It seems like too much emphasis is put on efficiency in the workplace nowadays.

Very often, we are just getting nowhere in a very efficient way.

What you actually want is effectiveness.

Efficiency should only concern you if it helps you deliver cheaper or faster.

If value is your focus, you need to “do the right thing” before you worry about “doing the thing right.”

The problem with worshiping efficiency os that if you are perfectly efficient, you eliminate all your slack.

But innovation is not efficient. Creativity is not efficient. Figuring out complex problems involves setbacks, pivoting, and doubting. If you don’t have any slack in your system, you severely hinder your ability to adapt and be truly effective.

If you want to achieve more, don’t pile on more work, add some slack. It sounds counterintuitive, but building in a buffer makes you more flexible. It gives you the space to step back and realize that half the things on your plate probably didn’t need doing anyway.

Ultimately, efficiency is only as valuable as the slack it buys you. You are at your most productive when you are relaxed, in flow, and not overthinking every move.

To counter Parkinson’s Law (the rule that work expands to fill all the time available for its completion) and stop being busy at all times, try shifting your focus:

- ​Prioritize outcomes over outputs: Sometimes you don’t know exactly what the output should look like at the start. Trust the process, adapt, and focus on the final outcome.

- ​Stop starting, start finishing: Reduce waste and create flow. Focus purely on getting things across the finish line.

- ​Reward the efficiency: If you find the fastest way to get something done, celebrate. Take that saved time back as slack instead of immediately filling it with more work.

​Effective first. Efficient second.

Last responsible moment is a term that comes from the agile world. Identifying the last responsible moment is more art than exact science and, like most art, it takes courage.

The idea is that there is a point up to which gathering information is necessary, valuable, and responsible. Making the decision too early is as bad as making it too late.

70% is being suggested as a good percentage. If you feel you have that much information, make the decision, take the action.

This is the sweet spot, the point after which gathering more information is just masked procrastination. The extra 30% won’t give you much more and is very expensive to get.

We’re terrified of the unknown, so we hunt for more data, hoping it will guarantee a perfect result. Spoiler alert: it never does.

We are not running for office so, in most cases, we can always pivot later, if we don’t like the decision we made. Flip-flopping is mostly bad in politics.

Here is a crazy idea: What if we combine this with the Pareto Principle (the 80/20 rule)?

Let’s call it the “20/70/70 Principle” : 20% of your actions, fueled by 70% of the information, will get you 70% of the results.

Please don’t ask me to prove my math, it’s just a hypothesis.

In some cases, 70% won’t be enough. If you’re performing heart surgery, auditing a multi-million dollar compliance filing, or responding to emergencies, “70% of the information” is negligence, not agility. Accept that you need the full 100% of information, and pay the price in time and effort to get the results.

When the stakes are lower, like a marketing experiment, a product pivot, or a new workflow, moving on 70% saves you from the diminishing returns of the final 30%.

You get 70% of the results, and more importantly, you get the real-world feedback from those results, which is often more valuable than the theoretical data you would have spent months gathering.

The art is in knowing when you can afford to be fluid and when you absolutely must be thorough.

Next time you’re stuck, ask yourself: Do I have enough to act? If yes, do I have the courage to embrace the unknown?

To some non-fiction authors, every real-world problem looks like a nail perfectly suited for their specific hammer. 🔨

​It’s a pattern I see often : authors interpreting complex situations solely through the lens of the specific solution they are trying to sell. If the link between reality and their proprietary model isn’t obvious, they’ll bend over backwards to invent one out of thin air.

​Compare this to the scientific method. Scientists might have their pet theories, but they actively go out of their way to prove themselves wrong. They rely on repeatable data that delivers the same results under identical conditions.

​In the business world, we often see the exact opposite.

​My problem is that some authors don’t just create groupthink, they try to artificially expand it. It’s already hard enough to fight the social media algorithms that feed our existing preferences. We don’t need dogmatic models killing new ideas by claiming precedence.

​When we try to force a messy world into these rigid, cookie-cutter theories, we kill critical thinking. We rush to adopt the “shiny new methodology,” wonder why it doesn’t work for our unique situation, and blame ourselves instead of a model that simply doesn’t scale.

​The real world is complex. We need to stop treating business books like absolute gospel.

​Before buying into the next big concept (AI springs to mind), apply some critical thinking:

- ​Is there a real link between my situation and their solution, or is it made up?

- ​Am I looking for the truth, or just what I want to be true?

​How do you filter the genuine insights from the marketing noise?

How do we know the choice we are making, among the options we’ve identified, isn’t influenced by the biases we hold?

Well...it is.

​Furthermore, when a chosen path no longer works and needs to change, how do we ensure we don’t remain attached to that decision even when the evidence says we should pivot?

​In today’s professional landscape, the ability to adapt is more critical than ever. We need to be able to iterate, change our processes, and shift strategies in a way that feels efficient and safe. “Inspect and adapt” isn’t just an agile mindset anymore, it’s a survival skill.

The path of least resistance is one our brain is more than happy to choose, which is why default choices are always so appealing. This is one of the first biases that show up when making decisions.

​How do we recognize our biases, and what can we do about them?

​Here is a list of common biases we will eventually encounter:

• ​Ambiguity effect: Unclear or partial information pushes us toward the “tried and true.” Decision-making often defaults to low-risk, loss-averse options because the unknown feels dangerous.

• ​Information bias: This occurs when we interpret gathered information to confirm a preconceived preference, tweaking the data to justify what we already want to do.

• ​Anchoring: We give unbalanced value to the first piece of information presented. All subsequent options are evaluated against that initial “anchor,” favoring whatever aligns with it.

• ​Bandwagon effect: Herd mentality favors options already adopted by the majority. “Everybody is doing it” is rarely a valid argument, yet we see the results of this bias everywhere.

• ​Confirmation bias: We are wired to seek information that confirms our existing beliefs. “Falling in love with the solution” is a common trap that blinds us to reality.

• ​Continued influence effect: False information dies hard. Unfounded claims or outdated management models often overstay their welcome, long after the evidence suggests they no longer work.

• ​Decoy effect: Sometimes an irrelevant option (a decoy) is introduced into the mix and changes how we evaluate the other, more viable options.

• ​Sunk-cost fallacy: We ignore the evidence and continue investing in a failing strategy simply because of the time, money, and effort already spent. It is the art of being “stuck” by choice.

​If we want to be more objective, we must identify these patterns and stay aware of them.

The real question is: How do we confront our biases when choosing our strategies and navigating change?

​Could we develop a technique, a checklist, or even an algorithm to audit our biases? Can AI help us stress-test our logic?

​As Warren Berger suggests, we can ask a few essential questions to keep our biases in check:

• ​What am I inclined to believe on this particular issue?

• ​Why do I believe what I believe?

• ​What would I like to be true?

• ​What if the opposite is true?

​Creating a space, perhaps a community of practice or a peer review practice, where we regularly ask these questions is one of the most effective ways to address our collective blind spots.

The Delphic maxims were inscribed into stone thousands of years ago, which is honestly a genius move to ensure no one asks you for a “quick edit”.

​While we’ve traded stone tablets for Slack and LinkedIn, the original “consultants” at the Temple of Apollo were onto something.

If you’re tired of the latest hustle-culture jargon, maybe it’s time to revisit the original wisdom.

​Here are 15 ancient-yet-modern maxims to help you navigate the work week without losing your mind.

Follow the leader: A leader needs followers and vice versa. It’s a match made in heaven. Should you challenge the status quo? Sometimes yes, but you’d better have a very good reason.

​Obey the law: This goes without saying. But if your leader doesn’t? Well, the law trumps the leader. Know when to draw that line.

Respect your elders, consult the wise: You’ll know my age if I start saying “kids today think they know everything.” Some believe they invented the wheel. Seriously, give me some respect because I survived to this age, and ask for advice so I can prove I don’t know much and therefore I’m wise :)

​Know yourself & Control your anger: Knowing yourself is relevant in any aspect of life. Especially for coaches, leaders, and teachers. Gently put the mobile down and take a minute to reflect. That’s the only path to sanity.

Teach a youngster: If you can’t explain your job to someone greener than you, you probably don’t understand it as well as you think.

​If you are a stranger, act like one: Follow the house rules, don’t judge, and don’t presume you know better. If you joined the group, you aren’t a stranger anymore, but keep on not judging and not presuming.

​Exercise prudence: Risk management 101. Don’t get cute with your strategy; measure twice, cut once.

Cling to discipline: Talent is great, but it’s the boring, daily discipline that actually keeps the lights on.

​Pursue honor: In a world of shortcuts, your reputation is the only currency that doesn’t devalue.

​Listen to everyone: Silence is an underrated skill. You can’t learn anything while you’re busy talking.

​Nothing to excess: Before there were intermittent fasting and credit cards, there was moderation. Work at a sustainable pace.

Use time sparingly: Time is the one thing you can’t outsource or audit. Use it on what actually moves the needle.

Speak plainly: If you need a thesaurus to explain your point and have to go all the way back to the ancient greeks to provide context... Just say it like it is.

​Surety brings ruin: Beware of false certainty. If someone is 100% sure about a “silver bullet” solution, run.

​Do not tire of learning: I’m proudly telling anyone who listens that I’m a lifelong learner. Not such a novel idea, apparently.

​Next time you’re stressing over a project or a quarterly review, ask yourself: What would a Greek oracle say? Probably something wise, slightly cryptic, and much harder to pronounce.

Disruption and disruptors are all the rage in the past few decades.

We generally love disruptors, cheer for them and can’t wait to see where the next one will pop-up.

The biggest disruptor yet, in my lifetime, is AI.

We used to call this progress and, I dare say, it still is.

Now, just like then, human nature loves a pack. We have a built-in “conformity police” that protects the status quo. If someone moves too fast or gets too creative, the group is quick to ask, “You think you’re better than us?”

In the Muppets world, these are The Snowths (the pink backup singers). They are predictable, they stay on beat, and they have purpose.

If we use AI purely to automate and standardize, we’re just sharpening the pencils for the conformity police. It can greatly diminish our capacity to understand the impact of the change we are making.

We’ll miss the eye rolls, the head-shaking, and the “stop it, you’re not adding value” looks that keep us human. We need both.

That’s where Mahna Mahna comes in.

​He’s the wild card. The jazz-scatting disruptor who refuses to stay in the box. He doesn’t care about the script, he loves improvising.

​And he’s super annoying for people who just want to stay in line.

But what if we all joined the jazz band? What if we let humans improvise, entertain and create the kind of value that a predictable algorithm can’t? Most probably, AI will become a bit sanctimonious, like the Snowths.

​That’s fine. We just need to be clear on who’s leading the song.

​The sharp question is this: how do we convince the Snowths of the world that the only way to survive is to stop following rigidly the beat and join the jazz band?

Diversity changes us and makes the song better.

Some employees feel their contributions exceed their compensation, especially if the
company is doing great and making a profit.

Before considering compensation, I would ask questions like:

• Am I doing more than the job description?

• Did I do what I said I would do when I said I would do it?

• Am I continuously learning and improving?

• Do people want to work with me?

If most answers aren’t a resounding “yes,” why should I get a raise or some other recognition only because the company is doing great?

To illustrate how the point of view and the math employed can have a great impact on the perceived value of contributions, I offer you this story from my childhood, as told by Ion Creanga in my loose translation:

The Five Loaves of Bread

Once upon a time, two men were traveling together. Feeling hungry, they stopped under the shade of a tree to eat together. One had three loaves of bread in his bag, and the other had two.

Just as they were about to eat, a third traveler, a stranger, caught up with them and asked for something to eat, as he was hungry and had no food.

“Come, good man, share our meal with us,” the two travelers said to the stranger: “where there is food for two, a third can also eat.“

After they finished all five loaves, the stranger offered five coins to the one who had had three loaves, as a token of gratitude.

The two travelers didn’t want to accept the money, but after much insistence they did and the stranger took his leave.

The three loaves man gave two coins to the one with two loaves, saying:

“Here, brother, this is your share, you had two loaves, so two coins for you and I will keep three coins for myself, as I had three loaves.”

“How so?!” said the other contemptuously. “Why only two coins, and not two and a half, the fair share due to each of us?”

“What do you mean?” said the one with three loaves; “I have three coins and you have two coins, each according to the number of loaves we had. I don’t think there could be a fairer division than this.”

“No, I don’t think you’ve divided it fairly. Let’s go to court, and we’ll have a judge decide.”

Soon after, they appeared before a judge and began to recount the circumstances from the beginning; how they were traveling together, how they had shared a meal, how many loaves each had had, how the strange traveler had eaten along with them, how he had given them five coins as a thank you, and how the one with three loaves had decided to divide them.

The judge, after listening attentively, said to the man with two loaves:

“And you are not satisfied with the split?”

“No, judge,” said the dissatisfied one: “we had no intention of taking payment from the strange traveler for the food we gave him; but, since it happened this way, we must divide equally what our guest gave us. I believe that would be the right thing to do.”

“If it’s a matter of justice,” said the judge, “then be so kind as to return one coin to your companion, who had three loaves.”

“I am stunned by this, judge,” said the dissatisfied man. “I came before the court to seek justice, and you are making things worse for me.”

“Let’s see,” said the judge calmly.” You had two loaves and your companion had three loaves?”

“Yes”

“And you all ate equal portions, is that right?” asked the judge.

“That’s right.”

“Now, let’s see how much bread each person ate. Let’s say each loaf was cut into three equal pieces; how many pieces would you have had, you who say you had two loaves?”

“I would have had six pieces, judge.”

“And your companion, who had three loaves?”

“He would have had nine pieces, judge.”

“So fifteen pieces, right?”

“Fifteen pieces.”

“How many people ate these fifteen pieces of bread?”

“Three people.”

“Good! How many pieces does that make for each person?”

“Five pieces, judge.”

“So, you had six pieces and you ate five, how many were left over? “

“Only one piece.”

“Now let’s look at your companion. He had 9 pieces, right?”

“Nine pieces, judge.”

“And how much did he eat?”

“Five pieces, like me.”

“And how many were left over?”

“Four pieces.”

“Good! Now let’s understand this as clearly as possible! So, you had only one piece left over, and your companion had four pieces. Now, one piece of bread left over from you and four pieces from your companion make five pieces in total, correct?”

“Exactly five, judge.”

“Is it true that these pieces of bread were eaten by your guest, who gave you five coins as a thank you?”

“That’s true, judge.”

“Therefore, you are only entitled to one coin, because you only had one piece of bread left over, and it’s as if you had it for sale since you received money from your guest. And your companion is entitled to four coins because he had four pieces of bread left over. Now, please return one coin to your companion. This is my judgment!”

The End.

I will let you interpret the story and draw your own conclusions.

To bring it back to the initial question, I would ask one last question: should I provide value, to the best of my ability, as the company defines it (not as I define it) and then let them judge if and what sort of extra compensation would be warranted?

(Note: please disregard the male-only cast, this is an old story, from a different time).

A checklist’s raison d’être is to answer questions like:

How do I make sure I have everything I need for a trip, for a recipe, or for a project?
How do I make sure I follow a procedure?
How do I make sure all necessary information is updated and available in a meeting?
How do I compare products based on a set of criteria?
The answer to all: by making and using a checklist, of course.

So, upon reflecting on how to accomplish something I want to make sure I don’t forget anything or to make sure every step is completed and I make a checklist. In terms of format, it can be a to-do list or a multi-column checklist, like when comparing different products.

The assumption here is that there are clearly identifiable steps. I didn’t say checklists work for everything.

In a regulated or in a fairly predictive field, the checklists are passed on, imposed, and they are revised frequently, the more they are used and the more knowledge is gathered. Check this TED talk and Atul Gawande’s checklist manifesto.

In my work as an Agile practitioner, I keep a dos and don’ts list to keep focused on the most important practices and to verify that I don’t ignore any of the lessons I learned along the way.

A checklist can be an extremely valuable tool for assessing the state of a team, for keeping the focus on the purpose of the practices, and for validating they are still appropriate in the current context.

In a product development context we want to know what we are delivering, when, why are we doing it, who’s doing it, how, and where. These are the questions.

No one checklist can help get all answers but starting with any one of these questions gets us well on the way.

The check-mark is a powerful visual symbol itself and it gives clarity when used in a team coordination effort.

There are many ways to accomplish the same sense of progress and visibility but, the simplicity of a checklist gives it an undeniable advantage.

What else could we use checklists for?

Could a checklist keep us honest in any activity we are engaged in?

Does asking questions make you look unprofessional or, on the contrary, boost your perceived competence?

Questioning and push back are expected behaviours from someone in authority. Not doing so could lead to them being seen as weak, according to conventional wisdom.

Some people ask questions in order to coach or teach which is great if that’s what they are doing.
If not, even if it looks like a question, unsolicited advice is seldom welcome.

Other people ask questions out of curiosity, interested in how others are doing something, even when they themselves are experts in that field. For an outside observer, they might seem unschooled, unprepared, or lacking experience.

Do we have to choose between constantly improving ourselves and protecting our reputation by not asking questions we are supposed to know the answer to? This might make it challenging to maintain a beginner’s mind (”in the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, in the expert’s mind there are few” says Shunryū Suzuki).

We all played that game when we say “I have a stupid question” only for our interlocutor to answer “There is no such thing as a stupid question. Only stupid answers.”

Why this fear that our questions might make us look bad? Is it the quality of the question?

I, for one, am pretty sure not all my questions are high quality, add value to the conversation or reveal something that was perhaps missed. So why ask them?

Most questions I have for others are for my benefit: to put things in context, to understand some concept, to clarify a misunderstanding. All valid, acceptable reasons, in my opinion. Yet, on occasion, somebody will consider my questions irrelevant or think there is no need for clarification, that everything is covered and understood. Certainly, it’s not my intention to waste anyone’s time so I should pay more attention to my questions and, maybe, listen better.

So when is it safe to ask questions?

Are there any rules, should we get permission from someone or is there a rating system?
Are there questions that don’t belong in the workplace, are too personal, inappropriate, or intrusive?

Is there an appropriate timing for asking questions? Is it OK to ask leading questions or rhetorical questions? How about hypothetical questions?

I wonder if there is a better way to ask this question? What if we change the focus and direct it towards the person we are addressing?

Asking a question might give somebody an opportunity to showcase their knowledge or might prompt an insight.

The sharp question could be phrased as if validating we didn’t miss anything: Is it safe to ask a question at work if the timing is right, if it’s not inappropriate, not too personal, not intended to make us look smart, not coming from a hostile place?

In short, will my question help move things forward? If yes, I think it’s safe. It’s more than safe, it is valuable.

Why do managers treat people like they were their children? Holding their hand, demanding discipline, expecting performance and good behaviour.

If satisfied and if they feel generous, they might even reward the children. If not, punishment might ensue.

Some children will do anything in their power to please the parent, to obtain the desired result, and get praise. They might also get satisfaction from doing things the “right way”, as passed on by the parent.

Many parenting practices used by our parents are frowned upon today in many circles. Nobody’s fault, really, as most parents were thrown into parenting without any competencies or training. Just like some managers.

Sure, some parents might be inspiring role models for their children or they might provide an example the child will want to avoid at all costs.

Maybe it is all down to the children; they might turn out OK regardless of what the parents do or say. Like the teams that are successful despite, not because of their managers.

The dominant, inspiring, and controlling authority figure might have its merits in a certain context. It was probably working fine in business, circa 1924.

In the modern world, we developed resistance to autocratic leaders and we have lowered our tolerance for abuse, in the workplace at least. As a result, we either adapt or choose to rebel against any type of oppression.
This can manifest as open conflict, sabotage, undermining authority, pretending, ignoring, deception, and even fraud.

Psychological safety is needed if we are to have a trusting, collaborative relationship with both our bosses and peers. A friend to friend, adult to adult relationship in which we can have difficult conversations, disagree, and move on. It’s something to wish for.
In reality, many managers prefer to hold on to the power they worked so hard to obtain and consider their duty to share their infinite wisdom with lesser mortals.
Adults often complain, mostly about teens, that they don’t listen, don’t show respect, and don’t trust them.
Communication issues, lack of trust, and absence of respect occur at work as well.

Being aware of these issues is a must for managers. Auto-regulation of emotions is also one of those rare skills we should develop. All of us.
No wonder research points to the fact that people don’t leave companies, they leave managers. Disengaged employees will feel ignored, discounted, or criticized by intrusive or distant bosses and they will perceive working environments as having either too much or too little structure.
Should bosses provide guidance, set objectives, and expectations, create a suitable environment, and then let the professionals do their thing independently?

A team is a team is a team, or so we think.

The sports team analogy is common when talking about a software development team’s performance.
We even call iterations sprints in the Agile game of Scrum.
Although we are warned about many anti-patterns, like instilling a hero culture, we are people and we like our heroes and our stars.

I was thinking recently about the way we encourage team work while at the same time we reward the stars. What we seem to forget is that even though players in a sports team are rewarded differently, the medal they get at the end of the competition has the same color for all.
Not necessarily so for development team members.

It is more difficult and costly to do than it used to be but, we can still assemble all-star sports teams. They might even win things in the short term. Can they still be a performing team in the long run? Not so sure. I believe they don’t stand a chance when facing a real team, one in which the team’s success trumps personal glory.

If I were to choose a sports analogy, I would say software development teams are more like a rowing team: no stars, everybody’s putting in an honest shift and the competition is mostly against time and personal limits rather than the opposing team.
One for all and all for one musketeer style heroes.

Of course, there is the little guy in front whose job is to steer the team in the right direction, keep the cadence, and synchronize everybody. Sort of a Scrum Master.

In most successful star lead teams, if the hero’s missing or not performing they are in trouble.

If the star in the team is performing they might look down on their teammates, they might ask themselves how much better the team would perform if everybody was at their level, and they might question the strategy, the coach or the staff.
I’ve seen it happen and it’s very disruptive.

So, what are we to do?

Do we need to revisit the incentives a company offers?

Could we have separate awards for the team’s accomplishments and for the special contribution of some individual members?
This could work but only if the special winner is chosen by their peers not by management.

Daniel Pink convinced us that only intrinsic motivation is working for knowledge workers by using three pillars: mastery, autonomy, and purpose.
For me, the most important would be the need for a clear, specific purpose.

What happens when one star in the team decides to take on the mission of fulfilling the purpose? Do we get a leader or a personal glory chasing jerk?

Should we add collaboration or teamwork in the mix?

Should we also make sure everybody’s in the team of their own accord, under no pressure from somebody or from their own ego?

Why do we call books that are simple, clear, practical, to the point, and witty books for dummies?
Shouldn’t all the other books be called that?

It seems to me that, as a society, while we value and we are investing a lot in fundamental research, we pay more and more attention to practical applications of said research.

It’s always been the case in the business world where we don’t necessarily need to understand it as long as it works.

Also, as Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut said, “In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.” (not 100% sure about the attribution)

It’s the practice that kills us, it’s there that the battle takes place, where we need to asses the context and adapt the theory accordingly. We need to practice before practicing.

I personally witnessed the trend taking place in the academic world where certificate and diploma programs are gaining in popularity in both undergraduate and graduate levels.

These programs offer specialization in a certain area in a shorter period than a bachelor’s or a master’s and they are particularly useful for people wishing to gain practical knowledge they can use right away.

Moreover, they are offered in hybrid mode or fully online to accommodate already employed students who wish to advance their education by focusing in a particular area of a larger field.

I’m pretty sure that this type of student is part of the targeted audience for the “Dummies” series. Along with autodidact professionals and curious people who have “how to” questions.

A book for dummies offers a roadmap which points to a destination and leaves it up to you to explore the side roads. You can refer back to it at any point, continue in any direction and validate you’re still on course to reach your target.

As they cover more and more subjects every year, should these books be mandatory reading for trainers, coaches, and instructors?