I think there's a false dichotomy in the article. The true choice is understanding that success is not always deterministic and dependend only on one factor but that there are many risks to be managed and that you need to hedge your bets. The world of finance has worked it out best so far. Thats what's the VCs do right too.
I think there's a common, mistaken simplification of the concept of focus.
If Richard Branson had never focused enough to finish actual tasks within his various enterprises, he would not be a billionaire today. It's a mistake to think that there isn't a difference between focusing on getting tasks done versus focusing on only doing one business at a time (in this case). Branson was absolutely a focuser, and he chose to focus on numerous businesses. It'd be like thinking that having more than one errand to do throughout the day meant you didn't have focus - obviously people can do more than one thing.
As an entrepreneur, I find it necessary to focus on micro level tasks to be productive and push a product forward. For example, finishing up code for a specific feature. If I fail at micro focus, nothing gets done / launched.
However, I don't find it necessary to stick to only one macro effort at a time. If I do that I feel like I'm stuck in a straight jacket. I experiment a lot and constantly take new opportunities into consideration. I don't find this macro focus variable detracts from being productive.
The key for me, is to focus on micro elements when it's time to do so, in order to be productive. After that my macro focus can go wherever I choose to direct it. I think that understanding which camp a particular item of focus falls into is critical.
The article says the exact same things - you're just rephrasing it. The point it makes is that it's okay to work on several projects, the important thing is to finish at micro level.
Except the article claims people like Sam Walton / Jobs / Branson / Musk weren't or aren't 'focusers.' I disagree completely with that notion. They were / are exceptionally talented at focusing on what mattered, when it mattered.
This nails it. The article isn't entirely wrong but focus isn't a myth. Our eyes can't focus on two things at the same time. We too can't give full attention to multiple issues at the same time.
Agreed - and don't let one project become an excuse to neglect another one.
Working on multiple projects makes you feel like you don't have time to waste, and so there is a tendency to make better use of time worked on each. There is also a need to properly prioritize across projects - which might be a considered a way of sneaking "focus" back into the picture after all.
I think it also suffers from: "Steve Jobs did X, so X is amazing". Well, not necessarily.
By definition high-profile entrepreneurs (like Jobs, Gates, Branson, etc) are rare and their multi-zillion-companies are also rare. I miss general lack of analysis of "common success strategies". Call me eccentric, but if I am building a company, I'd like to base my strategy to something that will give me the best chance to do it. And, in case I decide to not use it, know that I am doing so.
But but but, if they did things like everyone else then perhaps they'll be like everyone else and if their goals are similar to yours then there is great value in following their footsteps and taking their advise.
If however your goals are different then it should go without saying that they are perhaps not your best role models.
While I understand what you mean, each one of us is so rare that there is only one of each one of us. Businesses are similar. What we can do is learn from their successes and their failures. And for that evaluating everything is important.
Focus is not just about what you choose to work on at a high level. Avoiding distractions day-to-day is a bigger part of it. Many people I have worked with complain that they want to focus on "one thing at a time", but that doesn't mean it has to be the same thing all day, every day. It means being productive, without having switch gears to deal with things that have nothing to do with their goals and tasks. To me, that's what focus really means.
"Attachment leads to fear. Fear leads to worry. Worry leads to chaos."
This line summarizes how I've felt at times as I have tried to be more focused on my PhD, leaving out side projects I have been working on, and found my productivity plummet into chaos. I don't feel like the solution is to focus less though, but I find it difficult to detach and get out of the chaos. Any suggestions on "focusing more" while avoiding "attachment" ?
I've begun meditating using http://www.getsomeheadspace.com/ for the last few months and I've noticed a definite uptick in both my ability to focus and concentrate on writing code and also my ability to step back and give myself a bit of space in my thoughts.
Your brain is fatigued from doing your PhD. It craves variety. Try doing one of your side projects for a month to refresh yourself. It needs to be something different from your PhD, something fun that you can make immediate progress with and which holds some challenge. Don't just bake ornamental bread.
After this 'reset', you will be in a position to alternate your focus between your PhD and this other activity. You may need to take on another later, but try to keep it below four. This is because your brain may not be that accustomed to the switching of focused attention required by multi-tasking. So don't try spinning too many plates or they will all come crashing down.
The key here is to release yourself from thinking about the outcome of your PhD by tricking your mind into treating it like the other tasks you alternately focus upon. You may assume that doing unrelated stuff would cut into the precious time you need to do your main thing, but by reducing your anxiety over not having finished it already and just enjoying the process of doing it you will find that your productivity will increase as you spend less time not actually working on the PhD, but worrying about it and reading endless articles about procrastination and meditation.
Remember, it may seem a cliche but "The Journey is the Reward" - in other words take pleasure in doing not finishing.
I think this advice is intended for the people who run the business and not the people who do the actual work. Elon Musk can oversee three companies at the same time but I doubt the spacecraft pilot can afford to be distracted with too many tasks at once.
I think you skimmed the post. The memo is to his employees and he specifically addresses whether or not the advice is applicable to non-entrepreneurs (spoiler: he thinks it is).
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the advice, but it's clear that it is intended for "people who do the actual work".
I reread the post and I agree that the advice is also applicable to non-entrepreneurs (e.g. hackers, hobbyists). What became clearer is that his advice is to pursue multiple goals, not to juggle multiple tasks at once.
Thinking is like digging. If you don't keep digging at one point, you wont go deep. However, the deeper you want to go, the broader your hole is going to be.
Staying in the flow is more important than staying focused on one problem -- that's more what I got out of the article.
Applying the digging metaphor -- keep up a good digging rhythm. If you get stuck in one hole, instead of losing your rhythm (and motivation, and flow), switch to work on a completely different digging job... and switch back later when you're getting tangled up in that one.
The metaphor starts straining there -- since if you hit a huge rock in this hole, it's going to be exactly the same when you get back -- but for more intellectual work, problems tend to simplify themselves when you put them aside for a bit, so this strategy can make you far more productive than "brute-forcing" your way through the problems on the first project.
If the holes you dig are all in a general area, you don't have to shift dimensions to switch holes, though sometimes you could do that. You could also connect your holes which helps create a mesh of connected knowledge.
Staying in the flow makes sense, but you also need to get depth sometimes and that means yanking yourself back from jumping to another thought-stream and sticking to the one you were on. Discipline has a role to play in the thinking process, I think.
When you get to digging holes in alternate dimensions, and making a mesh of connected holes, it's probably time to drop the metaphor. :)
Staying "in the flow" -- I'm not sure how you think of it, but for me this means significant depth. When I'm properly engaged, I'm past the point of flipping idly between thought-streams, and I'm completely engaged in a single task.
The interesting thing about having multiple projects is not that we can flip rapidly between them (i.e., never deeply mentally engaged in any of them), but that when the engagement is waning on project #1 and we come up for air, instead of opening HN/NYT/whatever and wandering off, we can switch to a fresh project and dive back in again.
I.e., our brains don't need "rest" as much as they need sufficient novelty and variety; if you can harness that, you can be hugely more productive -- not just because you're minimizing downtime, but you're also getting into the habit of frequent deep mental engagement.
The point of the metaphor is you don't do your thinking in one shot. Usually you build on what you did last time and it requires effort focused at a point each time and a repetition of the process over a sustained amount of time. After you've thought through something, usually it stays with you. So there is some permanence to the results of the the process, much like the hole you dig.
The flow thing is related to being a little lazy and listening to every whim and fancy of your mind while you're thinking on a topic. If I were to choose, I would choose depth over flow -- it's more difficult to go deep.
The author's point meets with my own observations.
Something else I observe is that a person who works on multiple projects successfully almost always has one or more people who s/he can delegate tasks to. There is always someone on the project team, in my organization's case it's the software engineer, who cannot delegate. The tasks simply have to be performed by that person or the project fails. The person working on those tasks will not be able to work on as many projects as the project leader/initiator. Personally, I need 3 hours of uninterrupted time daily in order to push forward on a new application. To get maximum performance, I need two 3-hour blocks of time separated by one 2-hour block of time to do something unrelated.
Another point is that the author limited his scope to work. I think everyone has multiple "projects" going on at all times. They are just not all related to work. Having a family, home, hobbies, civic involvement all necessitate working on multiple "projects" simultaneously.
The people who successfully keep so many "projects" going are good at not being stressed. The author makes this point and it's a good one to reflect on.
This reminded me of my uncle who is an artist. He told me once that he would paint three or four pictures at the same time, because while some part of one paint was drying he could paint another.
I think something similar happens with entrepeneurs, some parts of a project (or idea) needs 'to dry', you need time to pass to understand it better, or leave it 2 or 3 hours to address that what you've written is BS. So having multiple projects lets you use your time more effectivelly and also forces you to let things 'dry' because you have other things to do.
I am not sure I am adding: But there's a difference between have autonomy to focus on one or many thing as you wish vs. having responsibility/role dictated by others, and not being able to leverage your personality type/work style to its strengths to fulfill that role (and perhaps go above and beyond or take on an "epic endeavor").
Multiple projects mean that when one gets blocked on an outside obstacle, you can shift to another while you wait. However, if the queue of blocked projects grows without bound, then you need to pull back. I've been there.
The problem with this article imho is that it cherry picks only 4 people. What about all of the people who did focus on one thing and were successful, or the people who tried to take on too much at once and failed?
33 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 81.6 ms ] threadIf Richard Branson had never focused enough to finish actual tasks within his various enterprises, he would not be a billionaire today. It's a mistake to think that there isn't a difference between focusing on getting tasks done versus focusing on only doing one business at a time (in this case). Branson was absolutely a focuser, and he chose to focus on numerous businesses. It'd be like thinking that having more than one errand to do throughout the day meant you didn't have focus - obviously people can do more than one thing.
As an entrepreneur, I find it necessary to focus on micro level tasks to be productive and push a product forward. For example, finishing up code for a specific feature. If I fail at micro focus, nothing gets done / launched.
However, I don't find it necessary to stick to only one macro effort at a time. If I do that I feel like I'm stuck in a straight jacket. I experiment a lot and constantly take new opportunities into consideration. I don't find this macro focus variable detracts from being productive.
The key for me, is to focus on micro elements when it's time to do so, in order to be productive. After that my macro focus can go wherever I choose to direct it. I think that understanding which camp a particular item of focus falls into is critical.
This nails it. The article isn't entirely wrong but focus isn't a myth. Our eyes can't focus on two things at the same time. We too can't give full attention to multiple issues at the same time.
Working on multiple projects makes you feel like you don't have time to waste, and so there is a tendency to make better use of time worked on each. There is also a need to properly prioritize across projects - which might be a considered a way of sneaking "focus" back into the picture after all.
By definition high-profile entrepreneurs (like Jobs, Gates, Branson, etc) are rare and their multi-zillion-companies are also rare. I miss general lack of analysis of "common success strategies". Call me eccentric, but if I am building a company, I'd like to base my strategy to something that will give me the best chance to do it. And, in case I decide to not use it, know that I am doing so.
If however your goals are different then it should go without saying that they are perhaps not your best role models.
After this 'reset', you will be in a position to alternate your focus between your PhD and this other activity. You may need to take on another later, but try to keep it below four. This is because your brain may not be that accustomed to the switching of focused attention required by multi-tasking. So don't try spinning too many plates or they will all come crashing down.
The key here is to release yourself from thinking about the outcome of your PhD by tricking your mind into treating it like the other tasks you alternately focus upon. You may assume that doing unrelated stuff would cut into the precious time you need to do your main thing, but by reducing your anxiety over not having finished it already and just enjoying the process of doing it you will find that your productivity will increase as you spend less time not actually working on the PhD, but worrying about it and reading endless articles about procrastination and meditation.
Remember, it may seem a cliche but "The Journey is the Reward" - in other words take pleasure in doing not finishing.
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the advice, but it's clear that it is intended for "people who do the actual work".
Applying the digging metaphor -- keep up a good digging rhythm. If you get stuck in one hole, instead of losing your rhythm (and motivation, and flow), switch to work on a completely different digging job... and switch back later when you're getting tangled up in that one.
The metaphor starts straining there -- since if you hit a huge rock in this hole, it's going to be exactly the same when you get back -- but for more intellectual work, problems tend to simplify themselves when you put them aside for a bit, so this strategy can make you far more productive than "brute-forcing" your way through the problems on the first project.
Staying in the flow makes sense, but you also need to get depth sometimes and that means yanking yourself back from jumping to another thought-stream and sticking to the one you were on. Discipline has a role to play in the thinking process, I think.
Staying "in the flow" -- I'm not sure how you think of it, but for me this means significant depth. When I'm properly engaged, I'm past the point of flipping idly between thought-streams, and I'm completely engaged in a single task.
The interesting thing about having multiple projects is not that we can flip rapidly between them (i.e., never deeply mentally engaged in any of them), but that when the engagement is waning on project #1 and we come up for air, instead of opening HN/NYT/whatever and wandering off, we can switch to a fresh project and dive back in again.
I.e., our brains don't need "rest" as much as they need sufficient novelty and variety; if you can harness that, you can be hugely more productive -- not just because you're minimizing downtime, but you're also getting into the habit of frequent deep mental engagement.
The flow thing is related to being a little lazy and listening to every whim and fancy of your mind while you're thinking on a topic. If I were to choose, I would choose depth over flow -- it's more difficult to go deep.
Something else I observe is that a person who works on multiple projects successfully almost always has one or more people who s/he can delegate tasks to. There is always someone on the project team, in my organization's case it's the software engineer, who cannot delegate. The tasks simply have to be performed by that person or the project fails. The person working on those tasks will not be able to work on as many projects as the project leader/initiator. Personally, I need 3 hours of uninterrupted time daily in order to push forward on a new application. To get maximum performance, I need two 3-hour blocks of time separated by one 2-hour block of time to do something unrelated.
Another point is that the author limited his scope to work. I think everyone has multiple "projects" going on at all times. They are just not all related to work. Having a family, home, hobbies, civic involvement all necessitate working on multiple "projects" simultaneously.
The people who successfully keep so many "projects" going are good at not being stressed. The author makes this point and it's a good one to reflect on.
I think something similar happens with entrepeneurs, some parts of a project (or idea) needs 'to dry', you need time to pass to understand it better, or leave it 2 or 3 hours to address that what you've written is BS. So having multiple projects lets you use your time more effectivelly and also forces you to let things 'dry' because you have other things to do.
Side note: I've always loved Snowbirds unabashed and beautiful use of Helvetica throughout their brand. Same since the 70's but it's aged so well.