Use less time
Last year, I experimented with scheduling 45 minute meetings, not 60. And, 20 minute meetings, too. Guess what? We got the same amount done.
I reduced processes from five steps to three. I replaced in-person consultations with surveys, or Digital Round Tables. Conservatively, I estimate I reduced my labour intensity by 30%.
The time I saved, I have used for deeper conversations on things that really matter, more conceptual time synthesising complex issues, and reading.
Question: What time fragments can you shave off routine tasks, and repurpose them into more useful — and enjoyable — tasks?
Inadvertent wastage
In 1989, I was on the bottom rung of one of the (then) “Big 8” consulting firms. Arriving at work on day, I was met with long faces everywhere. The Tax Office had just cancelled a $200m project on which my firm was the lead consultancy. 200 people had worked for 18 months on digitisation of tax lodgements. They were immediately grounded, their hard work turned to scrap.
But, there are much bigger ‘effort graveyards’ than this in corporate and governmental life. Take a look at this ‘boneyard’ at a US Air Force Base — can you even estimate the number of aircraft rotting here?
Each one of those planes is a culmination of years of development involving millions of hours of human effort, and billions of dollars of production and operating cost.
On a much smaller, but still significant, scale, I see the following Effort Graveyards in my work with my clients:
Asking the wrong questions: A client wanted “insight into our biggest competitive threats”. They were about to start an expensive and broad-based ‘competitor analysis’ process, which would give them little diagnostic information. Instead we asked, “What are the most innovative service offerings that future customers would value?” and designed a much shorter, more focussed (and cheaper!) investigation into leading-edge organisations and their practices.
Sticking to a plan: At short notice, a CEO can’t attend a strategy discussion. Instead of re-scheduling, everyone else proceeds because ‘we’ve put the time aside’. Afterwards, the CEO challenges several conclusions they got to. The wastage is not just the conceptual rework required, nor the opportunity cost of a half day of six executives’ time, but the dilution of focus on the organisation’s future direction.
Persisting with the acceptable: A client runs weekly half-day executive team meetings. It always has; there’s nobody on the team who pre-dates the decision to run them this way. But, there’s no routine reflective practice that thinks to ask, “What’s wrong with this? Who doesn’t like it? What are the best organisations of our type doing?”
Note there’s nothing wrong with conventional questions, sequential plans, and acceptable practices. Just as there’s nothing inherently wrong with investing lots of effort in aircraft design, training and operations, only to assume a necessary end-of-life redundancy. But, we should ask . . . “Are there other ways?”
Question: How much inadvertent wasted effort is avoidable in your areas of business?
Giving feedback to defensive people (Part 2)
Last week I wrote about how to use the PEAR strategy to give feedback to minimise defensiveness. I had a LOT of correspondence on this, so this week I’ll follow through by describing my approach when I get one of the following, in response to feedback:
Deny: “No, that’s not what happened at all”
Blame: “Yes, but it wasn’t my fault because . . .”
Justify: “Yes, but the reason for that was . . .”
Compare: “Yes, but I’m sure I’m not the only one who . . .”
Attack: “Yes, but it’s YOUR fault for being so [INSERT COUNTER-CRITICISM]”
If we ask, “Why are people defensive?” it helps us understand how to deal with it. Firstly, have you EVER done any of the above? Of course you have. We all have. I’m particularly expert at justification, for instance. The reason we get good at these is because they work for us. In other words, people leave us alone, and drop the criticism.
Instead, then, the way ahead is to NOT drop it, but to use a technique I call reflect (their message) and return (to PEAR):
Reflect: “So what you’re saying is [INSERT DEFENSIVE RESPONSE]”
Return: “Given that, can we agree on [INSERT EFFECTS]” or “Given that, what could we do to [INSERT ALTERNATIVES"]” or “Given that, how could we best [INSERT RESULT]?”
What you will find is that 80% of people respond well to PEAR alone. Of the 20% remaining, 80% will respond well to Reflect & Return. Again, it presumes decent rapport, timing and tone.
Question: How easily can you redirect a person to the issue when they attempt to derail your feedback?
Please click the heart to let me you’ve enjoyed reading this week. And, drop me a line in the comments if you’d like to let me know your answer to one of my questions.
Have a great weekend, and I’ll be with you again next Friday.
Andrew
Andrew, I have been reading your 5 minute pieces for long and love it.
On the effort graveyard piece, I have a different view. We need graveyards, need redundancies, need clumsiness in system. That is how living systems stay resilient.
Here is a piece by Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/too-much-efficiency-hazardous-society/610843/
Also I think I read a Phillip Guddemi piece on this sometime back. Can’t find it now.
HI Andrew,
Remembering to review the little things we do all the time allows us to be aware of wasted time - yes - how long have we beening doing that and is there a better way.