CJ Mahaney’s 17-part series on biblical productivity is now available all together in pdf format. He takes an approach similar to Covey’s roles > goals > schedule model, which I bake into my GTD-Covey synthesis (with some modifications).
Slack Work is a Close Cousin to Vandalism
Proverbs 18:9 says “one who is slack in work is close kin to a vandal.” The above hose box is a good example of this.
From the outside, it looks great. But when it came time to hook up my hose to it, I found the task almost impossible.
The valve that you hook the hose up to was positioned at a really odd angle. This made it very difficult to maneuver the hose into a position where it could actually make the connection. On top of that, they apparently used very cheap material, making the connection even more difficult (and risking a break — if I ever need to unhook it, I don’t know if it will be able to take it).
The result? A lot of wasted time. It was later that day or weekend, I think, when I came across the above proverb. Suddenly, the lights went on and I started seeing this everywhere: poor workmanship is akin to vandalism because both create unnecessary work — and expense — for others.
Therefore, if you are against vandalism (and I hope you are!), then you should also be against shoddy work.
But here’s the thing: shoddy work often disguises itself in an attempt to save money. So we don’t realize that we are being shoddy; we think we’re being frugal.
This hose box is the perfect example. I doubt that the company which made it was intentionally trying to be shoddy. They were just trying to make it really, really cheap.
I admire the attempt to save money — and pass on a lower priced product to the customer — but in this case, they were just shifting the bill. Instead of incurring the cost to themselves of using better materials and creating a better design, they used a sub-par design and shoddy materials which, in turn, passed on to me a greater expense in terms of my time. They saved money, but they cost me time.
I would have much preferred that they had spent a little more designing and building the product and just charged me a bit more for it.
I have a hundred more examples to give. There is the carpet in my basement, for example. The people who lived here before finished off the basement — thanks! — but apparently put down the cheapest possible carpet that they could. The result is that if you walk down here with socks, thread from the carpet will collect all over them.
And although I don’t want to say that they themselves thought this way, we do know that a lot of people who are getting ready to sell a house do think like this: “Well, we just need to finish off this basement [or do whatever] so we can sell the house. So let’s just do this as cheaply as possible.”
I’m glad to have the carpet, and I grant that this problem isn’t huge, but let’s serve the next people that will live in our homes by doing things with a little more quality. This doesn’t require extravagance. But just don’t do things in a way that you’d want to redo yourself if you had to live with the consequences. And if you have a very, very frugal bent, then do things better than you’d do just for yourself.
Which brings us back to the main productivity lesson here: don’t save your own money, time, or effort when it is simply going to cost someone else more money, time, or trouble. That’s a cousin to vandalism, because both end up placing an unnecessary burden on another person.
What is Management?
A common definition of management is getting things done through others.
I don’t like that definition very much because it leaves out the human component. This definition could just as easily apply to machines. Why would we want to speak of people in the same way?
Further, you can “get things done through others” while chopping them up in the process.
I think a better definition is provided by Stephen Covey: management is developing people through tasks. This brings in the human component. Management is not just about getting things done, but developing people in the process.
The result is, ironically, that you will in turn be able to get even more done in the future, since whenever a manager’s team is productive they are at the same time increasing in their productive capacity.
But that is not why you manage in this way. You manage with this goal in mind because it is the right way to treat people — that is, because you are managing people, not machines.
A New View on Non-Profits
Patrick Lencioni is one of the authors that I consistently find most helpful. His latest article [not yet online, but copied below] does an excellent job pointing out the false dichotomy that we often make between non-profits and for-profits.
We often think of non-profits as accepting “lower levels of accountability and productivity and rigor” than for-profits. On the other hand, we often see work at for-profits as failing to give people a sense of mission and failing to tap into their passion and idealism.
We need to reject this false dichotomy. Although it may often be this way, it doesn’t have to be.
I think that a new era has begun for non-profits. More and more people are realizing that a non-profit can be a place driven by an incredible mission while at the same time accomplishing that mission with excellence, discipline, and remarkable innovation. As a result, more and more talented people are realizing that they can go into the non-profit sector to make an impact on the world without sacrificing excellence in their work. And as a result of that, the work of non-profits is becoming even more innovative and excellent — thus resulting in an even greater impact for good.
In fact, Jim Collins writes in his monograph Good to Great and the Social Sectors, “Social sector organizations increasingly look to business for leadership models and talent, yet I suspect we will find more true leadership in the social sectors than the business sector” (p. 12). Why? Because “the practice of leadership is not the same as the exercise of power.” Social sector executives have to rely more on influence than power to get things done, and therefore the social sector environment provides a significant catalyst to the development of leadership.
So a new day has dawned for non-profits — an era where they are seen as a place that satisfies a person’s desire for both mission and excellence. And the result is that great things are being done and will be done.
When it comes to for-profits, we also need to reject the idea that their work is productive but not meaningful. For-profits, also, need to affirm and tap into their employee’s sense of purpose and mission.
This is happening more and more — and, interestingly, can happen in part through partnerships with innovative non-profit initiatives. But that’s not the only way it can happen. It is possible to see the work itself as meaningful and purposeful in its own right, and then also as connected to wider purposes for the good of the world.
As a result, whether in the for-profit sector or the social sector, we can and should have both a sense of mission and an outcome of excellence in our work.
Well, time to get to Lencioni’s article. Since it doesn’t look like it’s on his website yet, I’m copying it here in full:
How Much is TV Costing You?
Great article over at the 37 Signals blog on the true cost of watching TV.