndySan Says:
October 13th, 2008, 17:06 pm
I agree with Mike Tieden. This post reminds me a lot of what Tim Ferriss talked about in The 4-Hour Workweek. That book helped me in finally quitting my dead-end job at Wal-Mart and pursuing my goal of starting up a website and monetizing it.
TheAndySan
http://www.theandysan.com
Leslie Says:
October 13th, 2008, 17:09 pm
I have found that using “Productivity 2.0″ methods not only make me a better worker, but it makes our clients enjoy working with us even more. Example: Instead of 3 meetings a week with “client X”, I use Yugma to meet with them twice a week for about 20 minutes each and then once a week we meet in person. This client loves how thoughtful my company is of their time! And our weekly face-to-face meeting much more productive.
Michael Brito Says:
October 13th, 2008, 17:10 pm
Productivity is propaganda from the “Man”, trying to get more work out of you so he can get richer and you can get poorer. Look at all those employee’s of the big banks that got there asses handed to them while the CEO and upper magagment bailed with hundreds of millions. Dont listen to this crap. “Slack!”, find ways to get other saps to do work for you, delgate. In other words trick others into doing the work. haven’t you learned anything from the movie “Office Space”. How much flair do you really need anyway. By the way I’m not jobless, if you think this is some bitter talk from the unemployed. Save your productivity for your personal life, outside the “job”. Unless you “really” love what your doing, 1% of us. the rest is “bulls@*t.
Cale Sweeney Says:
October 13th, 2008, 17:18 pm
Good article. I put you back on my RSS feed.
Ronald Voets Says:
October 13th, 2008, 17:36 pm
Good article! One challenge current companies face, is how to integrate 2.0 into their existing procedures, making the change. Shareholders like reliability and as a board of such a company, you would want to steer on a little more then just “we haven’t done the planning yet…but we’ll get there I promiss you” or “our work isn’t organized but trust on the innovations/creativeness that will arise from our freedom”.
There’s a lot to be said for the arguments given by Leo though, so I believe the trick will be how to come to a healthy division of direct productivity (in a planned way) versus non direct productivity. Something like 70% vs. 30% works OK for current “non 2.0″ companies and may very well be what the right balance is in future as well. The companies that will benefit from what 2.0 has to offer us, ore those that can change themselves and give their employees a high level of freedom how to plan and allocate that 30%, to stuff that they really like and enjoy doing, things that make their life and interactions more meaningful. Doing things they care about and have great passion for, will ultimately bring that level of innovation and 2.0-iness in your company
Fulvio Minichini Says:
October 13th, 2008, 17:39 pm
Great article, thank you.
I’m actually attending a course named “Creative Class & New Media 2.0″, and I will share this post with all other partecipants.
In Italy this theory is not so much applied, but it will change. It must change.
Sincerly
F.M.
Derek Says:
October 13th, 2008, 17:47 pm
@Leo
I totally disagree with the idea of working less hours. Quite simply, I think if someone is correctly motivated and pursuing their passion, the amount of hours they work does not matter.
@ Fulvio
That sounds like a great post and I look forward to reading it.
@The Andy San
This post reminded me a lot of 4 hour work week as well.
Practical Motivations Says:
October 13th, 2008, 18:06 pm
I strongly agree with # 5 Produce less, not more. Less is good especially if the quality of the output is superior vs. producing more but with poor quality output.
Cools Says:
October 13th, 2008, 19:16 pm
Thanks for the article, great points. I also believe that just a bit of planning can make you more productive. Too much (too detailed and too inflexible) is just going to get you demotivated and distract you from actually doing things. On working less, I agree to a certain extend. As Derek pointed out, if you’re motivated and can actually use your time well, then go for it. But usually assigning large amounts of hours to a certain task will just make you less efficient. I prefer to be a “deadline junkie by choice” :), because it leaves me with no time to procrastinate and forces me to only produce what is necessary. Thanks again.
Ryan McLean Says:
October 13th, 2008, 19:52 pm
THese are some of the greatest observations around. I believe a lot of people are still living in the olds school though.
I am trying to break out of that with my finaces blog
Charrise Says:
October 13th, 2008, 20:37 pm
Great post, and spot on! Technology creates a completely different context for our work. Tim Ferriss has written about ways to reconfigure your life and work, and your insight here dovetails that concept. We must always be aware of what is working for us, and be willing to adjust what is not.
Alex Says:
October 13th, 2008, 20:54 pm
Great post Leo
my favs point 2
I always struggle with ‘Analysis - Paralysis’.
& finding a balance between points 5 & 8 :
giving your best focusing on 1 task within a given time.
Morgan Says:
October 13th, 2008, 23:26 pm
This is off topic but I have an idea that would improve your site. If you had a button for a printer friendly version of the articles (assuming there’s an easy way to automatically create one for each article) it would be much easier for people on the move to take it with them. It would also be great for sharing with friends, I print stuff out for people all the time.
Michael Says:
October 14th, 2008, 4:02 am
Good Post, but I take issue with “Meetings are a waste of time, usually.” This may be true of many meetings, but it doesn’t mean meeting aren’t necessary, but rather that many people don’t know how to conduct effective meetings.
My 2.0 would be say: Learn to hold effective, and efficient meetings.
Juliet Says:
October 14th, 2008, 5:11 am
Yes, one can be planning and improving for ages before actually implementing or “putting yourself out there”. I’ve been involved in developing an application, website and blog and I certainly could have put it off and put it off until I thought that it was “ready enough” to be launched. But, I don’t think there is every a “ready enough” and sometimes one needs to take the plunge and then improve as you go along. That’s what we did!
Seamus Says:
October 14th, 2008, 10:33 am
A great post. I’ve been reading zen habits quietly from the sidelines for a while and now feel ready to toss in my penny’s worth. And a penny’s worth is probably all it is worth!
I’ve been trying to stop multi-tasking since I arrived here and read the great “how not to multi-task” article.
One thing though. I can’t see the difference between multi-tasking and multi-projecting. Surely your still just jumping from one task to another? I’m getting confused signals here!
@juliet, I agree. I worked for a large client who insisted on us developing prototypes in an extremely limited time frame. It was hard going, but was invaluable in gathering the end user’s input as the development progressed and ensured the final result matched their expectations.
Software is never ready to go. But it’s always ready to try out! As long as they client know about and accepts your approach!
Eugene Foolstak Says:
October 14th, 2008, 10:48 am
Leo
I’m a regular reader of Zen Habits, and very much enjoy your articles. It’s one of the few blogs I turn to daily for inspiration. But I must say that this article is a poor representation of your work. What’s with the gimmicky “2.0″-speak? And what’s really “new” here for the “new worker”? You’re a great writer with a successful blog, but do you really know that, say, Google dispenses of meetings and just launched Gmail and Chrome without any planning? Neither product is a market leader and neither turns a profit - far from it - so your examples may warrant some reconsideration if you want to successfully make a point. I’m sure doing the occasional productivity article is lucrative for you … I can tell by the comments here that there’s a market for it, but it’s somewhat disingenuous to cash in on this audience with content that is poorly thought through and misguided. Please stick to articles like this http://zenhabits.net/2008/05/a-letter-to-my-son-on-starting-out-in-life/ and avoid the productivity cashcow.
Eugene
FrugalNYC Says:
October 14th, 2008, 11:20 am
Leo,
I disagree with number 6 in part. I think tagging is a form of organizing. Its the same concept but implemented differently. I think you’ll agree that without tagging, it would be harder to search your email/other content. I see tagging as the replacement for filing, and technically, that’s what Gmail really did.
I definitely agree with everything else. As some mentioned, for this to hit a tipping point, there needs to be a change in the general herd mentatlity.
Leo Says:
October 14th, 2008, 16:51 pm
@FrugalNYC: Sure, it’s a form of organizing, but it’s much faster and less rigid. It takes seconds to add a tag but 2-4 times a long to file in the appropriate folder.
@Eugene Foolstak: First, thank you for the kind words, as well as the honest feedback. I really do value it.
Second, the “2.0″ in the title was simply meant to show that we’re in a new phase of productivity, where everything is being redefined. We’re still in the middle of defining everything, so don’t take that to mean that everyone has adopte