[netwanderer3]

There's a general misconception between being productive and being effective.

One can fill their days by completing many mindless tasks and consider themselves as productive, but in the end hardly any of those tasks really matters.

On the other hand, another person may only complete one or two tasks in a very short time during their day but these were critical tasks that could generate much higher values. This subsequently makes the person more effective than their peers.

The output values must be weight in determining if one is really productive. Effectiveness triumphs mindless productivity.

This is quite similar to the cognitive and decision fatigue principle which indicates that each of us only has a limited pool of cognitive resources and so we must be very selective in choosing what activities we engage in.

To remain highly effective, not just being productive, particularly for a project manager, it's imperative to spend time only on tasks that require critical decisions to be made, and to delegate the rest. When you take on more tasks than you can handle, like some are misunderstanding this may help them appear as productive, it will undoubtedly affect the quality of each of your decisions and the project will suffer.

[tylerhou]

> This is quite similar to the cognitive and decision fatigue principle which indicates that each of us only has a limited pool of cognitive resources and so we must be very selective in choosing what activities we engage in.

Watch out — many of the studies which displayed “cognitive fatigue” (I assume you actually mean ego depletion) have not been replicated successfully.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story...

[mjburgess]

The general idea even in a loose, more metaphorical sense, holds however. 'Mental fatigue' is well established, and your volition along with mental faculties generally become harder to exercise the longer they are used without break.

The specifics are disputed, but we needn't be so specific for the advise to hold.

[wisty]

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story...

> But that story is about to change. A paper now in press, and due to publish next month in the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science, describes a massive effort to reproduce the main effect that underlies this work. Comprising more than 2,000 subjects tested at two-dozen different labs on several continents, the study found exactly nothing. A zero-effect for ego depletion: No sign that the human will works as it’s been described, or that these hundreds of studies amount to very much at all.

[honzzz]

Could you please clarify this for me? I assume that I did not understand the concept of ego depletion before but how is this related to the banal observation of real-life things... like when I do not have the willpower to follow my exercise routine after a really hard day at work or feel unable to focus when I am tired... this would not be "ego depletion" or "cognitive fatigue"? To be honest, those things seemed so obvious and "common knowledge" to me that I did not understand why even invent special terms - what am I missing?

[losteric]

Endurance is not disputed. We understand the bottlenecks of physical endurance, but mental bottlenecks are is still poorly understood. That study rejected the ego depletion hypothesis for mental fatigue.

[honzzz]

I have chosen a poor example and formulated my question in a misleading way. I do not work physically and I am more likely to lack willpower when I am mentally tired even when it is related to other things than physical exercise - for example I am trying to reduce my sugar intake and I am more likely to just give up eat some chocolate after a tiring (mentally) day. That is what I thought was the kind of obvious thing - that when people are mentally tired they tend to just watch a movie instead of originally planned language learning. This is what's disputed?

I am asking because either I do not understand the ego depletion concept or something that seemed really obvious to me is disputed, which would surprise me.

[dnissley]

Just speculating, but could it be that your mind is grasping for an explanation, came up with the ego depletion idea, subjected it to a reasonable amount of questioning to ensure that it wasn't completely flimsy, and then you went with it? Kind of a "thinker thinks and prover proves" type mechanism?

[mjburgess]

Ego depletion is one hypothesized aspect of metal fatigue -- no one is doubting mental fatigue.

[dkural]

How about we simply agree that people do in fact get "tired" and have limited energy and thus must prioritize what to do.

[EmmaMuhleman1]

But that argument is no more effective than stating that people have a limited amount of time and thus must prioritize what they do. We all know prioritizing is key to being effective. The question should be about whether one effectively prioritizes to generate positive momentum toward their long-term goals. With that in mind, I better get off Reddit and get to work.

[apatters]

I don't have a citation for this, but I read something recently about a study where people who had been introduced to the concept of decision-making fatigue experienced it, while people who weren't aware of it didn't.

The mind is a wacky thing, I think we know a lot less about it than we believe. One idea I like which seems to have some real world support is that your mental models make all the difference -- if you believe that something's hard and unpleasant, your belief becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and you'll experience distress when you do it. If you're able to somehow reshape your beliefs, that distress may diminish. Cognitive behavioral therapy is based on this model and has a strong clinical track record.

[JangoSteve]

I had recently read that too, but it was more specifically about the idea of willpower rather than decision-making fatigue per se. Here is the article where I had seen this, though going back to it, I don't see citations to the studies it's mentioning:

> If ego depletion does turn out to be wrong, it’s striking how seemingly well-established it became before more rigorous investigations dispelled the assumptions it rests on. The story of its rise and fall also shows how faulty assumptions about willpower are not just misleading, but can be harmful. Related studies have shown that beliefs about willpower strongly influence self-control: Research subjects who believe in ego depletion (that willpower is a limited resource) show diminishing self-control over the course of an experiment, while people who don’t believe in ego depletion are steady throughout. What’s more, when subjects are manipulated into believing in ego depletion through subtly biased questionnaires at the outset of a study, their performance suffers as well.

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/against-willpower

EDIT: It appears the studies are cited at the bottom of the article.

[ghostbrainalpha]

That's very interesting. I'd love to see an experiment where people were taught THE OPPOSITE of ego depletion.

If a group of teenagers were taught that every time they exercise their willpower it becomes stronger, in a very immediate sense, would we see their self control actual improve over the course of day.

[criddell]

I certainly experience mental fatigue. I have a hard time believing that if I didn't know about it, I wouldn't experience it.

[cpoile]

We're very good at convincing ourselves of something. Can you be sure it's not just fatigue? (different from willpower fatigue)

[rayiner]

Really? Dammit. Everything really is a lie.

[andrei_says_]

Maybe not everything but pretty low replication rates for most psychological experiments.

IMO that matter is extremely fluid and dependent on many factors. Just consider the fact that lots of the experiments are done with available volunteers which at Harvard or Stanford or Yale are white uber rich privileged young adults. And that’s only one of the many factors.

Another one is the pressure to constantly publish research in order to move forward or be anybody in academia.

[war1025]

Reminds me of when I was a kid and raced the same track over and over something like 1000 times on a game to get enough money to buy the fanciest car in the game rather than building my skills enough to do races where I would actually make decent money on each race and only have to do 5 or ten to buy said car.

[cgriswald]

On one of many playthroughs of the original Phantasy Star, I saved up 15K for the Diamond Armor by killing low level baddies and then breezed through the game until the end game.

[TeMPOraL]

Well, you didn't get to "cheat".

When we were kids, my cousin figured out a way to make Fallout 2 playthrough much easier. From the starting location, he would immediately head down to a particular late-game location in which you could acquire a Power Armor (the second-best armor in the game). He avoided getting killed by high-level random encounters by discovering that you could escape almost any of them if you mashed "A" key during loading screen - this would guarantee you started the turn-based combat before the random enemy could spot you, and 99% of the times would let you escape. After reaching the target location he'd acquire[0] the Power Armor, and start a quest chain that let you acquire Advanced Power Armor (the very best armor in the game). After that, the game was much easier.

Ah, videogames were so much more fun when we were kids, and didn't have that much time pressure.

--

[0] - I'm fuzzy on the details here; it probably involved attempting to steal it from the shop and reloading game on failure. I later improved this step by just buying it for money, after exploiting a "repeatedly steal merchandise from a guy and sell it back to him" infinite money generator bug that was available near the starting location.

[ohaideredevs]

Here is what you do: 1. Max theft or whatever and small arms (whatever it's called) 2. Walk down to the trading post. 3. Attempt to steal the Bozar rifle. Reload until you succeed.

Not sure how you could get power armor early.

[TeMPOraL]

> Not sure how you could get power armor early.

In San Francisco. It was (AFAIR) in the lower left corner of the map. Like I described, you could get there easily straight from starting location, if your "A" mashing skill was good enough.

[iscrewyou]

This was me trying to get the Zonda in one of the Gran Turismo(3?) games. Raced a mustang around the Daytona track sooo many times.

[bndw]

Gran Turismo 2, 200 lap races.

[avgDev]

Oof, I remember those days when my cousin and I would switch every few minutes to complete those races.

[iscrewyou]

Hey! My cousin and I did the same. We still talk and laugh about it to this day.

[adamisom]

>it's imperative to spend time only on tasks that require critical decisions to be made, and to delegate the rest.

Nobody ever points out the privilege in this statement. Someone has to be the unfortunate grunt getting delegated to, instead of delegating. If a delegator depends on the grunt, can we really attribute super high productivity to the delegator but not to the grunt? That certainly seems to be implicit when CEOs receive 100x more than the average worker. Perhaps they would be equally competent as delegators given the same opportunities some x years back.

[fwip]

I feel like it's really self-serving, too.

"The important work is the work that I, specifically, am good at. Other work that I do not find compelling is unimportant, and should therefore be delegated to less important people."

The routine work done by "grunts" is critical to keep any organization running, whether it's a Fortune 500 company or a family of four. Lots of jobs (customer support, widget assembly, laundry, dishes) are unglamorous but vitally important.

[graeme]

You don’t have to rise that high to delegate. If you’re working on your own, you can hire good contractors who charge $10-$15 an hour. Barring that, systems work can also be a form of delegation: building a system to automate low value tasks is a way of not doing them.

Alao no one ever completes all the tasks they have. So deciding which are the most necessary to do is crucial.

The people who delegate and eliminate well at these low stages are more likely to progress to more delegation. Yes, some people still have no ability to do any of that, but I doubt it applies to most people on this forum.

[loco5niner]

Honestly though, you have to climb the ranks somehow. For someone, that delegation is their "break" into the work they want to do.

[tome]

> There's a general misconception between being productive and being effective.

Indeed: "There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all." -- Peter Drucker

[cpeterso]

For anyone who wants to read more on the difference between productivity and effectiveness you highlighted, I recommend Stephen Covey's classic "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People":

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_7_Habits_of_Highly_Effec...

[webXL]

It's funny that the author ends with a bit of a knock against the book, and mentions that there should be an 8th habit:

> I’m pretty sure there’s an eighth habit of highly effective people. They don’t spend all their time reading about the seven habits of highly effective people.

Turns out, Covey came up with an 8th habit years ago: 'The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness ... The 8th habit essentially urges: "Find your voice and inspire others to find theirs."' [1] I need to read both, but it seems like Covey's 8th might cover not being obsessed about the first 7.

BTW, my kids' elementary charter school has actually incorporated the 7 habits into its curriculum. It will be interesting to see how the graduates do over the course of their careers.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Covey#The_8th_Habit

[wtvanhest]

What makes it even more complicated is that in a big org, knowing which tasks are important changes over time and with managers and manager's managers.

Surviving and thriving over time requires constant reevaluation.

[jayalpha]

"What makes it even more complicated is that in a big org, knowing which tasks are important changes over time and with managers and manager's managers."

No, they don't. There is only one task in your job, to make your boss happy. Strangely, this is rarely achieved by good job performance but often by social skills or idiotic metrics. "How to manage your boss" is worth a read.

[netwanderer3]

This is indeed called managing expectation.

There are various strategies one can "manage" their boss in return so that their expectation always remains at an optimal level, allowing them to easily satisfy their boss or even exceed all their expectations.

Everything can be manipulated, hacked, or "managed" as we professionally call it, as long as things continue to be operated by human. Even the largest corporations are susceptible and WILL succumb to this. Facebook and fake news are real evidences.

Their weaknesses just need to be identified so it can be exploited. External forces can even join together with more resources combined to execute their plans. It's not very difficult to identify weaknesses for many targets today, GREED and PROFIT.

Many corporations today only focus on their quarterly growth reports and would do absolutely anything to satisfy their investors. They don't even pay attention to their own customers, let alone those external forces.

[jayalpha]

Spontaneously two former superiors or mine come to my mind. Both unprofessional on an epic scale, they nearly tanked complete companies. Yet they succeeded in the only metric that counts: They made they superiors happy.

[wtvanhest]

Your boss is the main person to make happy, but they are far from the only person. You also need to help your business partners, your manager's manager, and others.

[Scarblac]

My boss is the boss of 30 people and he can't really tell in detail who is doing good work and who not so much. The bar is higher than that.

[gerbilly]

Small suggestion: don't use the term 'boss'.

I have a manager, but I don't have a boss.

[perfmode]

If your boss is happy, feel free to call them manager. When that manager becomes unhappy with you, you’d better be prepared to deal with a boss.

[netwanderer3]

Companies that strive to improve their effectiveness can develop a methodology to apply this principle from top to bottom.

A good manager will identify the optimal point for each of his team members. This optimal point will serve as a target performance ceiling for managers to motivate and encourage their staffs to work toward to. If we try and push them over this point then we will begin trading output quality for needless productivity.

For someone at the top, it’s important to determine the optimal point for your organization’s current equilibrium state as well. The goal is to always operate within this state, but slowly and incrementally move the equilibrium point up over time as your organization develops and increases its capacity.

Depending on each industry, the degree to which this principle will affect organizations will vary. For example, it would be more decisive to those who produce creative content as their main output since the negative impacts can be very noticeable and highly detrimental, whereas a manufacturing business relying on human labor can be quite flexible in re-adjusting their capacity.

[chiefalchemist]

> "There's a general misconception between being productive and being effective."

Put another way: Focus / attention doesn't help if you're putting such energy into the wrong things.

It starts with problem identification.

The Five Why is always a great tool. Here's a tongue in cheek site it threw together a couple years ago to help :)

http://5xy.co/

[empath75]

At work they’re doing some half-assed metrics based on scrum story points, which is fine, I do about as many as anyone else, but it doesn’t really capture that the entire project we’re working on was almost entirely my idea and that a lot of the backlog that everyone is working from was generated by my ideas. I spend 80% of my day reading and thinking and maybe 20% coding at best. I used to think that if I spent more time coding I’d be more productive, but I don’t think I could spend more time coding and still produce anything worth while. I enjoy coding 2-3 hours a day. I absolutely hate coding 7-8 hours a day. I do better work when I’m enjoying it.

[amelius]

It's a matter of definition. I guess some people define productivity as effectiveness.

[razzimatazz]

I think I define them in a big blurry overlap. Somewhere in there is the guy who leaves the communal kitchen in a mess because he is too busy, and the countless people who wont prepare properly for a meeting or respond to admin style requests.

I guess those form the category of selfish-effective and selfish-productive people.

[blazespin]

Yeah, but in order to make effective decisions there are tonnes of tiny little tasks that you have to take on in order to do that. The idea that you can just go by gut is ludicrous. There is a glacier of work beneath the water that needs to be done in order to make effective decisions. Solving high class problems without doing your homework is an effective way to leading a project to disaster..

"complete one or two tasks in a very short time during their day" these are the people that ruin teams.

Also, the difference between a startup succeeds and one that fails is very simple - execution and productivity. Grand ideas don't solve customer problems. Yes, attention management is important obviously, but that's a part of time management. You also have to grind to solve all the problems that come up.

The whole thing is nonsense wishful thinking that you can just make the hard work disappear.

[trifidpaw]

From my own experience, (so take it with a pinch of salt!) the difference can be a constant loop of reflection and evaluation - is this the most effective thing to do now? And taking time to actually evaluate why I'm doing what I'm doing.

[brootstrap]

I do this twice a day at work, if weather is nice i will take a 10 min walk to reset myself. I like to close out all my fuckin tabs, take stock of WTF happened in the first hours of work, then refocus path. A 10 min walk helps refresh things. Typically go out after about 1.5 to 2 hours of time at the desk.

[fma]

I've started an audio book on essentialism. "I can do anything, but not everything" struck out at me.

[bespoke_engnr]

What's the book? Would you recommend it?

[fma]

Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less

I'm only through the first chapter. Might be a good read, but harder to implement. So far it's, you gotta say no to things that aren't important. How often has your boss asked you to do unimportant things, and would you be able to say no to any of them? Maybe try to push it off to someone else... But to say no would be harder.

[bespoke_engnr]

Thank you!

[dalex00]

Just use the term efficiency because than effort and impact covered.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency

[dwinston]

> To remain highly effective, not just being productive, particularly for a project manager, it's imperative to spend time only on tasks that require critical decisions to be made, and to delegate the rest.

This mirrors Andy Grove's practice (detailed in his book High Output Management) of focusing on "high-leverage" activities, where "leverage" he defines as the ratio of output/impact versus time spent.

[agumonkey]

There was a post recently about a mindset where you'd try your luck in life sorting options by ROI. I found that interesting because I spend aeons on things that will be almost useless right away, instead of doing that maybe simpler, maybe less exciting but a lot more rewarding in terms of comfort. I guess my brain should be rewired from artistic perfectionist pride to capital (cough) pride.

[michalu]

Indeed, and we should all keep what you say in mind. But in order to be effective you first need to be productive. A lot of people struggle with focus, motivation and energy to do things.

[fwip]

There are many tasks that are both relatively mindless and important.