Process is the investment we make in inefficiency now to prevent errors from costing us later.
Jet airlines are the safest form of travel ever created, largely because of the inefficient process that we put in place. They’re over tested and over staffed, with checklists and feedback loops in place to ensure that errors don’t occur. It would be way less costly if one person simply jumped onto the plane with you and took off–less costly, but less reliable as well.
If you want to see this taken to a higher level, consider a typical hospital emergency room. If you’ve ever sat waiting, you’ve noticed that it seems inefficient and very process focused. But as a result, the system doesn’t rely on good luck or heroics to save the day. Instead, they’ve invested in process.
An institution that is 100% contemptuous of process may create vividly creative outputs, but it won’t last long. And one that’s 100% process focused will rarely create a breakthrough. We can take a hard look at our culture and decide if we need more (or less) process.
What does it cost to be wrong?
What does it cost to avoid being wrong?
January 16, 2025
The cult of consulting suggests that if you simply had better advice from someone who knew more than you, your problems could be solved.
Generally, the advice isn’t really the hard part. There’s endless good advice just a click away.
The art is in creating the conditions for people to choose to act on the advice. Good advice unheeded is a waste for everyone involved.
That’s why expensive consultants can stay in business, and why committing to a process before you’re sure of all the details makes it far more likely that you’ll succeed.
We might not need better advice. We might simply need to do the work of being able to work with the good advice we already have.
January 15, 2025
Annoyance is the inflammation that occurs after a mild emotional injury or wound.
Like a physical inflammation, if it’s not cared for it can become infected.
The difference is that an annoyance is easier for us to control. We can invest the energy to build a habit about what we do when an emotional injury occurs. We can develop a pattern of letting go.
Susan David differentiates between the healed emotional injuries (our scars) and the fresh ones (our wounds.) Sometimes, it’s tempting to gain intimacy and engagement by sharing our wounds with strangers, but it might be helpful to share our scars, our history, instead.
And in the meantime, we can build a practice to manage our annoyance.
January 14, 2025
Decisions are easy, choices are hard.
A good decision is our best analysis of the facts, options and risks. If it’s too close to call, flip a coin, because it’s too close to call.
On the other hand, a choice involves understanding our priorities, evaluating our preference for risk and sometimes, changing our minds. None of these are easy.
If we face a difficult choice, it’s helpful to stop thinking about it as a decision. It’s a choice. Decisions are strategic, choices are personal.
January 13, 2025
Every successful SNL sketch, every bestselling book, every landslide-winning candidate… every single one… had skeptics.
Someone in the writer’s room, or on the editorial board or even an investor looked at what was on offer and said, “no.”
Not just, “I’m sorry, this doesn’t match my taste,” but, “I’m an expert, and this will never work.”
If you’re not hearing this, you’re not doing important work.
And if you’re waiting for unanimous approval, you’re never going to ship that important work.
January 12, 2025
Almost all car crashes would be avoided if the driver were just going a bit slower. (That’s why it’s more accurate to call them “crashes” and not “accidents.”)
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have bold plans. That’s essential. It’s the last-second shortcuts that get us into trouble.
Hurry, but don’t rush.
January 11, 2025
Sheep are not like ideas.
200 years ago, William Foster Lloyd began pointing out that if land is shared, ranchers will all have an incentive to overgraze their sheep–if they don’t, the thinking goes, the others will. Each farmer expands until the commons is ruined. And this justifies the long process of fencing in land, because the owner of private property, it’s argued, will have an incentive to care for it.
Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel Prize in 2009 for challenging this simplistic view. She argued that in many settings, 8 principles can produce resilient and effective ways for managing commonly shared resources:
- Clear boundaries defining who has rights to use the resource
- Rules that match local needs and conditions
- Systems allowing most users to participate in modifying the rules
- Effective monitoring by accountable monitors
- Graduated sanctions for rule violators
- Low-cost and accessible conflict resolution mechanisms
- Recognition of community self-determination rights by higher authorities
- For larger systems, organization in multiple nested layers
And sheep are not like ideas.
The cultural commons, particularly software, doesn’t get used up when more people contribute to it. In fact, it gets better.
Software patents are tempting (I have two, neither of which rewarded the investors who filed the patents) but they almost never pay off. Like a hit song, software does better when more people are part of it. And it’s more likely that people will participate in software that’s resilient, inspectable, connected and always improving. The hard part might not be the idea–it’s in creating the conditions for others to participate.
Open source software is the backbone of the internet (it’s powering many of the sites you visit, including this one, and is behind most of the tools you use, including email and Wikipedia). But there’s always been a relentless, profit-driven push to fence it in.
It’s not that difficult to try to selfishly take advantage of the generous rules of open source. It’s tempting to take without contributing. Particularly if investors are pushing for market share instead of resilience and forward motion.
That means that, like so many good things, open source needs to be celebrated, supported and defended. Especially when it’s not convenient to do so. People who are working for open source are working for us.
We’d miss it if it were gone.
January 10, 2025
It costs more than you think.
Last month, I hit the old stock on the Avery labels in my office cabinet. I had a bunch of things to send out, and off they went. It turns out, who knew, that old labels stop sticking. It’s entirely possible some of my really important packages never got there, but it’s hard to tell. It was certain, though, that the adhesive wasn’t doing its job.
On the back of the box, it says, in big yellow type: 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed. It goes on to talk about how glad they’d be to replace the product. You’ve already guessed–six emails back and forth and they’re now whining about making a one-time accommodation, but just this one time.
“Hot bread, fresh from the oven, every time” is seductive, but what happens the first time a customer goes out of their way to visit and discovers that this is simply a lie?
Marketing puffery can have much bigger consequences. When Full Self Driving isn’t actually that, people can die. And every single person who has tried it realizes that it’s not what it says it is. And so we wonder, what else are they lying about?
If you need to out-hype your competition, it’s a race to the bottom. Someone is always more willing to hype than you are. Ironically, it’s not even the effective sales pitch lazy copywriters think it is.
Marketing puffery:
- Burns trust
- Puts strain on your customer service team
- Often causes users to make bad choices
- Teaches your loyal customers not to believe you
- Generates negative word of mouth
- and it can even lead to lawsuits
The alternative can be simple and effective: 99% of Avery users are delighted, and we’re doing our best to make it all of them. Or perhaps, “Now upgraded to next level automated driving assist.”
Marketers are privileged indeed to make promises. Why make promises you know you can’t keep?
January 9, 2025
Money is a story.
But money is also an exchangeable commodity, valued by different people in different ways. And time is the wildcard.
Situational spending is a trap that seduces us into forgetting that time passes and debt (or assets) remain.
A couple about to wed might not hesitate to spend $750 on imprinted matchbooks that no one will ever use, but struggle to make the rent payments a few months later. If they were measuring peace of mind, it’s unlikely that they’d choose the matchbooks over rent.
Corporations nickel and dime frontline workers over a $1 raise, but don’t haggle with McKinsey on a $20,000,000 contract.
Instead of going deep into debt for a new car that might raise one’s status, that same money could be spent regularly buying a round for friends at the local pub, becoming a local philanthropist, or investing in an asset that might increase professional standing or income.
“Compared to what?” is a powerful question. The right answer might not be, “compared to what I just spent a moment ago, or compared to what my peers are spending…” A more useful alternative could be, “compared to what I want or need to spend money on in the future.”
The situation isn’t in charge, we are.
January 8, 2025
When I made breakfast this morning, I didn’t begin by making the blender. Someone else, a team with more skills, resources and scale, built the blender. I simply bought it.
That seems obvious–no one expects a from-scratch baker to make their own baking powder.
And yet, our projects are rarely fine tuned around leverage.
Begin with this question: “What are you hiring yourself to do?”
Are you making that choice because your labor is cheap and convenient, or because it’s the place of maximum leverage? It’s often easier to be busy than it is to be productive.
Busy is a morally superior distraction. Busy gets us off the hook. Busy is a great place to hide.
On the other hand, productive can be scary. When you’re buying someone else’s skill and time, you’re making a different sort of commitment.
Your job might not be to do your job. Your job might be to make the decisions and commitments needed to lead other people who do your (former) job.
The calculation is simple: If the commercial project is worth doing, what’s the most direct, cheapest and fastest way to get it done well?
There’s nothing wrong with hiring yourself to do things you enjoy. And it’s imperative that when you embrace leverage to get projects done, you produce work you’re proud of–shipping junk, at scale, is not the point.
But my guess is that most of us settle for a pattern of leverage that we’re used to, a pace that we’ve become accustomed to, a day filled with tasks we think we’re good at. I’ve talked to people all over the world–entrepreneurs, freelancers, employees and bosses–and most of them are sure that they’re leveraging just the right amount. Even though it’s different for everyone…
The make or buy choice is one we face all day, every day, and rarely consider.
If you’re serious about the project, it’s time to give yourself a promotion, and to hire yourself to do work that’s yours and yours alone to contribute. It’s almost certain that there’s someone cheaper, faster and yes, better at the other work than you are.
On our best days, what we actually make is decisions.
You might need to invest some time and energy to get the skills you need to find this leverage. To be smart about the tools you use and the people you hire. That’s an investment worth making.
Find the resources you need, and figure out how to work with them. Then hire someone else to make a blender.
January 7, 2025
