Proposed DCI Reorganization

[Stu]

You don't honestly believe he meant literally work for 25 minutes then stop during work, do you? I think you're just looking for an excuse to poke holes for the sake of poking holes. In this case, he has a valid point; plenty of evidence to show that working smarter, not harder, can lead to increased productivity. Do you really think he advocates those exact minutes for business? C'mon. I think his initial premise is absolutely unnecessary but you're pushing it.

I agree with you that smart work is better than hard work; and I believe in his first sentence, "Volume of work doesn't necessarily translate into greater productivity or profitability" Nevertheless, I have read, and reread, his post allowing for various interpretations; and the only one that makes sense without using crowbar parsing is "yes" he did mean the 25 min / 1 hour literally for the work environment. And here is why:

Putting all of his contentions in context:

a) He concluded his post stating that this method *would* actually apply directly to a work environment just after describing a 25 min. breakdown ***** which was in direct reference to his 25 min on / 1 hour off process *****

b) Prior to that he stated, "(Hopkins) probably works about 70 hours a week, but he'd get MUCH more done if he only worked 30" Indicating that a CEO of a multi-million dollar corporation relaxing more than working creates MUCH more productivity.

c) He also stated, "When people work less and spend more time relaxing, their ability to focus is much greater.” While it is easier for a rested person focus, a working person can focus quite well; and the highly successful actually increase their efforts to focus as they get more tired. Also, this quote of his, when placed in context of the 25 min / 1 hour cycle, shows that he believes more hours of leisure than work actually increases productivity.

d) And he also stated, "I am a big fan of working less". As a stand-alone quote most people would agree; however, when placed in context with the rest of the post this again indicates he actually believes spending more time with leisure than working will increase the productivity of a corporation.

Edited November 5, 2011 by Stu

[DrillmanSop06]

I have read, and reread, his post allowing for various interpretations; and the only one that makes sense without using crowbar parsing is "yes" he did mean it literally. And here is why: Putting all of his contentions in context:

a) He concluded his post stating that this method *would* actually apply directly to a work environment just after describing a 25 min. breakdown ***** which was in direct reference to his 25 min on / 1 hour off process *****

b) Prior to that he stated, "(Hopkins) probably works about 70 hours a week, but he'd get MUCH more done if he only worked 30" Indicating that a CEO of a multi-million dollar corporation relaxing more than working creates MUCH more productivity.

c) He also stated, "When people work less and spend more time relaxing, their ability to focus is much greater.” While it is easier for a rested person focus, a working person can focus quite well; and the highly successful actually increase their efforts to focus as they get more tired. Also, this quote of his, when placed in context of the 25 min / 1 hour cycle, shows that he believes more hours of leisure than work actually increases productivity.

d) And he also stated, "I am a big fan of working less". As a stand-alone quote most people would agree; however, when placed in context with the rest of the post this again indicates he actually wants to spend more time with leisure than working to increase the productivity of a corporation.

Tryin' too hard, brah.

[Jeff Ream]

This wouldn't give them more to do, just give some people some different things to do. These different things would generate cash at much higher margins than their current tasks, which covers resources that pick up the gap on tasks they were moved off of... plus generates a solid profit.

In more specific terms...

If you look at revenue per employee, a guy working in media or event management for DCI is probably not generating more than a couple times their salary.

If they were to do work for external clients, the same volume of work (some current tasks not related to media or event management would be reassigned) could generate several times more their current salary.

Again, there are also a lot of things that could be done cheaper by outsourcing to companies specializing in the specific area... which could also free up more time.

you assume they have time to do extra work.

[Stu]

Tryin' too hard, brah.

Nope; his words, sentences, and context all indicate more leisure and less work equals higher revenue. (unless, of course, we are in a situation like when the word "bad" means "good").

[danielray]

Up to this posting I have viewed your opinions with a keen sense of interest; I was even attempting to think outside the box and follow your reasoning. Now, with this post, you are just flat nuts!

A successful business person, whether an employee or a CEO, who (see bold above because this is your suggestion) works for 25 min., then plays a video game for an hour, then works for another 25 min,. then takes a 1 hour nap, then works for 25 min, then goes and plays Frisbee catch with a dog for an hour, is going to generate enough revenue to run a multi-faceted million dollar corporation? Really? And what successful CEO helped you have this epiphany? Oh yeah, I forgot;, you got this brilliant idea from a Professor not a CEO of a highly successful corporation!!!

You are taking this way too literally... it is to take a similar approach, not to copy exactly.

Let me break it down a bit more simply...

Part of a breakdown in productivity in a lot of companies is when faced with a significant challenge, they view the challenge a bit too holistically, rather than more bite sized chunks and short sprints. In addition, they are formulating detailed plans on how to eat the whole elephant, rather than a quiet, quick analysis and thumbnail sketch plan of how they are going to accomplish the small goal of simply eating the left front leg.

The basic premise is to break things down into mico-milestones, then...

1. Analyze what are going to do? How are you doing to do it? Quick thumbnail sketch plan.

2. Churn through the easy stuff.

3. Work on a section of the more difficult stuff.

4. Assess what you just did. Did you get it done? If so, what might apply to other known future tasks? If not, what is the newly discovered priority for the next sprint?

How long this takes, likely depends on the person and the task. Breaking things down into only 25 minute sessions for playing a horn is ok, since the action of playing a horn is pretty much always the same, only the notes change. The amount of time for each sprint in the business world would be based on the task and the individual performing the task.

In many companies, people take breaks according to clocks... not according to natural flow of their individual work. This causes them to often interrupt their flow of work in order to, say, take a lunch break, so when they return.... there is much lost time with them getting back into the groove of where they were (btw - if you are only taking a lunch break during a day... guaranteed you're productivity is suffering).

This sort of approach of clear goals and small sprints, rather than detailed specification and planning is becoming a bit more common in software development, and is referred to as Agile development.

What I have described is sort of similar, but applies this to pretty much every business function.

So tell us, what corporation have you ran as a CEO with this method? How much revenue have you actually generated for a corporation as a Manager or an Employee with this method?

Edited November 5, 2011 by danielray

[danielray]

Nope; his words, sentences, and context all indicate more leisure and less work equals higher revenue. (unless, of course, we are in a situation like when the word "bad" means "good").

I'll clarify...

Unless you are a lawyer, accountant or factory worker... amount of time spent working has no correlation with actual revenue.

When you have less time for work, you become more selective about the tasks you take on and establish clearer priorities. If you do not do this, and simply work more hours because of the volume of potential work, regardless of priority, the high-priority work suffers due to unnecessary attention to low priority stuff. While everything can be done, not everything should be done (learning to say NO and saying it often is a very good thing).

An interesting thing along these lines... in Austria, the approach to the crisis has been to reduce the work week by 1/2 a day instead of laying people off. People got together and figured out that the strain on the government and economy would be less if companies didn't lay people off (and then become a further burden on the state), but reduced the work week by 1/2 a day.

Guess what? People just worked smarter, got the same amount of work done under the reduced work week as the full one.... AND they get an early weekend. Sure, they lose 2 full days of pay per month... but... there is less strain on their local economy, and at the maintained level of productivity, they are able to remain just as competitive by simply working less and enjoying a bit more free time. This was supposed to be a temporary condition and people were to return to the full week... but, so far, people have said no thanks.

Edited November 5, 2011 by danielray

[Stu]

An interesting thing along these lines... in Austria, the approach to the crisis has been to reduce the work week by 1/2 a day instead of laying people off. People got together and figured out that the strain on the government and economy would be less if companies didn't lay people off (and then become a further burden on the state), but reduced the work week by 1/2 a day.

Guess what? People just worked smarter, got the same amount of work done under the reduced work week as the full one.... AND they get an early weekend. Sure, they lose 2 full days of pay per month... but... there is less strain on their local economy, and at the maintained level of productivity, they are able to remain just as competitive by simply working less and enjoying a bit more free time. This was supposed to be a temporary condition and people were to return to the full week... but, so far, people have said no thanks.

Your Austria example just showed us that the people stayed stagnate with production (not increased production) and the only things that changed were that the people were happier to have more leisure time and the companies did not have to pay out as much in salaries. The subject at hand is about increasing the revenue stream for the corporation through more leisure time not about providing leisure happiness or cutting back on salaries. Moreover, all you have shown us other than that example is just theoretical speculation straight out of academia, not actual proof utilized in the real world of business in which more leisure time than work creates higher yielding results for the corporation. So, I pose these questions again, and I would appreciate a valid response of facts not a smiley face: What corporation have you ran as a CEO *with this more leisure time than work time method*? How much revenue have you actually generated for a corporation as a Manager or an Employee *with this more leisure less work method*? (or at least point us to an actual highly successful company which uses this method). Fail to back up your contentions with these verifiable facts and all you actually have to say is merely academic theory.

Edited November 5, 2011 by Stu

[JimF-LowBari]

Beginning to sound like the 6 or 7 "Next Best Business Practices" I've going thru over the years (ISOxxxx, Lean Sigma 6, whatever). They usally fail (or at least way less than 100% effective) when the generalities of the paractice hit the specifics of my workplace. In my case, working for a Govt agency whose customers are very specific and controlled by law, the generalites don't usually fit. And lot of these new practices are too rigid to bend to the realities. Fer instance, one time we were told to drop two customers because what was spent on them was above what the bean counters considered acceptible, Since those customers were submarine bases guess who won.....

In this case, the work smarter not harder mantra sounds good. BUT.... unless someone knows how DCI and it's employees operate, it's all guess work if it will work or is even possible.

[danielray]

Moreover, all you have shown us other than that example is just theoretical speculation straight out of academia, not actual proof utilized in the real world of business in which more leisure time than work creates higher yielding results for the corporation.

Academia? I've never been to business school (went to music school). If you want to be an entrepreneur... business school is the last place in the universe you should be.

So, I pose these questions again, and I would appreciate a valid response of facts not a smiley face: What corporation have you ran as a CEO *with this more leisure time than work time method*? How much revenue have you actually generated for a corporation as a Manager or an Employee *with this more leisure less work method*? (or at least point us to an actual highly successful company which uses this method). Fail to back up your contentions with these verifiable facts and all you actually have to say is merely academic theory.

I've never been a manager at any company, ever. About revenue I have generated as an employee... I really have absolutely no idea... but if you were to total up ALL the money I was ever paid in all my years as an employee, it would probably be less than about $30,000. So, if you were being generous and said I made double my salary (which I doubt... I was a ###### employee... would guess I cost them money instead)... then the total would be about $60,000.

[Stu]

Academia? I've never been to business school (went to music school). If you want to be an entrepreneur... business school is the last place in the universe you should be.

I've never been a manager at any company, ever. About revenue I have generated as an employee... I really have absolutely no idea... but if you were to total up ALL the money I was ever paid in all my years as an employee, it would probably be less than about $30,000. So, if you were being generous and said I made double my salary (which I doubt... I was a ###### employee... would guess I cost them money instead)... then the total would be about $60,000.

Now that you have indicated what experience you have in producing income you certainly do have credibility (at least for something other than being a highly successful entrepreneur who generates capital with your brilliant leisure is more important than work ideas)!!! Thank you for being honest!!!