Managing Time vs Increasing Leverage

By Rajesh Setty on Thu 10 Jul 2008, 8:54 PM - 11 Comments

Since we can’t manage time, all we can do is to work towards increasing our leverage.

The first step to increasing leverage comes from superior thinking as thought precedes action. Our society pays a premium for action as compared to thinking.

Why?

Simply because thinking is invisible and action is visible.

You can’t make out that a person is thinking by looking at him or her. So thinking is typically not work. However, you can always see someone who is in action. So being in action is work. So if you want validation from the society that “you are doing something” than you better be in action. Otherwise, you may get asked something like “Are you OK”, “Is everything all right” or “Is something wrong” when you are in “thinking” mode.

Think about it – your general operating model is to make promises and fulfilling them. And repeating it all over.

So, in effect at any point in time you are in the execution mode for one or more of your promises. The promises may be something that you make to yourself or to someone else.

The typical execution path is think quickly and start acting. Because shallow thinking leads to shallow execution, you quickly start thinking again but you are itching to start acting. You got to – otherwise someone might think you are not doing anything So you start getting into action. And then, you go back to thinking and then action..

The optimal execution path would be think in a superior fashion and then act. However, it is not easy as the society wants you to be acting not JUST thinking

Starting to think differently about fulfilling your promises is the first step to increasing your leverage.

===========

Note: My latest manifesto on ChangeThis was published on August 8, 2007. Today it is ranked #40. I am overwhelmed by the support for this. Thank you. Please take a look when you have a moment:
ChangeThis Manifesto: Making the Most of Your Time: Going Beyond To-Do Lists

Related Articles:

Posted in the Main Page category.

If you enjoyed this article, Get Life Beyond Code delivered by email or subscribe using your Feed Reader and

RSS

« Previous Post

Usman Shaheen on July 12th, 2008

I agree with most of the part but Typical Fulfillment is sometimes a better choice. Usually, we’re not aware of the complete picture, to think about it thoroughly and then have a ‘one time’ action. In most cases actions define some new perspectives and force you to rethink before continuing execution

Rajesh Setty on July 12th, 2008

Usman,

Good point. My focus was to make a point to say that you have to spend more time thinking and not rush to acting.

Thank you for your note.

Best,
Raj

Sai on July 14th, 2008

I think it is not as simplistic as this. There is a difference between simple and simplistic views. Simple views are ingenious and correct.Simplistic views are naieve. Most of your views border on simplistic.

Some situations might demand as Usman put it and some might warrant as you put it. By drawing graphs and showing quadrants and sounding Geekish, the logicality of things gets side-tracked.

I can give you a situation like a Military one especially in combat.If one follows your “optimal thinking” strategy then, one gets shot down.

Now, that was an example and it can be incorporated into corporate world too.

Anyways good try

So take care,

Sai

Rajesh Setty on July 14th, 2008

Thank you for your feedback Sai.

Every reader determines the value of the blog posts based on their background and understanding. Sorry it didn’t match your interests or expectations.

I am sure there are a lot of places on the web and in the blogosphere where you can find “simple” views

And, thanks for visiting the site

Best,
Rajesh

Sai on July 14th, 2008

This is not a proper logical response.
Iam sorry if you have taken it to heart.

Iam only attacking the concept not the person.

Your comment “I am sure there are a lot of places on the web and in the blogosphere where you can find “simple” views”

is a polite way of telling–”Take my way or highway” —

Thankyou for your prompt reply comment.

Rajesh Setty on July 14th, 2008

Thank you Sai.

First of all, I have not taken anything personally. How can I take anything personally from someone that I only met a few minutes ago and from someone who does not want to reveal their identity

The reason for my comment was simply that I believe in “NOT wasting people’s time”. If you thought these views were simplistic, that is exactly the mindset with which you will read the rest of the blog. It won’t help me or help you.

I don’t expect to believe everything that is said here. You make your own judgments and make your own assessments – just like everybody else does.

I value and respect every reader of my blog. Without readers, this blog is nothing, isn’t it. I also give my best here but not everyone values it and that is fine too.

Over a number of years, I have come to realize that argument is a lose-lose proposition. So I avoid it.

One option I had was to try to prove that my views are NOT simplistic. What happens then? You will make a counter argument that they are indeed simplistic. In this case, I don’t know your background or your intentions – so if I agree with you, the problem is solved

Thanks again Sai.

Best,
Rajesh

sai on July 16th, 2008

Dear Rajesh,

Thankyou very much for the comments.

First, One need not reveal one’s identity to express certain logical views. This is a ‘logical distractor’ on your part to refer to this and sidetrack the main issue of simplistic and simple.I would say, you are rather clever here.

Second,You should not judge a mindset of a person who reads beforehand by thumrules. I was just using Debono’s Blackhat thinking and viewing critically the article. I use all the Thinking hats and while donning the Yellow Hat(optimistical hat) and reading the article, I did find the practical merit and the concept looked easy to understand.However, a critical look also is warranted to tweak the concept a bit.

Third,by using words “not wasting people’s time” you betray your inner intentions by politely again side-tracking the issue, diffusing it and then covertly persuading me to stop based on the charisma of your blog and jiffle(and also menaing “please do not wasste my time). I would say this attitude would cost in the long run huge as one must be open to criticism and know how to handle it unemotionally.

Fourth, Constructive argument is a win-win situation especially when you do not involve emotionality. I think you have a lot to learn in this area.

To argue one need not be bothered about one’s background and intentions. Those are purely subjective and spoil the logicality and quality of the outcome

With due respects,

Sai

sai on July 16th, 2008

Dear Rajesh,

Thankyou very much for the comments.

Fourth, Constructive argument is a win-win situation especially when you do not involve emotionality. I think you have a lot to learn in this area.

To argue one need not be bothered about one’s background and intentions. Those are purely subjective and spoil the logicality and quality of the outcome

With due respects and no hardfeelings,

Sai

Rajesh Setty on July 16th, 2008

Dear Sai,

Thank you so much for your comments and feedback. I take all feedback seriously. Life is a life-long university.

Just so that you don’t think I am sidetracking here again – I got your feedback about simplistic and simple views. It’s locked in my head now

And, I don’t plan to respond to it – as they are your views and you own them.

On several other items – like whether to argue or not to argue, emotions etc. – we disagree and let us leave it just at that – as it may sidetrack the issue

Thank you Sai and have a great morning there.

Best,
Raj

Sai(Steve Mc Caughey) on July 16th, 2008

Dear Raj,

No offence taken(or given). One small clarification. Simplistic and Simple are not my concepts and I do not own anything.Views are just views nothing properital about it. I have revealed my identity, now does this make any difference?

When the word “argue” is used it brings about what is called “Transformational Grammar” as Noam Chomsky says and connotes a negative meaning.

There has been a clever use of the word side-track again to backfire against me, but then I take it in the right spirit and diffuse the inuendo by cognizing it. The moment a move is cognized the air is let-off.

I appreciate your humility when you say “Life is a life-long university”(Tautological nevertheless).

I also appreciate your abrupt statement that “I don’t plan to respond to it as they are your view” This brings a funny analogy here: A man went to a bank for robbery and showed the gun, at a cashier who was busy counting her cash. The cashier perfunctorily looked at him and said “Oh thats your problem, NEXT!”

You might have guessed what happened “Next”.

Verbally, one tends to dismiss certain things when one is not ready to change intellectually even after cognizing a concept this is psychologically called “Reactive dissonance” You do show traits on this. Maybe you should make some research on this.

Further, than this, I do not intend to extend this thread anymore, unless you make another statement which might kindle my grey cells again to respond(not react) back intelligently.

“It is the enemy who can truly teach us to practice the virtues of compassion and tolerance.”–Tenzin Gyatso Lama
And this case, “Intelligence and some broadening of views” too.

Rajesh Setty on July 16th, 2008

OK Steve. Thank you.

First of all, thank you for identifying yourself. That means a lot to me and I am more comfortable engaging in a conversation. It is just my preference. Nothing against you.

Second, it is not my intention or never my intention to discount what you are saying. I already told you that your views are appreciated.

One can always read a lot between the lines and you are definitely one person who reads a LOT between the lines

Some of my thoughts for your consideration:

* You have used a story to demonstrate a flaw in my decision to not engage. The problem is that the story is flawed. Think about it. If this story repeated 1000 times, in how many instances would a cashier say “Oh that’s your problem, NEXT!” – just doesn’t make sense. Basing an argument on a fictional story that is flawed does not provide much grounding. I have written extensively about using such stories. They are fun to listen but they don’t add any meaning to the conversation. You have rightly characterized it as a funny story. If you will kindly search for “Harvard MBA and the fisherman” story on my blog you will see an example of this.

* You also assume that I dismissed something. It is interesting to notice how quickly you come to conclusions without knowing me well enough. Earlier, the equation was not right. You knew almost everything about me and I knew nothing. Now that I know you are a partner at Deloitte, I know who I am talking to. Yet, I won’t make assumptions about how you learn, how you engage etc. without knowing you well enough.

* Lastly, your quote is misplaced. You say “It is the enemy..” – when I don’t think you are an enemy

Steve, I am always open for learning and growing. I am fortunate to be surrounded by great teachers and mentors. That said, everyday is a learning experience and I enjoy every bit of it.

Thanks again.

Best,
Raj